Blah Blah

Apparently she is going to quote Machiavelli. The mind boggles.

Teresa May gave a speech to the UN a couple of days ago. The room was pretty much empty. Says it all really.

Uber have had plenty of time to stop breaching the licensing regulations and have only themselves to blame. Hopefully, during the appeal, they will make the necessary changes to get their licence back. 30,000 driver jobs are at risk if they don't.

Just what to DHFC own here. If they own the astroturf, they are responsible. If they don't, then the company that owns it are responsible. DHFC licence applies to music indoors. To have an outdoor public event with music would require a TEN. This is what the southwark website says; 'If your event includes entertainment (music, singing, dancing, drama, films or spectator sports) and / or the sale of alcohol, it will need to be licensed by the council under the Licensing Act 2003. This applies to indoor venues (e.g. a school hall or theatre) and outdoor locations (e.g. public parks, town squares and streets). In some situations, the venue you are using will already hold a Premises Licence to allow these activities to take place. You will need to check this with the venue manager. If the venue does not hold a suitable licence you will either need to submit a Temporary Event Notice or a full premises licence application. As of 1 October 2012 the Live Music Act 2012 came into effect. This means that some live music is now deregulated. Please visit the Licensing News pages for details.' From what I can see, the DHFC licence would not extend to using the astroturf for these events. So why did the owners agent not apply for a TEN then?

There are lots of worrying aspects to this. You have astroturfs, designed for sports use, being hired out for noisy music events, that surely need licensing (as the club premises licence is solely for the club and its bar) - so someone is responsible for allowing these unlicensed events. Had a temporary licence been applied for, the council would then have been able to decide whether the event was appropriate use of the astroturf in advance, or not, and set conditions on noise and hours. But then, also having allowed the event, when the noise became excessive, the council noise team, and the club manager, seemed to be too intimidated to exercise the powers they had to close the event down. This can not be ok. Wasn't it DHFC that had a teenage shooting or stabbing or something whilst breaching their licence a few years ago?

The thing is, that most people (including children) know the difference between a poster advertising fiction, and real life. This argument about movies, and advertising and so on has been going on for years.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have not suggested any deliberate acts of > Cruelty by Zippo and the horses look fine. > > Don't put your words into my mouth. > > I just think with all the other brilliant acts > animal acts are not needed. If Humans want to > endanger their > lives, then that is fine. Then why post something that says this? 'We believe that the use of animals in circus performances is not only damaging to the welfare of those individuals involved....' if you acknowledge the horses at Zippos are fine and there is no damage to their welfare (or injury to them)? You can't have it both ways. Zippos show that horses can be used and kept in a way that is not detrimental to their welfare clearly.

XIX, as I mentioned, I am from a family that have always kept horses. I grew up on a farm. I know a lot about horses. There are many things you can tell about the welfare of a horse merely from the condition and gait of it. And yes, I have seen the horses up close on the Rye. I always take an interest where I see horses. This is no different to someone who has spent all their life around dogs having knowledge that a non dog owner would not have. DF's post was C&P of opinion - go read it again - there is no evidence or data there, just opinion. If you want me to dig up vetinary evidence of my points, I can quite easily do so. As someone has said, the horses are regularly inspected by bodies qualified to do so. A circus has to satisfy certain standards to keep its licence to trade, of which animal welfare is one standard. The horses at Zippos, are left to graze most of the day, and are stabled at night, just like most horses anywhere are. They train and work for a small part of the day, also like any working horse, from Police horses to horses that pull funeral carriages. And cantering in a circle btw, is how all horses are trained. It is the simplest thing for a horse to learn. Zippos only travel in the Southeast with a few hours of travel on average once a week. Race horses travel more than that. Police horses travel more than that. And no, there is no difference to a horse between a travelling stable and a permanent stable block. Zipoos do not keep their horses in the travelling horsebox overnight. They build a temporary stable, and yes I have seen those too. The horses have more than adaquate space. What I am trying to challenge is the idea that any use of horses in a circus is animal cruelty. DF's post projected that view. But it is not born out by fact.

Exactly that binky. No-one would deny that animal cruelty exists. Mostly it occurs at the hands of an individual, but mass meat production, can be seen as a system with cruelty designed into it. That is very different from what we are talking about here. I see nothing but happy and healthy horses at Zippos. They are not shut up in stables all day. They are well groomed and clearly well looked after.

Most horse injuries happen in Equestrian events and most injuries happen because the riders are beginners or inexperienced. As you can imagine, cross country eventing has all kinds of hazards, and it takes very little for a horse to stumble or fall if a rider does not know what they are doing. And I would absolutely agree with the link between suspensory ligament injuries and competitive sports - there is much to criticise there (because just like with humans, competing animals, that are repeatedly jumping and doing dressage, can suffer injuries that are everything from tears to repetitive strain). But this is very far removed from the canter of a horse in a circus ring, a non competitive scenario. Horses rarely suffer injury in circus use, especially circus use where there is no rearing on hind legs. And in fact, it is the rider who is most likely to suffer injury, not the horse. The evidence for all of this is overwhelming.

Having a 'belief' is not evidence Dulwich Fox. The statement you post is a lot of opinion and NO evidence whatsoever. Horses can carry loads far heavier than a human being. Unless you have scientific evidence on the anatomy of horses that can prove otherwise, you are posting nonsense. And I say that as someone who comes from a family of horse owners. But more than that, the anatomy of muscle, tendons, ligaments is well understood. You won't find a single horse vet who thinks a 5 min canter around a circus ring carrying a human is particularly stressful.

There is nothing harmful in using horses cantering around a circus ring for 5 mins, because really, that is about the length of the horse performance. The same is true for the budgies. Reality check. Horses in riding schools do far more. Anyone who thinks these horses are suffering really does not now anything about horses or horse welfare.

The horses are well looked after and there is no harm to them or the budgies.

Yes, saw them this morning. Southwark will no doubt be already working on the eviction notice.

I grew up with horses. my parents still have them on their farm. I have no issue with horses being used by Zippos, they are well looked after and always look very healthy to me. Horses are exercised in circles every day by most owners. Cantering around a circus ring is no stress to a horse. DulwichFox is right about horse racing though. That is why race horses continue to race and jump after unseating a rider. It is a sport that has elements of cruelty both in training and what happens at the end of a horses useful racing life. Show jumping is not a hobby either. It is also a business, with the best jumpers being worth a lot as stud. Most people who keep horses do something to earn an income from those horses, even if it is just from a riding school. Without these things, there would be far fewer horses out there. They are very expensive to keep.

Yes it is part of living in a big city. Sometimes people have parties at the weekends. They have to be unreasonably loud for a noise team or Police to shut them down and they won't do that at 11pm.

Basically it goes like this. The Tory Brexiteers want a deal that keeps all the beneifits of being in the single market and customs union, without having to be be members of or pay for access to it. The EU have rightly told them they are in la la land. This has been the attitude of the government brexit supporters since even before the referendum. At what point do they wake up and realise that we are no longer an Empire that rules half the world. Meanwhile, the pound continues to fall, prices continue to rise and economic growth and investment continue to contract. Just on Japan. May is also wishful thinking if she expects to get a quickie trade deal with Japan. Jappan's focus is on sucuring their own EU trade deal right now, and rightly so, as a market of 500 million trumps a market of 68 million. Japanese companies will not keep car plants in the UK if we have no access to the single market and customs union. We all know that Nissan were promised access as part of those secret talks to keep their plant in the UK. So that seems to be a scandal waiting to hit the **** fan, especially if the government offered to offset tariffs in the event of a no deal on the single market. The cost of offsetting car exports subject to WTO tariffs would be ?3-4bn annually. ?20bn of our annual exports are in cars and WTO tariffs range from 10%-20% depending on type of vehicle, engine size, fuel type etc.

All of this lol

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > (I have mentioned this several times)- when the > local council is of a different political > persuasion than the government, then money will be > diverted from the front line at every > opportunity...you voted for them That would be why the leader of Tory led Oxford council complained personally to Cameron about central government funding cuts then. Ditto Rendel - you don't half write some cobblers.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Except the EU won't negotiate this until the > divorce bill is agreed ..." > > True. But as I've said before, any agreement on > the divorce bill ought to be conditional. Not one > cent to the EU until a trade deal acceptable to > the UK Parliament is agreed. Then you are asking for no deal. We are leaving the EU, not the other way round remember. Holding any divorce bill to ransom on a trade deal is only going to piss the EU off. They will never go for it. And you have to remember that any agreement is subject not only to our own parliament, but also the 27 members of the EU parliament agreeing too. Time is running out for getting any of this done. We can not leave it to the 11th hour. Trade agreements are very complex to negotiate in themselves, because every single good or service to be included has to be negotiated. There is no such thing as a free trade deal. CETA, which took ten years to negotiate, excludes a whole raft of things from tariff free trade. Only access to the single market delivers a 100% free trade agreement. And it is the time it takes to negotiate trade deals that is the reason behind the request for a transitional period lasting however many years it takes to get new trade deals in place. The cost to UK business of WTO tariffs is just too high a price to pay.

Except the EU won't negotiate this until the divorce bill is agreed and the status of EU nationals is agreed. I don't understand what part of that this the government doesn't understand. The EU have consistently stated this from the start. How long is the UK going to wait before discussing these things? They have already wasted almost 5 months and agreed on nothing. But what is very clear, is all the nonsense about no deal being ok really is nonsense that will cost UK business and the economy dear, and the Tories know it.

Right decision to drop this project. Too expensive for now.

Just one point dbboy. The council have been forced to makes cuts because of huge cuts in central government funding. To pretend that is not a factor would be unfair. The council has been using it's surplus to offset those cuts, built up when times were better, but that surplus has finally run out. So in the current climate, it is reasonable to ask if this communications expediture really was necessary, and if the most cost effective decision was taken. Any cuts however, are a direct consequence of central government policy.