robbin

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.

I can quite see they may do that, but it's not (as I read his post) what James was suggesting. He said they are describing flats as offices.

But the offices are not flats James? Surely you are not suggesting they will surreptitiously and in breach of authorised user, build them as flats, not offices? If so, I think that's a bit far fetched and frankly not something they could achieve without detection. If that's not what you are suggesting, then your point is not a good one - if the cut off for Section 106 purposes is 9 flats then they are entitled to ask to build 8, not 10 aren't they and to instead build offices rather than flats? Every developer is going to look to make maximum profits within the rules, surely?

Ha ha! Good post Dave R. Maybe Burgage should change his or her name to Verbiage.

Pete & First Mate - I see - and stand corrected.

Hilarious reviews - you have to feel sorry for those people! The best part is it is actually only rated No. 373 of 522 B&Bs/Inns in London. I cringe when thinking what the other 149 must be like!

And the references above to "penthouse" flats on top is also unnecessarily prejudicial and somewhat misleading. I have read the application documents and I can see not a single reference to "penthouse flats". They are top floor flats. Whether they are somehow posh and luxurious, as the use of the word (only by the posters) implies, is not mentioned.

That's a good tip - I wouldn't have thought about that analogue/digital thing, but it makes sense.