Blah Blah

These types of muggers are always looking for things they can snatch easily, so while it shouldn't have to be that way, the usual common sense about bags and phones is advisable.

Yet more sanctimonious crap from Sue. She's been getting into infantile rows with people for thirteen years apparently.

So still no hard evidence Davis? You know, the hard evidence YOU claimed you had, but, just as you have elsewhere, deflecting instead of producing it. And yes, I would tell you to your face that you are engaging in fairy tales over real science because that is just about the crux of it when you claim to have science that you don't. Look at how you started your engagement with me. By citing 'errors' but not bothering to address a single one of those supposed errors. You were condescending, lazy and rude. I offered to discuss the hard science with you and you refused, with some protracted waffle that it was beyond the scope of the discussion (again condescending and rude). Well fairy tales are beyond the scope of scientific discussion aren't they? So, are you going to provide hard science that a creator exists (your claim remember) or not? (you can admit you made that up) My explanation of evolution is based on hard science (a universally accepted understanding validated by people far cleverer than you or I), but you don't want to have that conversation, and not willing to have that conversation, then have the nerve to say that I have offered no explanation of why I believe the science. It seems Cardelia has taken the time to explain some physics to you. I hope you will give her and the science more respect than you seem to have for the science around evolution.

I agree with all of that TE44, but you see, our little friend here, made a claim, that he can not back up. At the same time, he is dismissing very advanced and complex science (a level of complexity he does not want to discuss btw), because he does not understand it, for some simplistic armchair logic that he thinks disproves Evolution. So let me see. Well funded genome research with tons of academic papers readily available. Mechanical biological developments with tons of academic papers readily available, or Davis and his armchair theories, with no academic research available. I wonder which I should believe. See the problem? And also just to add, note how he also seeks to control the narrative. He only wants to have a discussion within the frame he creates. Start getting into real science with him and he can not cope.

I will use scientific language if necessary, because it reflects the depth of my scientific knowledge. If you can't cope with it, then I suggest you don't get into debates on things you are not knowledgeable enough on (I note you using well worn lines paraded out by creationists all the time though). I also suggest you cease dismissing science you do not understand, while pushing fairy tales, and trying to sound clever with playground logic. You made a claim that a creator exists and you have hard science to prove it, so, academic papers please Davis. No amount of condescending long winded deflection from you changes that you have made a claim you have not as yet backed up. Hard science please.

It may also be a health and safety issue, blocking access to emergency services etc. Check your lease but it is at the very least what would be considered as a shared access pathway, which would mean that you do have a right to ask for it to be kept clear. But as Ilona says, get some legal advice on how to proceed.

Farage is an opportunist charlatan with a complete disregard for electoral funding law. And in spite of never having himself been an MP, has caused more chaos in Parliament than any politician in living memory. A truly self serving snake oil salesman of the worst kind. As to voting, in spite of being a Labour voter, I felt I could not vote for a party that isn't advocating for a 2nd ref, so I used my postal vote to vote Change UK. I also know I am not the only Labour voter jumping ship on this one.

'It is not a question of knowing or not knowing, it is both. I believe the idea of one or the other, has evolved into our everyday life through this quest for the ultimate answers, this is not denying the amazing discoveries in science. The law for a concept, the belief of the learned, the proof.' Exactly that TE44. It is that quest to know what we do not know, to understand what we do not understand, that drives all discovery, science and philosophy. This is partly why religion evolved also. But there comes a point where hard science tells us otherwise on many things. Why some people are so wedded to religious fairy tales in spite of that, is a mystery.

'When was the last time you saw a half human half primate in the museum?' That is just about the most ridiculous argument for refusing Darwin's theory I have ever read. Seriously Davis, the evidence from DNA alone shows that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct in principle. He did not have the benefit of the level of science that we do, so of course made some errors in the detail and even his understanding of it, but to reject it all out of hand because of this, is just wilful ignorance. I suggest you go and speak to a geneticist and educate yourself on how genes mutate and evolve. It is an incredibly slow process (on a scale that most people find hard to grasp to be honest) that has taken billions of years. Better still, speak to those biochemists that have shown that primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units. Science is closer to the truth than you perhaps realise. 'I do not have the time to address every error in your previous post' You haven't addressed a single thing (so I suspect you are confusing error for your opinion) and yet write that after calling out KK for being condescending! What you mean is that you do not have the hard science to challenge your pseudo science. I have had these kinds of conversations many times and it always ends the same way. A deliberate refusal to accept the real science. I did answer your question. I pointed out to you that science does not know the beginining for sure, or why it came about. But it can use Physics to make a pretty good theory, the same physics that has given us a pretty good level of understanding of our universe so far, debunking pretty much all religious and supernatural theory that offers other explanations. That is good enough for me. So yes, I think science can, in time, explain everything. 'dbboy, I believe in a God, a Creator, who brought the universe into existence with purpose and wisdom. My belief is based on 'hard science' and objectively quantifiable evidence.' There is no hard science of such. Where is it? Links to academic papers please. Let's get into this, because I would love to show just how unscientific any belief in creationism really is.

You can argue it Davis, but you seem to have little understanding of the science around DNA. We may not have all the links for every species and their evolution, but the principle is correct. And creationists and all the other religious detractors to that out there, are cranks. The Sun God was an an example of the form that the evolution of god theories took. There are plenty of written examples of pagan civilisations and their supernatural beliefs, and polytheism like the early Romans and Greeks, so we do know a fair amount about why these beliefs existed. It is also why transitions from that to monotheism have made absolutely no difference to anything whatsoever. The sun still rises, the wind still blows a gale sometimes, and sometimes crops still fail. I think everything that genuinely exists can be measured yes, because we can already measure so much and the history of science is in part the history of debunking previously held beliefs and theories that were based on no real science whatsoever. Science does not claim to know for certain there was a big bang, nor of what existed before. But people far cleverer than you and I have got us to the level of understanding that we do have, about what we are, and what the universe is around us. We know for example that this solar system will cease to exist at some point as the Sun expands and swallows us up (we will be long gone before then). Only the arrogance of human philosophy thinks we are any more important than that. I certainly won't be entertaining fantasy theories around God or creators as fact, unless someone provides scientific evidence of such, and think it perfectly sensible to hold that approach. TE44, I tend to agree with you. I just get annoyed at anyone saying certain ideas exist in a measurable way, when they absolutely don't, and Gods/ creators are an example of that. There is a big difference between saying, I think God exists, and saying I know God exists. Knowing something that is not proven (or disproved even), is kind of where this conversation began anyway.

There is too much for me to respond to right now, but just on Darwin's theory of evolution, which has since been proven by DNA and genetic science, no, I do not equate that to the idea of a God, as a creator, as expressed by religion (although I take the point about some of his understanding of his theorie being shaped by the culture he himself was exposed to). I prefer hard science to philosophical ideas around evolution and the beginning, whenever that was. I think one the flaws of our species and intellect is to think we are the center of everything, when in fact, we are just one life form, that followed other life form and are likely to extinct ourselves prematurely the way we are going. Why it all exists is impossible to know. There is no evidence beyond the science that we do exist that tells us why either, just as there is no evidence of the existence of a 'creator'. There is just science, physics, biology. 'God' is a human construct, passed down from parent to child, and it came out of the inability to understand how the world around us works. The first god is a sun god, because the sun makes food grow, and we need food to live....etc etc

I think it is a very relevant conversation to have in today's climate of fact denial (climate change), conspiracy theories (9/11 'truthers'), and an extended us of 'whataboutery' by just about everybody, including those who govern us. On less clear cut ideas/ beliefs, such as those based around philosophical/ moral arguments, it becomes tricky though. These are social constructs and learned. Religion is a perfect example of that. The existence of a God or gods is not proven, yet so many are convinced they exist. That confidence of belief in something as true. without hard evidence, fascinates me more.

Never was the motto more relevant - if you don't want to lose it, use it.

I think we are heading for MEP elections and a longer extension personally, while Parliament comes up with something that eventually goes back to the people in another referendum. I don't see any other way forward happening. Meanwhile, far right former football hooligan Tommy Robinson, is paying for the UKIP stage in Whitehall on Friday. Farage is due to arrive there for Leave Means Leave, and presumably their own stage. Brexit handbags at dawn I think.

Yeah it is going to get even more brutal. Government have though declared intent to now ask for an extension this afternoon, so the ERG are not getting their way in any form.No deal is officially dead. Bercow has basically nipped May's efforts to blackmail her party and the DUP in the bud. And he has done it for the integrity of Parliament over personal privilege (and peerage). Yes it is controversial, but these are extraordinary times.

Reports that around 40 Tory MPs are telling May that they will only vote for her deal if she resigns by the end of April and states as much at the dispatch box (not that she has u-turned on anything she has said there before of course). Meanwhile, the third vote might be postponed. She is cutting it fine.

Follow these guys for updates on the 'Epic march', or rather the electronic billboards they are placing on the route relaying the Brexit lies back at the marchers, plus some of Nige's best tweets back at him ;)

Everything depends on May's third attempt with her deal now. Basically she is trying to squeeze her own party into backing her, all of them. So next Wednesday, either Parliament backs her deal, and we seek a three month extension for getting required legislation through (and we leave on June 30th). or Parliament rejects her deal and we enter the MEP elections and seek something like a two year extension to figure out some cross party agreed kind of deal that is then put back to the people. Farage's hopes of finding a member state to veto have been shot down as Italy, Hungary and Poland have all said no to him. So I think it is safe to say that no deal is now off the table. The EU has said it would agree to extensions but the longer one would have to have something like a 2nd ref at the end of it to make sure a final decision is made, one way or the other. So, my guess is that the vote next Wednesday will be narrower, but will still be defeated. Even with the DUP and the ERG on board, May would still be behind. It only takes a handful of MPs in her party to reject the deal to lose the vote and nothing significant has been changed in the deal itself. Suffice to say that there were some very angry UKIP protestors outside Parliament on Thursday night, but not in any kind of numbers that suggests civil disorder is coming. I think most people are so exhausted by the process now that an ambivalence is returning.

Yep and that might be what is forced to happen. Rumours say that Farage and Banks have locked at least Poland and Hungary into refusing an extension of A50. Well if no deal is taken off the table then only a revoke is left to avoid the no deal. Personally, I think the commission per se are mightier than Banks and Farage and think some kind of extension will be agreed, but it might by set at a year at least with us expected to participate in MEP elections. Worth remembering that both Hungary and Poland benefit greatly from EU funding paid for by the leading five contributors, and they have been leaned on to play ball before over this fact.

I think you need to take a look at the trajectory that car insurance has taken James. Owning a car is not as cheap as you might think. And seeing as you can never resist playing party politics, from 2010 to 2020, councils will have lost 60p out of every ?1 the Government had provided for services beforehand. So spare us the nonsense that cuts were part of a trajectory begun by a Labour government. They were nothing like the cuts your party and the Tories have inflicted since 2010 - as you well know.

So you are basically calling for registration plates? Most children do the cycling proficiency test. But again, L plates? Seriously? We are not talking about cars here so completely pointless to treat cycles in the same way. If someone threatens anyone, that is not because they are a cyclist, but because they are an ass.

Trolling aside, and yes it is 'that' obvious Passiflora, if we wee to impose tax and other charges on the right to cycle, it would not only remove the last free from of transport for many people, but it would also discourage people from cycling. Just on lights etc, the Police do stop cycists in targeted road operations to check lights etc. It has happened to me several times when I had a front light that wasn't really bright enough. I think there would also be sense in giving out free hi-vis vests to cyclists too - still use my free one from the Prudential Ride weekend I last went on. I absolutely agree with the sentiment that some cyclists do little to maximise their chances of being seen clearly at night, but the way to address that is through education. Compulsory use of helmets is a controversial topic. My own experience is that drivers seem to exercise more care overtaking when I am wearing no helmet, but having said that, most of the time I do wear one. On insurance, I do have it, for lots of reasons, but I think it would be regressive to legally require it and potentially messy in that you would quickly end up with a system where it becomes more expensive for young people and those who have made claims, in the same way vehicle insurance operates. That seems to defeat any purpose to me, is practically unenforceable and would not be cost effective either. Anyway, it's a sunny day, and I'm off for a free ride ;)

As others have pointed out, Southwark council has had to manage the impact of central government funding cuts for 8 years now. Council surpluses were finally drained about three years ago I think. So unless we want cuts to adult and child social care and other key front line services the council have no choice but to look for other revenue streams. If it is not parking it will be something else sadly.

Not before time. In the past two weeks he has used fb to bait his followers to troll a rape crisis center, because of all the services they offer, they produced one leaflet aimed at helping BAME women come forward, for distribution within the BAME community. And he baited his followers to abuse a personal trainer because she offers a class to muslim women. He is a racist hypocrite and rabble rouser, and it is only a matter of time before he baits someone to go further than verbal abuse.

I'm with you RH. UC has time and time again shown his true colours.