Huguenot

How strange. A large chunk of my post is missing - is tht some bizarre technical fudget or did it get edited?

The article makes pretty clear what the 52k was spent on, where the organiser says 'profits' from the Festival were used to fund the St. Thomas More hall for the rest of the year. Since there should be no 'profit' on taxpayer funding for a Festival, it's clear that it was a front for funnelling money to other places. BTW if 'Chairman Ben Cahill' ?cannot raise that sort of cash in a couple of months? for an event with 16,000 attendees then he's either lying about the number of attendees or demonstrating commercial incompetence of a unique scale.

aspidistra, to be honest, you're just rehashing trite cliches with no insight or understanding. Your point about corporation tax only being paid by a third of companies is particularly vacuous. Corporation tax is a tax on profits. You don't pay corporation tax if you're not profitable. The fact that 2/3 of corporations don't pay this tax is predominantly a reflection of their lack of success. Only a complete prat would try to suggest that this is a criminal offence, or an attempt at tax evasion. Some companies also limit profits by reinvesting the money that would otherwise be taxable back into the company rather than give it to the tax man. This is a POSITIVE aspect of the corporation tax system. You even miss the point entirely about Barclays. In fact Barclays pay almost 18% tax on their profits (exactly what would be expected of them). The annoying thing is that this payment was made across multiple countries, so that the British receipts were only 4%. So Barclay's isn't about corporate tax evasion, but about who the taxes went to. I don't expect you to understand any of these issues, because for you it's clearly more about foot stamping propoganda than about truth or responsibility.

Frankly most people should vote yes simply because people like silverfox vote no. silverfox's '100m' analogy is demonstrably stupid and manifestly undemocratic. There is no question about politicians being highly trained athletes who 'beat' everyone else and are thus 'best'. Instead elections are about identifying the candidate who closest represents the views of the electorate. In a constituency with 8 candidates, the winner would only need 17% of the votes to win. This means that 83% of the electorate did NOT want them to win. How fair is that? Being 'ruled' by a minority (and probaly extremist) candidate? That's why people don't vote, because under the current system the majority of votes are worthless. The AV system simply allows you to cast your vote again if your first choice candidate doesn't get sufficient support. That's it. Nothing more complicated than that. Your no.2 candidate gets your vote. It means that your opinion counts. Even MMs 'percentage' argument is daft, and a complication typical of people who don't want democratic government but instead want to make anything else seem overly complicated. The point is that the AV system says 'If I can't have X, I'll have Y'. That's it. Not 'I'll have Y 50%'. No. I don't understand why silverfox is talking rubbish about losers getting in. It's got fcuk all to do with that. Elections aren't about 'winners' and 'losers' unless you're a dickhead. Actually, I do know why he talks rubbish. It's because in an AV system right wing extremists who think the answer to muggings is that everyone carry guns will NEVER get in. Instead, politicians will have to appeal to a wider base, will have to compromise and reflect their constituency needs instead of ideological claptrap. silverfox is going to respond to this post with an even more stupid observation than his earlier ones, that's how stupid he is. Vote 'Yes' for AV just to avoid siding with the slack-jawed hypocritical retards.

Frankly most people should vote yes simply because people like silverfox vote no. silverfox's '100m' analogy is demonstrably stupid and manifestly undemocratic. In a constituency with 8 candidates, the winner would only need 17% of the votes to win. This means that 83% of the electorate did NOT want them to win. How fair is that? Being 'ruled' by a minority (and probaly extremist) candidate? That's why people don't vote, because under the current system the majority of votes are worthless. The AV system simply allows you to cast your vote again if your first choice candidate doesn't get sufficient support. That's it. Nothing more complicated than that. It means that your opinion counts. I don't understand why silverfox is talking rubbish about losers getting in. It's completely the opposite. Actually, I do know. It's because in an AV system right wing extremists who think the answer to muggings is that everyone carry guns will NEVER get in. Instead, politicians will have to appeal to a wider base, will have to compromise and reflect their constituency needs instead of ideological claptrap. silverfox is going to respond to this post with an even more stupid observation than his earlier ones, that's how stupid he is.

Maybe pookie. Maybe.

All things aside, CamperVanMan's a little too cocksure for me. I think he's lying. I don't know about what. He has the arrogance of a smug schoolboy who's stolen some Kola Kubes and knows you can't 'get' him because he's stuffed them down his trousers and will cry 'paedophile' if you challenge him. It wasn't 'my sister birthday' it was 'my little sister's birthday'. It's manipulative. He's trying to present himself as an angel. He's a bullshitter. Since he tried to manipulate you with the 'little' the rest of what he says is worthless. He's demonstrated a willingness and capacity to deceive.

Indeed. And there is no wit in quotation but the solace and respite of tribalism. Think for yourself.

DJKQ, now you're doing it. You're transferring an argument I made about the Irish Festival to other situations I made no claim that it applied to. Stop it please. As you know, I lived in ED for many years, and did have the misfortune to encounter the pointless and rather grubby 'Irish Festival' on the Rye. However, I have no view on it other than that it should not be supported by taxpayer investment. Sue, you're continuing to be wilfully stupid. My argument was about the Irish Festival. You tried to claim I applied it to other events, and you tried to suggest that I wanted all public entertainment shut down. I made no such claims, and since I don't think you're retarded then in continuing to claim it you're simply being obnoxious. I hope your community event is successful. I like community events. I don't like the application of taxpayer money to some picnic piss-up. I trust that if your community event has attracted taxpayer funding it has done so for a better reason than that you like seeing your mates.

Sue, I made no mention of other events that everyone else would want to go to, I said there may be events where "there may be reasons for taxpayer funding" This decision will be made through a rigorous cost-benefit assessment followed by project prioritisation. Typically Boroiugh responsibilities include transport, strategic planning, regional development, police, fire housing, waste collection, council tax collection, education, libraries, social services, local planning, consumer protection, licensing, cemeteries and crematoria. If an event can be perceived to contribute significantly to one of these objectives, and if it can be proven to contribute more effectively than other projects competing for similar budgets, then it's likely to attract taxpayer funding. An event of the size, regional and international attraction of Carnival del Pueblo will likely contribute heavily to Southwark regional development. It attracts tourism, boosts local economies and puts Southwark 'on the map'. Conversely a weasley piss up for five hundred locals on Peckham Rye doesn't. You'll also notice that one of the Borough objectives isn't "give everybody a good laff where they can see their mates"

Don't be an idiot pk and others. You're persistently, ridiculously and deliberately misinterpreting my point about the Irish Festival funding by arbitrarily applying to it to other hypothetical events to which it was not intended to apply. You're doing this because you don't have a sensible point to make. I stand precisely behind my original point that there is no justifcation for the Irish Festival to be paid for by people who don't want to go. It's a piss-up in the park without any ameliorating factors. If you look at other events there may be reasons for taxpayer funding. I would have thought that any half-wit could see that?

They all sound great, I hope they take place and everyone has fun. I also hope that they're all subject to a cost-benefit analysis if it comes to taxpayer funding, and that the outcome is as sensible as the one that withdrew funding from the Irish Festival. I don't think that everything on the Southwark Events page is taxpayer funded.

I'm not suggesting banning the Irish festival or any other forms of public enjoyment. Have as many community events as you like. Fill your boots. Party party party. I'm just saying that the taxpayer shouldn't be funding it. Same for you *Bob*, I have no idea why you're trying to pretend a valid point about taxpayer sponsored junkets is about something else? I'm sure there are many divisive areas of public spending, but we're talking about a piss-up on a picnic here. I take it that you're both lurching into ridiculous misrepresentation of my point because you have nothing sensible to say?

Nothing wrong with it at all. It simply shouldn't be paid for by people who don't want to go. Does your neighbour pay for your dinner parties? Besides which, the Irish government doesn't contribute because they want people in ED to have a fun afternoon, they pay for it because it's a marketing opportunity. Why should the taxpayer be funding an Irish advertising campaign? I'm surprised that anyone's really trying to justify this.

That's the problem with religion philiphenslowe, it's very divisive ;-) I'm all for the Irish doing whatever they want to do to celebrate whatever they feel is important. Just not on the taxpayer. Can't believe they ever paid for it. They'd be within their rights to ask the Irish for their money back. If the Brits did it it would be called 'cultural imperialism'. Can you imagine the Irish funding an English festival?

Your best 'quick and dirty' solution for that combination would be DotNetNuke, which has a modular approach that includes both bloggin and forum components. If you'd like to do that then I'd use www.powerdnn.com who will install all the basics for you. You should then buy the book 'DotNetNuke for Dummies' that will guide you through it. But as Loz says, if you don't really know the very basic stuff, then you're better off employing someone.

Well Ant, the word's Italian meaning beach. So if it came from the original then it should be lee-do. However, like the French word promen-ah-de which is often pronounced promen-ay-de, it became so corrupted after allowing the working classes to both read and travel that it can be pronounced whichever way you choose. You could even have some fun trying to persuade people to put the stress on the second syllable: l'DOH

...you can't have your kayak and heat it too.

Yes I understand that. It's exactly my point. The question appears to be whether the festival is paid for by those that attend it, or paid for by those that don't. I don't see why taxpayers should be funding public non-profit festivals. Where's the justification? If you want a festival then you'll have to invest and work hard to make them happen, not sponge off taxpayer funds.

Why? Because it's a special interest festival. We don't expect taxpayers to pay for Glastonbury, Reading Festival or V (or if we do I'm shocked), why should be expect them to pay for an Irish festival? Go ahead and have the festival, charge for tickets or find a sponsor. Just like everyone else has to.

I hardly need to point out that a reduction in car parking along this busy route will improve traffic flow. Indulgent motorists parallel parking is a major cause of obstruction for other motorists.

"Southwark spending a lot of money on something that is not inline with City Hall's strategy and when alternatives haven't been looked at is a reasonable criticism." It's only reassonable criticism if you haven't just made it up. As it is, you did make it up, and it's wrong. So it's not reasonable criticism. Southwark's transport strategy is completely in line with the Mayor of London's strategy, and the alternatives are regularly and comprehensively considered.

Can you not find alternative funding? It seems a wee bit cheeky that taxpayers were funding a party on the Rye anyway.

Come off it. You're all me. I particularly liked being Irish, and there is a very special joy in being an astrologer or a homeopath. Anyway, I'm here because I love you all. Cutting myself off felt like cutting off my right leg because it regularly stands in dog poo. There is, as someone on another section said, more dog poo around. It just means there's more fun dancing around it ;-)

Copy. Paste. ;-)