robbin

0.5/10

Sadly the Ed stone seems to have disappeared. I wonder if one of the Millibands' kitchens has a new worktop...

I would bet a significant amount that it has appreciated in value!

Jeremy - I wasn't writing in response to your use of the term. I can quite understand what you were referring to. It was the distinction Bob made to the greater good and self interest that I was addressing. Of course, we all know what the term means as a general concept, the only point I was making is that it is all very subjective when it comes to voting (I'm not talking about the death penalty). It is not so easily distinguishable from self interest as might first appear - on some issues it might be, others not.

Bob, while I take issue with the connotation in your term "'selfish' voters" I agree - the Labour party clearly lost sight of (or didn't care about) the fact that they were not addressing the wishes of voters who would vote based on what they perceived to be the best for them or for their family/loved ones. On a general note (not a reference to what you said, Bob) I don't think its quite on point to concentrate on people voting only based on how policies would affect themselves directly. I think the majority of people also factor in the interests of their children as well as maybe their parents (so they would be concerned about services affecting the elderly/young even if they themselves were working age). Some of the belly aching from the left seems to over-simplify things - as if people voted completely selfishly with complete disregard for issues such as education, tuition costs, pensions, healthcare. This overlooks the fact that most voters are directly affected by such things and so obviously vote with an eye very much on such services and how they would be affected. The simple fact is the policies being offered by Labour were no seen to be acceptable. If the left leaning members of Labour keep ignoring reality and retain significant influence they will be in opposition for many more terms, I reckon. That said, the sight of Ed stood in front of his 'Ed stone, containing that vague patronising guff - looking into the middle distance like a clean shaven Moses in a dark suit, has made be smile so many times, I can't knock him for that. Great value. DC gave us nothing. He didn't even trip off any stage. Very dull. I just wish they would auction the 'Ed stone off for charity - you could build a new hospital with the proceeds of that sale, I think!

What on earth is 'the greater good' anyway? and even if a person could distinguish a single 'greater good' from the morass of other subjective opinion, why should they favour it over their own self interest? One person's perceived greater good is always going to be different to that of another, surely?

The state sanctions killing in the course of reasonable self-defence. If the state sanctions executions after due process of law (i.e. after the final appeals process has ended and no executive clemency is granted) then it isn't murder - no matter how much you may find it personally distasteful. Murder is where innocent people are killed by criminals. The two are surely very different. Personally, I think it is important not to describe them the same way - if only out of respect for relatives of murder victims.

Indeed, there are on occasions certain subjects upon which we are protected from our base instincts by our elected representatives and our laws.

Otta wrote - "That was the case until very recently, when a poll showed that for the first time ever over 50% were against. I was shocked to hear it, as I'd just assumed that a larger majority would be against." I think you are mistaken. That You Gov research was the latest in the UK. There is nothing so far as I am aware which shows that over 50% are against. You Gov says 39% against and that was last year. Even the Guardian hasn't second guessed that figure in its two major articles recently.

Yes, that's the YouGov article I based my comment on. It is the most current (2014). ISPOS MORI shows a higher percentage in favour but also has done some interesting research into generational break downs - "Across the population as a whole support for the death penalty has fallen by 20 percentage points from 74% in 1993 to 54% in 2012. This fall coincided with the abolition of the death penalty for treason and piracy with violence in 1998 and the adoption of the 13th protocol of the Human Rights Act in 2003 which prohibits the death penalty under any circumstances. And there are no longer any significant gaps between the cohorts. The pre-war generation are the only generation that will remember state executions as adults and have been the most likely to support the death penalty. In 1986 they were 14 percentage points more likely to support the death penalty than generation X, but this gap has narrowed over recent years..."

He's hardly alone! More people in the UK say they are in favour of re-introducing the death penalty than are opposed to it.

Cool - and we could get a petition up as well? Oh, hang on, we've just had a vote...

Posted by Henry_17 Today, 12:41PM Louisa, Credit where it's due, well done for calling it correctly earlier in this thread. Posted by Louisa March 20, 09:01AM I predict the Libs will cling on to 25/35 seats and go in with the Tories again alongside some sort of confidence supply job with the DUP. Unless Labour can seriously pull ahead in the next month or so. Louisa.

GG wrote "I am not, however one member of our group is a senior articled clerk who is professionally well briefed on the relevant Acts." Ah, so your suggestion that people should deface adverts with potentially defamatory remarks about the business operators being crooks is based on what you are being told by a trainee solicitor (i.e. someone in their 2 year training period?)! (discretely puts spray can back in bag and shuffles away from sign)

GG are you a lawyer? Because you are inciting/suggesting people should damage/deface property belonging to others by using marker pens, spray-cans, angle grinders or by other means. You also suggest people scrawl "Scam", "con-man" or "rip-off" over advertising (while apparently only objecting to the legality of the advert, not the underlying honesty of the service being advertised). Surely placing an illegally positioned advert does not make the business a scam, a con or a rip off? I hope you have understood the law correctly, because if you are wrong, people might be taking issue with the legality of what you are suggesting (criminal damage, defamation). Isn't it better to report these annoying things to the council/councillors/trading standards rather than take the action you suggest? I should say, I, like you, find the adverts and the manner of their placement extremely annoying and anti-social, so I can understand your frustration - I'm just not convinced people should be reaching for their spray-cans or hacksaws! Just saying.

To answer your 'crucial' question, seemingly I could attract 10.7 million views on YouTube if I put on monkey themed boxer shorts and demonstrated peeling a banana... Problem is, I don't have the shorts.

Thanks, that's great.

It says she's not one of the top social media personalities in Australia (which has about a 25 million population)! One of her toe-curlingly poor videos has 20k worldwide views, which in comparison to almost any old rubbish on YouTube is next to nothing. Seriously, videos of monkeys eating bananas seem to routinely draw over 100k.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just a little reminder that Cherylyn is one of the top social media personalities in Australia and > all this mocking and scoffing of her work will not alter that fact. The fact that her YouTube video "2014 Cherylyn's Best Bitz" has a whopping 7,712 worldwide views pretty much says it all !

Have you pre-barred anyone from here that might use the term 'blow-in'?

30 seconds also. But that was only because it was like a slow motion car crash - I couldn't look away.

Just because you don't agree with the outcome doesn't mean the committee did not deal with it properly. They each had a 'free' vote I presume?

Agree with Nigello. Surely it is easy to make a substantial difference - you just tell whichever club/team rents the pitches that if they leave crap behind they will no longer be allowed to play there. The club could then tell their players and someone would no doubt be given responsibility for checking the area is clean when they leave (or the players would not just drop their litter). If littering continued and one team were banned for the year, or even just a month, the word would quickly get around the others.

As James says, (in the post I've just seen) it can all be sorted out at the planning committee meeting.

I quite understand all that - I'm very familiar with tactical manoeuvrings over Section 106 and CIL liabilities and I know how the system works. I was merely pointing out that openly suggesting someone is falsely describing something with a view to making a profit amounts to an allegation of dishonesty. That's a matter for James if he wants to do that. I may be wrong - it's just how I read his post.