Blah Blah

Isn't the rag bank in Peckham Rye Park for recycling? I put all our unresellable items there, and the ok stuff goes directly to charity shops.

That's very interesting uncleglen. And perhaps sheds some light on why Greece are a bit miffed. No suprise either that the superpowers then (as they do now) took it on themselves to speak for everyone. Osbourne btw has refused to pay a ?1bn contribution to the new bailout deal on the table.

I think you have a point Jeremy and what's clear is that this whole process with Greece has been messy. But the fact remains that if a country's banks fail, the country completely fails (the consequences of which are mass unemployment, homelessness and hunger) . It's why every nation in the world bailed out it's banks after the 2008 crash. We may resent what it cost us the tax payer, but there really was no alternative. It's a bit rich for any EU nation to be quibbling over the cost of saving Greece. Who enabled Europe's post war reconstruction? And how about the UK in 1976? When we ourselves had to go to the IMF. There are examples of comparatively much getter loans being made with much more realistic replayment terms and there's no reason why the same can't be achieved with Greece.

Huggers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fence to right, looking out from back of property > is theirs, left is yours. This is certainly true for southwark property.

That's not quite true. Around 30% of the payment needed is to make the outstanding repayments. The rest is needed to prop up the banks, public services and pensions. The country is bankrupt. The banks are running out of money. When banks run out of money, cashflow is affected in every sector. Businesses have to lay people off, or worse still close. Everything stops. I think what needs to happen is that the EU needs to write off around a third of the bailout debt and set a repayment structure on the rest that doesn't strangle any chance of recovery by the Greek economy. And the Greek people themselves also have to accept that things have to change. They have to pay tax. They have to understand that economic recovery depends on them working longer for less and they need to be realistic about public expenditure. Pulling the plug on Greece is not an option just as Greece pulling the plug on membership of the EU is not an option for them either. I disagree on Merkel bob. Merkel only has to look to the history of her own country to know what happens when another country calls in loans. The USA did it after the Wall Street crash forcing the already delicate German economy to hand over a fifth of their gold and Reichsmarks. The following depression led to the rise of an extremism we all paid for in the end. I believe she is genuinely trying to save Greece from the abyss. The Greek government have been obstructive though. A sane government works for the best deal and then sells that to their people. Tsipras has played games. He won on a ticket of us vs them, but right now, them is the only thing keeping Greece going. The referendum was pure showmanship.

And any fool who doesn't check facts before making wild claims, is indeed a fool.

Interesting Loz. You have pursuaded me it could work. I just get suspicious when electoral, boundary, etc reform takes place as the party in power on the day invariably skews things to benefit themselves if they can. If change were a genuine effort to realise democracy, or to advance the economy etc, then I think I'd pay more attention to the detail. I take your point about the background debate having rumbled on for 40 years though.

Well without the SNP stringvest, the hunting ammendment might have had a chance of getting through. So the SNP have been very useful here for those opposed to the hunting bill ammendment. I don't see how four English parliaments would work Loz, unless we adopt a US style two tier government. And given that the south east disproportionately generates tax revenue, can't see how that would help the rest of the country if those powers are devolved, like they have been in Scotland. It all just becomes too complicated, and I believe would further impoverish the North. It's like a panic has set in because the SNP won a few seats. So now we have to change the rules! In five years the balance could change again. That's politics. All those people voting in Scotland for the SNP were voting for a presence in Westminster, a presence the SNP have every right to use in any way they want to. If Cameron or any party want a working majority, then they have to earn it through the ballot box, and not by changing the rules of parliamentary voting to suit themselves. Remeber the slogan from the independance vote? Better together was the cry from Labour and Tories alike. What they meant was better together as long as you don't kill our parliamentary bills. Cameron better get used to it.

But Loz, devolution came about from pressure by the Scottish and Welsh themselves. It was a concession given to keep them as part of the UK. Do the English want an England only parliament? I don't see that at all. Anyone who opposes the government probably wants the SNP to shake things up. Those who support the Conservatives (a minority) probably want the SNP gone. It's all very well commentators accusing them of playing politics, but every party does that. That's how they get us to vote for them.

To be fair though, those SNP MPs were democratically elected to Westminster under the system we have, the same system that allows a majority Conservative governement with a minority of the population voting for them. Cameron may want to call foul because he now is beginning to realise the problem with slim majorities, but seeking a way to take away the vote of the SNP is not about democracy, it's about finding a way to skew parliamentary voting in his favour. Scotland has a seperate parliament. If he wants to go down the route of a seperate English parliament, then he may as well break up the Union and send everyone their seperate ways.

My parents own land and keep horses and have a riding school there, which pays for the upkeep of the horses. And sometimes it's a struggle financially. So it's not always true that landowners are flush with money. I do agree regarding chickens though. My parents have hens (and one rooster) and they roam free during the day and at dusk they go into their hen houses which are inside purpose built pens that are fox proof. They've never lost a hen to a fox. Horse racing and breeding is a brutal business. I share your views on it.

Yes pigs are very intelligent and very social animals too. Ever considered being a vegetarian Louisa?

Horses are extremely intelligent, so I would put them top. As for cats and dogs, well some dogs are smart and some are daft. Same with cats. I think the cat has to just edge it, because they are so independent. But then again, the smartness of a breed like the border collie is something to admire. Good Question though Alan :)

aquarius moon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shooting a fox dead with a gun to protect farm > animals is not the same as chasing it for hours > with a pack of hounds just to have the pleasure of > seeing it ripped apart. Exactly. If a fox is being a nuisance to livestock, a shotgun is a viable (and more humane) means of pest control. The number of foxes killed by hunts was pretty low anyway in comparison to the number of foxes causing problems - so how exactly were those other foxes dealt with? There is NO justification for the hunt as a means of pest control. And yes hunts are made up of a variety of local people uncleglen, not all of them upper class etc, but they are still a group of rural people who think they can do what they like with no regard for the cruelty of the means they sometimes use. There is a reason why we have regulations and standards around the keeping/ rearing/ slaughter of livestock for example. On the politics show on Friday there was an MP and a country alliance spokesperson and the attitude of the CA person was to laugh at pretty much every point the MP made in opposition. This is the attitude of these people. They regularly say that only country people know what's best for the country and that everyone else's view can be dismissed on those grounds. Nobody either ever talks about the horses that get injured during hunts. Things like stress fractures and strains to the fetlock ligament (the sort of things that can make a horse lame). It's bad for horses too. My parents have never let any of their horses take part in a hunt for those reasons. Totally agree Louisa. It smacks of not wanting to upset the shire Tory heartlands. Realising the chances of an overturn of the ban succeeding are nil, they have chosen an ammendment that might succeed to placate both the Tory backbenchers and the CA at the same time, so Cameron can say he has delivered on his manifesto promise to them. It's an ammendment that effectively will relax the existing ban. At present only two hounds can be used along with stalking to flush out prey. The ammendment removes that two dog cap to 'any number deemed suitable for the terrain and to efficiently carry out the activity'. Now for me, even if horses aren't chasing, this opens the door for hounds to be the method of kill, rather than a shotgun, or better still, a tranquilzer dart. Full draft of ammendment here. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2015/9780111137628/pdfs/ukdsi_9780111137628_en.pdf

A majority of people in this country think fox hunting is cruel. A majority of MPs voted to ban it (and rightly so imo). "The current law permits two hounds to flush out a fox to be shot but the changes would allow particular sorts of hunting for pest-control purposes." There is no aspect of fox hunting that can be described as a from of pest control. And people who organise hunts know this. It's just BS because they can't actually give any sensible reason for their need to mount horses and go rampaging over the countryside several times a year. I grew up around people like that. They think they have a divine right to behave how they like.

I still think 'loss' is a red herring given that mr Ben still has the property and the equity in the rising value of it. It just means he has to pay ?40 of his own mortgage!

The OP has a point though in that there seems to be no catagory for things that warrant serious discussion, but are not ED specific.

Yeah that's my logic too Loz. Short term it might help first time buyers get a property, but long term it will further squeeze supply in the rental market, unless those properties are bought by cash buying landlords of course. But having said that, it's not a measure to solve any housing problems is it. It's a measure to claw in more tax.

MrBen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just checked what it means for me on my old > flat...and my ?90 tax per month on the marginal > profit I make now becomes ?450 tax per > month....putting it firmly into loss making > position. > > It's a very sensible policy to put brakes on BTL - > people will sell up for sure. But is it really a loss? I thought the whole idea of BTL is that you get a mortgage on another property and get a tenant to pay that mortgage off for you.

I usually sing to them. Abba's 'Money Money Money' is my favourite. Sometimes I do 'Don't Take Your Guns to Town'. Any more suggestions are welcome.

And I like your style too Louisa, even though I don't always agree with you :)

I'm with Otta. I like that Church is fighting her corner. And some women ARE given a raw deal for having opinions. Is that sexism? Misogyny? (that word always seems to get the most guilty of men riled up). At the end of the day she has an opinion. We may agree with it, we may not, but sneering because of her background or gender isn't clever. Like I said before, I like her style.

I'm liking her more and more.

Yep, on the edge of the seat stuff. I've gone from beer to whisky :D