Huguenot

Sue you can't expect people to come and kneel at your door. If you want to know what's going on in your community, go to the Community Council, that's what it's there for. If you can't be bothered to go or obtain the minutes then whingeing is ridiculous.

It's fairly safe to say that if the shoplifter sued that they would also open themselves up to prosecution for shoplifting. If they haven't sued then it's a pretty good guess that they're worried about being found guilty. The comment about putting signs up saying 'rapist' is as usual completely facile, as is the comment that a shopkeeper can put anything in the window. Why are people trying to win arguments about something that didn't happen? I mean, are you grown adults or school kids?

Where are you viewing the forum from? Often photos are located on other servers like flickr or picasa that are blocked by IT Nazis at work. Try viewing at home. Is it all photos you can't see, or just some?

All seems pretty reasonable to me. We have laws about offensive language in public that apply equally to drunks in front of Co-op as they do to stallholders at family events. We may regret it if we repeal them. I'm guessing this is another bullshit story that will reveal that the stallholders had several polite requests to remove the items, played some stupid games thinking they could get one over the police, and then got their just deserts. The only failure in the law is the inability to challenge FCUK, but I can see that we'd get ourselves in trouble if we started to prosecute people who were sporting emblems that were sort of a bit like swear words.

I think Cameron thinks he is diverting the cash, except he also thinks he's introducing an element of choice by making payment a question of local patronage rather than the administration of central taxation. His Big Society vision doesn't really cover essential services like rubbish collection and dog poo, it covers things that he doesn't think government should be involved in like charitable outreach. He believes that anonymous central taxation and administration is creating inefficiency in services that the local community doesn't really want to pay for anyway.

BTW I'm frankly incredulous that someone wants to argue that our political system is better than someone else's because we had an empire that indentured half the world into slavery. As any idiot would know, we didn't have universal suffrage during the imperial phase. At that point leadership was considered both a genetic imperative and the birthright of the oldest male.

It seems to me that Loz and Piersy are making consummate sense, that DC is willing to cut his nose off to spite his face, and that silverfox is struggling to get his head around any logical argument... It seems to me that if your views on politics are polarized, tribal and divisive then FPTP will seem the only logical approach on that basis that it's better to win or lose disgracefully with your principles and ego intact. If your views are that it would be better to compromise and find a middle ground, with political leadership that reflects the median point (look it up silverfox) of the electorate, be it a little left or a little right, that AV is the right way to go. Proportional representation isn't on the table, thanks to the current FPTP system, so there's no point discussing it. If you'd like to discuss PR the only way to start is with a parliament elected through AV. There is no doubt that the current system favors destructive self-righteousness over compromise. I find that a desire to sustain that position on a point of principle to be staggeringly bereft of vision.

Yeah, peterstorm is being a bit impractical. To hire a car from ED the closest good value offering was Thrifty at London Bridge, and a minimum was a day. It entailed paperwork and passports along with a big credit card gap for the deposit. For a trip to Bluewater that was silly. Streetcar had 5 cars in the area and I could book online at what was then a fiver an hour, with no additional cost for petrol. I could book online through a simple interface, make a 2 min walk, wave my membership card at the windscreen and I was off. There is no doubt that some people need a car for the daily drive to work or managing a large family. There is also no doubt that for some car ownership is a rite of passage to adulthood, an indulgence, a material representation of freedom, a demonstration of personal wealth, a fanny magnet, two fingers to an oppressive society, a political affiliation to libertarianism, an affiliation with a social tribe, a social weapon ("I'm better than you"), a psychological crutch and much more. The challenge for car clubs is that their target market for customers all fall into the latter group. The problem is that car club arguments are all logical and rational (along practical lines), when their target market are into car ownership for irrational and often emotional reasons. I disagree with the OP that this is the wrong place for market research. It will reveal the underlying social tensions that surround car ownership and perhaps, if they are astute enough, highlight the strategy to advance the cause. Addressing these issues involves subtle messages that car ownership is environmental rape, that competing with your neighbors is less advantageous than collaborating, that girls should be attracted to boys with a social conscience, that car ownership is a handicap not a liberation, that achievers speak softly, and that ostentatious displays of wealth are a sign of weakness not strength. It remains to be seen whether car clubs have the guts and leadership qualities to hammer these messages home, or whether they find themselves anxiously wringing their hands in the corner wondering why no-one else is sharing the love. The OP's apologetic semi-withdrawal from the debate suggests s/he falls into the latter category. To which I can only recommend that they 'man-up' and roll with the punches until they are prepared to take a stand.

Distress and humiliation caused by kidnap, false imprisonment, assault and threatening behviour. Not distress and humiliation caused by putting his photo in a shop window saying 'wanted for shoplifting'. My position here is based on degree. If people want to claim that kidnap, false imprisonment, assault and threatening behaviour has equivalence with a photo in a shop window then there really isn't much further to go with this one.

I can see that Loz, but I can't think of any way of rephrasing the law on knife carrying that wouldn't let teenage thugs get away with it. Hence we use 'good reason' and have to trust to the sense of the police and the courts, which may occasionally go awry. In fact there was more to the Rodney Knowles story than met the eye. The Mail deliberately couches it to ridicule the police, calling it a 'penknife', however 'assault weapon' may be a more reasonable description. In fact it was Buck Whittaker lock knife. In the UK this knife is completely illegal, regardless of 'good reason' for having it in your posession. Here's the knife in question: http://i.thisis.co.uk/275580/article/images/2183657/1581400-vlarge.gif Secondly, the police had pulled him over because in the pub he'd just left he had threatened to use the knife on someone. The police got a call from the landlord after Knowles departed, warning them that he had been theatening violence with the weapon and was potentially drink driving. The first breath test found Knowles over the drink drive limit, and by the time he had taken a blood test later the levels had dropped. Knowles then made the decision to plead guilty to all the charges, knowing that as a result the truth of the event would not reach open court, and the public realise what a violent thug he was. I have to say that in the light of the 'truth' the police and the judiciary come through with flying colours.

You guys are being ridiculous, this case is nothing like the shoplifting poster case. This guy didn't receive his damages for being called a thief on a poster, he recieved them for suffering kidnap, false imprisonment, assault and threatening behviour. I positively agree that vigilantism is wrong - I simply refuse to accept that putting a poster in a shop window trying to indentify miscreants is vigilantism. I think the insitence that shoplifting posters are the thin end of a wedge that ends up in an armed outlaw paramilitary militia roaming the streets implementing kangaroo courts and capital punishment is silly hyperbole.

Irishman strolls onto a building site asking after work. "Hmmm" says the foreman, scratching his chin "Can you tell me the difference between a girder and a joist?" "To be sure" comes the response "Goethe he wrote Faust, and Joyce he wrote Ulysses"

You've rather disproved your own point Scribe, by poiting out that Cleese didn't find himself arrested. You demostrate quite clearly that the police are not disconnected with reality, and they are clearly not "too eager to accommodate this petty, unrealistic attitude" The fact is that the law often cannot differentiate in technicalities between lawful and unlawful behviour. Take knife carrying for example (it's allowed for 'good reason') - a teenager carrying one on a Friday night will be differently interpreted to one returning from Ikea with a bundle of shopping. The law however is just the same in both situations. My own view is that some of the despicable behaviour of football fans covers the full range from ugly (if it's just a misplaced 'joke' from a barely evolved baboon trying to impress his mates) all the way to criminal if it's designed to provoke violent conflict in the lead up to a football tie. You'll forgive me, I hope, for not considering this to be petty or unrealistic. I'm not at all offended either.

I think you're probably being too demanding Loz. The whole premise of the law is subjective - guilt is defined by being beyond 'reasonable' doubt. It's completely open to interpretation. Personally I'm inclined to think that this an example of the law working well. An in-yer-face malicious glee in the personal tragedies of others is socially unacceptable. The fact that it's a twat at a football ground doesn't excuse it. It's only disappointing that the law can't impose a penalty of public humiliation and shame.

Not being dense at all. People often confuse GIS with satellite location systems, remember that these have quite wide margins of error and then wonder about their accuracy. However GIS is a more of a catch-all term for all the different ways the geography of an area can be measured. In that sense, when a worker rocks up and measures the road with a tape they're actually contributing to the GIS. They're not two different things. For the most part, modern GIS systems are populated using photographs. Certain distances on the photograph will be measured very accurately, and then the information for surrounding areas calculated from comparing the locations in the photograph. In general it's regarded as very accurate.

Again, to put things in perspective... Around 21,000 ships cross this particular stretch of water every year, and only 49 were pirated last year. Whilst even 1 kidnapped victim is a tragedy, there is evidence that someone's doing a pretty good job!

Alas Annette, I fear DJKQ plumbs for the other side ;-)

Loz: "A lot of it is being caused by the weakness of the pound, world food costs and energy prices, rather the economy bubbling over. I think a rise is unlikely." I think that's spot on, however a raise in interest rates would strengthen the pound and reduce food and energy costs as a proportion of individual income, helping out the 'renting' (as opposed to mortgaged) classes. Except, it would make exports more expensive to foreign markets, reducing demands on British industry, leading to job cuts that would disproportionately hurt the low skilled 'renting' classes. etc. etc. Not easy to govern financial policy...

I think it's a sign that the current methods are reaching the end of their useful life. It's not a sign that mankind is out of control. We'd be out of control if we didn't recognise the problem and create a groundswell of educated political influence that enables us to resolve them. Probably start by putting down the Daily Mail and picking up something more sensible.

Oh thank heavens for that - someone who knows what the alternative is... What is the alternative that you've all come to London to show?

Well, with a debt to GDP ration of around 200%, anything you could do to help them out, Brenda, would most likely be well received.

Besides, the Japan Economic Miracle ended a least two decades ago, since when its been a basket case. All thoe oriental brands you see now are Korean, Chinese or Taiwanese - they often copy Japanese names to try and gain credibility.

I think that's a misunderstanding of the Japanese 'miracle'. Japan was a heavily funded vassal state of the US used as an economic weapon against Europe and a staging post against communism. The US strong armed Japan into GATT (predecessor to World Trade Organisation) despite European protests against Japanesd policies explicitly targeted at flooding export markets whilst protecting their own. Japan didn't have to 'abandon its military', its military was the United States. The only difference was the US called the shots so long as Japan would do as it was told. Whilst investment by the US into Japan in the 50s amounted to more than a quarter of it's GDP, the UK was placed under massive financial penalties in order to pay back US involvement in the war in Europe. The US explicity positioned itself to control world trade through domination of global trade routes like Panama (with the Monroe doctrine) and Suez (through undermining British influence). No-one else was looking after British interests - certainly not the US. Post war France had been disarmed by the Germans, Germany had been disarmed by the Allies and Russia, and the UK was de facto responsible for holding up the European side of NATO. As a consequence the UK controls what is largely viewed as the second most powerful armed forces in the world. High UK armed spending is simply a legacy of these situations. Sudden unilateral disarmament leaves a massive power vacuum guaranteed to cause more problems for the UK than disarmament could possibly save. Nobody likes a war, and nor do I - but it is a benefit to see things in a historical perspective.

No problem there with rewriting history to suit your purposes he Barry?

The UK controls 3.5% of the world economy with only 0.8% of its population. We're a nation that's utterly reliant on the resources of the rest of the world to fund this lifestyle. This includes the coltan from the warzones of the Congo without which we'd need to give up our mobile phones, the oil from Iraq or West Africa. If we want to get less involved, be prepared for an enormous climb down in lifestyle and living standards. There will be plenty more resource wars to come.