Blah Blah

Here you go..... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/etc/cron.html Tell me what part of that shows that bombing stopped the war in Kosovo. The truth is that there is NO solution to what is going on in the middle east unless the warring factions decide to stop warring. It doesn't matter who is in government. No one has a solution to any of it. Edited to add, that now the US have announced (with Russian help) moves to achieve a ceasefire in Syria and get talks going between the two sides. There is no other way.

Tut tut ????. You really don't know much about Kosovo do you? It wasn't military intervention that stopped the massacres, the UN troops there were a peacekeeping force and not allowed to intervene in conflict. Bombing did nothing. That is well documented. It was actually diplomacy through the Dayton Accord that ended that conflict.

I accept your points Red Devil, but nothing we are doing or have done for the last 100+ years has brought stability or democracy (whatever our version of demacracy is) to that region, nothing. It's no good jumping up and down and claiming someone has no quality to be a prime minister just because they don't say that more of the same is the solution. Emotions are running high today and for understandable reasons (as Otta says). But yesterday I saw a photo of about 15 dead Syrian children. No-one knows if they were killed by ISIL crossfire, or American or Russian actions. Just on Jihadi John, I was simply making the case that to some, his pain free and instant death would not have been any kind of retribution at all (and that's what I beieve Corbyn was saying too). And in the culture he was operating within, he would be seen as a martyr anyway. These people are brainwashed into seeing death as a reward. That's what makes them so dangerous. France does have a complicated history with Algeria, Morocco and terrorism. It has also bred resentment from migrants for generations (anyone of colour is regularly stoppped in Paris to have papers checked) and there is a migrant underclass pushed out to the suburbs. That's before we even get into their laws on the wearing of a hijab. All of those things conspire to create the prefect recruiting gound for the kind of cells that want to inflict the kind of harm they did yesterday.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Talk me through resolution of the conflict and > defeating ISIS via the UN Blah rather than the > touchy freely peace loving concept? Meanwhile > yesterday military action by the Kurds supported > by air strikes from the US liberated 1000s from > the tyranny of ISIS Only if you talk me through how bobming and invasion has brought about any stability in the Middle East.

Interesting ed_pete. I wonder how people manage the noise in those flats? I take your point about the ventilation Londonmix. I still think people like fresh air though. Maybe they will appeal to young people who won't mind the noise.

Just to give you a different perspective ????, what Corbyn actually said was this..... ?It appears Mohammed Emwazi has been held to account for his callous and brutal crimes. "However, it would have been far better for us all if he had been held to account in a court of law. ?These events only underline the necessity of accelerating international efforts, under the auspices of the UN, to bring an end to the Syrian conflict as part of a comprehensive regional settlement.? I don't think many people could disagree with any of that. He knows as well as we do that it is logistically impossible to extract people like Jihadi John from the ground. What he was expressing, was a view on what is achieved by this kind of assassination. The truth is that Jihadi John has already been replaced. The murder of Westerners does not stop. And as for Jihadi John himself - he had a quick death that he probably didn't know much about. So what has been achieved? Absolutely nothing, bar one pain free death of an easily replaced ISIS executioner. The current government, just like Blair, have no answer to terrorism, or the refugee flight, or the conflicts in the Middle East. Cameron wants to bomb Syria. That is exactly why last nights terrorists attacked Paris apparently - because the French are bombing Syria. Now ask yourself, who is more likely to keep us free from attack? The man who wants to bomb Syria? Or the man that wants to try and find an international resolution via the UN.

Good point Dave. I just think, given that Rye Lane is a retail business area, that buisness space throughout the building would be more appropriate. Instead of flats there could be affordable office rental space. I'll admit that I don't know anything about rents and space availability in Rye Lane from a business perspective, so don't know if it's a daft idea or not.

Thanks for pointing that out LondonMix. Mechanical ventilation is what exactly? It's just a fan isn't it? And what that seems to say is that the noise of a fan will mask external sound? In the heat of summer, that won't be enough to ventilate I think.

That was what I meant when I said it's not the right location for flats - being right on the doorstep of the Bussey. I take the point about flats being elsewhere around the venue, but most of those are not right on the doorstep. Maybe soundproofing the flats will work, but what happens in summer when people want to have their windows open?

There's a lot of sense in his comments and a reality check too. If the public want decent public services taxes will have to go up. But what party making that case will be electable? I think this is a hole that both the Conservatives and New Labour have dug for themselves. It's all very well moving to an individualistic competitive public consciousness, but there are consequences. Demographically we are changing and there will have to be a collective shift to recognise the reality of that. It's going to mean more tax, or a higher workforce (which means imigration and developing an economy to support that). Many people will just not be physically able to work to 75. Political parties need to be more forward thinking instead of clawing to keep things working as they are. Or as Ken warns, the backlash will come.

El Presidente Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The thing with housing is that people always > support it being built in principle, but when in > practice a proposal is put forward they these > principles are easily abandoned. This is not true. What is to be found though are plenty of objections of the type of housing being built. London needs a mix of tenure, from social to luxury and it needs strong communities too. These are being destroyed by the rush to profit from the boom, the result being a social cleansing of whole areas of the capital.

Because unlike other residential units LondonM these are right on the doorstep of the Bussey and Railway.

Peckham isn't a dump, and even if it were, the answer is not to drive out the small businesses that give it so much character and replace them with more of the same you find everywhere else. Khan's is my favourite store because there's nowhere else like it. There are restaurants on every corner! I'm suporting the petition because as much as we need housing I don't believe that is the right location for it.

But what is the measure of underperformance? Exam passes? We have this idea that educational achievement is the measure of success. But it's not. It's just a measure of who goes to University. Environment and nurture is a better measure.

Yes I agree Rodney. I think you are falling into the trap of media steroetypes KidK. There's not doubt that people like that do exist, but it's not any bigger a problem than it ever was. In the past, those families were the canon fodder, filled the factories and mines - jobs that were boring, repetitive and meeded more stamina than skill or thinking. 50% of young people go on to do degrees. Some of the rest follow other formal education or training routes. I don't think any of those young people lack work ethic. They do whatever they can to improve their chances of getting a job. The generational welfare dependence is out there, but a lot of it is in areas blighted by unemployment and decline. It's not a black and white issue. And successive governments have failed to find any answer to it. Even in London, advertised unskilled jobs recieve hundreds of applications for just one job. There are people who are just left behind by it all.

We're just watching it now. Great task lol. Did anyone on here employ them?

'Basically he's a Cameron ally who is probably gutted this has been leaked.' That all makes sense Otta. I did wonder. It surely makes sense, given that we have one of the lowest income tax rates in europe and have gone through eras when tax rates were much higher to put 1p or 2p back on the basic rate of income tax. No party dare mention it though. National Insurance has been increased but people don't seem to see that as income tax, although it goes into exactly the same coffers as income tax - so income tax has effectively been raised from time to time. I don't know how much that would bring in but we all benefit from services, even if it is just refuse collection and income tax seems the fairest way to raise revenue, and also the easiest way through which to help those on low wages. So I think that puts me in agreement with rahrah. In part, the pressures on the NHS are dominated by longer life expectancy. And this is going to be a growing problem. Whilst it might sound like a great solution to raise the retirement age, the problem is that whilst we live longer we don't age slower. I suspect many people will find themselves on other forms of benefit before the new threshold for retirement. I certainly wouldn't want to see 65 year olds being put through the benefits system we have at present where some people are being bullied by the DWP. The rises in diagnoses of dementia for example are directly related to people living longer. I.E they develop conditions because other conditions that would have affected their mortality in the past are now more effectively treated or avoided completely. What concerns me about those who want to change the model of the NHS is that they are looking to probably the worst model of healthcare in the world, ie America, when they should be looking to what works in Europe, where healthcare combines private and public models. And this is why TTIP has to be fought also. There have been several recent cases of corporations buying up the patents and licenses of vital medication as soon as they expire in the US, and then increasing the price by anything up to 1000% (and that is not a typo). So people should be extremely wary of privatising healthcare. Even in the uk, the NHS costs about 70% less than the private equivalent (operations etc) so we will end up paying more for healthcare if the model isn't right. What we don't want to happen is what happens in America, where millions of people don't have access to healthcare and many die unable to afford the medication they need. Healthcare in the US is a business first. People and their health definitely come second.

I'm inclined to agree with you.

We'll have to agree to disagree. It's a forum. People have different views. I don't see anything wrong with moralising about 5k blown on a wedding dress.

Interesting letters between Cameron and his local authority there. What I find most revealing is how Cameron actually thinks that some of the cuts mean an increase in spending! My department is a front line service (of the NHS) and we have seen significant cuts at the same time as seeing a huge increase in demand for services. This is not rocket science. There are no more efficiency savings to be made, and there haven't been for a while. Noted that there is no reply to the excellent reply from the leader of his council. The other thing that stands out is that Camerons letter is not really the letter of an MP. Most MPs are fully aware of what is happening in their constituencies, because they spend most of their time there engaging with real people. Cameron doesn't (for obvious reasons) which begs the question of whether a prime minister can actually still serve the constituents who elected him/her in the first place.

I'm suprised at you Otta. You don't usually lower yourself to those kinds of sneers. Since when does a view on spending 5k on one item of clothing translate to spending more than a tenner? That's the kind of bs that drives people from engaging in debate on forums.

When we bought our house it was far cheaper to buy than housing is now. We also bought it as a home to start a family, not as an investment and came to this area because it was a place we could afford to live rather than a place we prefered to live, and it's a modest home at that. So we are subject to the same market restraints on that one as everyone else. It's not really a good example to challege my overall point with though. There is no comparison between something used by four people every day and an item used by one person for one day only. People need somewhere to live, whether they own or rent. That is a necessity. I think Londonmix we can question the value of some things. Clothing is a good example of that. The whole designer thing is so vacuous and whilst you might disagree with me Dave on that wedding dress, many don't. Most people don't need a 5k dress to have a great wedding and I question the values of someone who does. If people are so brainwashed to think that a nike trainer has some magical value over a cheaper one of equal build quality then that is something to question. There is no religion more successful than the advertiser. We are bombarded in all ways by companies trying to get us to see how spending huge amounts of money on their products will enhance our life, and it's bs.

Nothing constructive to say then Azira?

I too agree Louisa. You only have to look at the differences between generations in any culture to see that. And perhaps that is really the issue. We as a species on the whole like things to stay the same, when in reality they are always changing, even within our own cultures, social and ethnic groups.

That's the difficult part isn't it. As consumers, we could change many things in the world with a collective shift in thinking. Take something like an expensive brand trainer, particularly fashion trainers. They are over priced to the consumer and the people that make them are underpaid. The label makes a killing. Well, if the public refused to buy the trainer unless the labour used to make it was better paid, we would be doing something to reduce poverty. That's a simplistic scenario I know, but you get the drift. I guess what I'm arguing for is an ethical approach to consumerism. And the choices to be made on that will vary for every person according to what they need/ don't need. I see it with my kids. They see an advert for something and then say I want that. And I always reply, but do you 'need' that? And that makes them think a little, for about 2 minutes, and then they want something else :D