Huguenot

Nah, he was just looking for an excuse to have a go. He thinks that if he's 'protecting' someone else then it gives him a white card. He doesn't think you're big enough to look after yourself, and he doesn't realise that the thought itself is condescending and patronising. He doesn't understand why people find him dislikeable, and doesn't have the imagination to see his behaviour as others would seee it. Just part of the silly grievance he has against the world in general for not showing him enough love ;-)

:)) Are you going to leave that up long enough for me to respond?

Ha ha Axeman. :)) There's a great scene in 'American Psycho' where Patrick Bateman flexes his bicep in the mirror whilst having sex, before pointing at himself in faux adulation. It illustrates in one timeless moment the shallow pointless delusion of his life. He hides himself behind vacuous cartoon representations of masculinity. He has to admire himself, because he is so worthless and self-centred that he attracts no admiration from others. He elevates himself above other people with a boastful petulance that precisely exposes his essential failure, he cannot accept that he is the architect of his own misery. He attracts both disgust and pity in equal measure. http://singlarity.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/patrick.jpg?w=300&h=363

What a pillock, he's deleted those now.

Oh possibly. But there is significant mileage in Alan's inability to deal with his own past postings. A head doctor would have a field day. I read once that sociopaths show a consistent problem with looking in the loo after they've had a number 2. Apparently they can't accept 'this is wot I haz dun'. There's nothing particularly pooey about Alan Dale's past postings, he just consistently made pronouncements that were consequently proved to be foolish. Most of us have a chuckle and scratch our armpits, seeing both the humour in our ambition and rueing our misled convictions. Not Alan Dale. Alan Dale pretends it never fecking happened. IT NEVER FECKING HAPPENED RIGHT. FECKING PROVE IT. YOU CAN'T FECKING FIND IT. FECKING PROVE IT. I NEVER FECKING SAID THAT. IF YOU CAN'T FECKING FIND IT I NEVER FECKING SAID IT RIGHT. I'M FECKING RIGHT I SAID. If Alan Dale wasn't such a tragedy I might even have a chuckle. ;-)

:)) I think those with ambition to give us all a better future would argue that your views make you part of the challenge northlonder - a combination of cyncism and obstinacy with a smattering of denial. There are many ways to make Lordship Lane more attractive and successful to shopkeepers. One solution may be to make it appeal less to those that jam nearby streets with traffic and parked cars for small price convenience purchases, and appeal more to those who stay longer and spend more, who like pedestrian friendly areas with good bicycle parking and bus access. In ten years time we won't be able to afford petrol for all these short convenience trips anyway, and the people and businesses who are first to recognise that will be the first to benefit.

Well, there are plenty of pedestrianized town centers that thrive, so I don't know that through traffic is the only indicator of how successful a commercial area will be per se. I guess you need other forms of access, and other ways of promoting it. A cafe culture and safe pedestrian area might be just then thing to attract new customers?

Well I didn't think it was a question that was relevant to my view and I didn't want to cloud the issue. My point was about the impact of protective parenting on a child, from the perspective of the child. Had I made a point about the motivations and perspective of the parent, it would be quite right to ask me upon what experience I was drawing those conclusions. If you would like to make a point about the pressures of parenting, I will be sure if I comment upon it I'll furnish you with my credentials as a parent to support the view. :)

"the majority of low wage immigration has been from Eastern Europe" "the result was c1m Eastern Europeans moving to the UK in a period of about 12 months" Although that I can't corroborate that assertion, since overall population changes were a fraction of that then people were flooding out too? Can you demonstrate that UK citizens moving to Europe weren't low wage earners? Students perhaps? Pensioners? Bar workers? Nightclub hostesses? Labourers? Pregnant women getting better health treatment in France? Perhaps it's just the perfectly reasonable free movement of labour that works both ways? Is that what you're out to stop? Perhaps they were leaving the UK to avoid the self-destructive attitude of smug British xenophobes who will bring the country to its knees rather than welcome a 'foreigner'. Are your definitions of immigration starting to change? Perhaps if these were 'outside' your previous definition of 'immigration', then perhaps there are millions of UK citizens moving to Europe who are outside your 'emigration' figures? I'm disgusted by the thought that people would stop me working abroad because they can't be bothered to deal with their own prejudice against foreigners. If you wonder why I'm so incensed by little englanders, it's because their prejudices would attempt to destroy the lives of open minded and outward bound UK citizens who wish to increase their life experiences around the world and benefit the economies of their home nation. There's an awful lot of moving the goalposts here when certain elements discuss immigration - which only does more to make me believe that those involved in pushing through a closed door policy have hidden agendas. Perhaps the next target is the EC? It seems, possibly incorrectly, that these people willing to distort the figures consistently in order to pursue an agenda that is essentially xenophobic, and that they don't care what they destroy on the way.

"the majority of low wage immigration has been from Eastern Europe" "the result was c1m Eastern Europeans moving to the UK in a period of about 12 months" Although that I can't corroborate that assertion, since overall population changes were a fraction of that then people were flooding out too? Can you demonstrate that UK citizens moving to Europe weren't low wage earners? Students perhaps? Pensioners? Bar workers? Nightclub hostesses? Labourers? Pregnant women getting better health treatment in France? Perhaps it's just the perfectly reasonable free movement of labour that works both ways? Is that what you're out to stop? Perhaps they were leaving the UK to avoid the self-destructive attitude of smug British xenophobes who will bring the country to its knees rather than welcome a 'foreigner'. Are your definitions of immigration starting to change? Perhaps if these were 'outside' your previous definition of 'immigration', then perhaps there are millions of UK citizens moving to Europe who are outside your 'emigration' figures? I'm disgusted by the thought that people would stop me working abroad because they can't be bothered to deal with their own prejudice against foreigners. If you wonder why I'm so incensed by little englanders, it's because their prejudices would attempt to destroy the lives of open minded and outward bound UK citizens who wish to increase their life experiences around the world and benefit the economies of their home nation. There's an awful lot of moving the goalposts here when certain elements discuss immigration - which only does more to make me believe that those involved in pushing through a closed door policy have hidden agendas. Perhaps the next target is the EC? It seems, possibly incorrectly, that these people willing to distort the figures consistently in order to pursue an agenda that is essentially xenophobic, and that they don't care what they destroy on the way.

I think that we both agree that Climbie and Baby P both needed desperate help that they didn't receive, and so do many others. An immigration system that is uncapped for footballers but prevents the appointment of well qualified social workers is flawed. Immigration has never been uncapped, the low waged immigrants you describe are mostly derived from asylum seekers or illegals. The reason for both of these has little to do with immigration legislation, but to do with either international trade, social responsibility or an ineffectual security apparatus. Options like the national ID card that may start to address the issues with illegals are fiercely opposed by the very people that complain about illegal immigrants.

I'm not trying to cast aspersions on your parenting skills Narnia, I'm sorry you took it as such. I was just reviewing my personal experiences. I was a fiercely independent middle child. My younger sister on the other hand was much more sensitive, and from an early age was very much over-protected. With my pop as a headmaster in the state system, and mom a head of department in the private sector she was also subject to internal family wrangling on anything and everything to do with education. I was compelled to change university course myself and 'disappear' for 18 months abroad when I realized I was effectively trying to meet other people's demands. My parent's separation just as my sister went to uni compounded all of these issues. With both parents trying to prove their value, my sister was very much the victim in the situation I describe above. I wonder frequently if the consequences of that don't continue to manifest themselves to the present day.

If a 23 year old single lad living at home is turning down jobs at over 20 grand a year (100 quid per day) because they're better off on benefits I'd be looking to reduce benefits before I cut immigration. Immigration would drop because available jobs were taken by locals, without resorting to border control tactics more closely ascribed to xenophobia than economic benefit. If you don't think social workers are 'desperately' needed than either you don't know people working in the business, don't read newspapers, or don't think Victoria Climbie or Baby P needed 'desperate' help.

I do think huncamunca's overcooked the argument slightly, and consequently created a conflict that needn't arise. The shopkeepers should be absolutely committed to the profitability of their shop - it's a reflection of their ability to respond to the needs of the local citizenry. A profitable shop is a good shop. The challenge arises because shopkeepers don't actually know the number of their customers who arrive by car. It's understandable they may have convictions, because shopkeepers often need cars to commute to their shop, and also to arrange deliveries. However, the evidence is that as a consequence shopkeepers vastly overestimate the numbers of customers who arrive by car, and that they overlook the benefits that can be reaped from investing further in providing facilities to pedestrian shoppers. If the association of LL traders wanted to do one genius thing, it would be to organise a study of customers as they left their shops and find out how they arrived, how much they spent, and how far away they came from. Exerpience elsewhere tells us that they may be in for some massive surprises, and that they may want to invest in a more pedestrian friendly environment. To fail in this study would really be to demonstrate that they don't actually care about the profitability of their shops, and that they are by definition poor shopkeepers...

I remember the first weeks at Uni, and one of the things I do remember was that a few guys had a lot of atttention from their family whilst they were trying to find their footing. The irony was that rather than proving supportive, it often cause exquisite embarrassment and had a completely unintended side-effect of damaging their social development. I think it may be wise to hold back for the moment. Sometimes parents want to be there for their kids as a way of communicating their love and support. Psychiatrists find that the effect is quite the opposite - it actually has an adverse effect on the child's confidence and self-esteem. It's almost as if the parents are sending an unconscious message to the child that they are incapable and incompetent of looking after themselves (this may be reflected in your desire to teach him how to complain). In the highly sensitive environment of a university Fresher term, it may also communicate your doubts to their acquaintances - and this may put them off developing mutual friendship. It creates a vicious circle, because it sets up the child's expectations of failure, which undermines success, and prompts the parents to commit even more attention. The recommended approach is to offer quality listening time and positive reinforcement but to delay intervention as much as is reasonable. I've attached an interesting questionnaire used by teams investigating this phenomenon, and the belief of the researchers is that 'optimal' parenting delivers high 'care' but low 'protection'. It's possible that your correspondence across the senior levels at the university is an unmitigated disaster for little-Narnia... Have a look through the questionnaire, and see if it has relevance?

I don't think you read Sean's links Magpie. The employers are quite clear that locals are turning down jobs paying ?70 to ?100 a day because they simply cannot be bothered to work. This reality is overlooked by anti-immigration campaigners because it's not convenient, it's easier to lay the blame at the feet of those with a different language or skin colour because they can't defend themselves. We have a substantial minority of work-shy ingrates in the UK who would do better to look in the mirror to find the source of their problem. No one would disagree that sensible migration is the end goal. The question is how we define sensible migration. Many would question why footballer immigration is uncapped, and we are prevented from employing desperately needed social workers. Much unskilled legal migration may be those seeking asylum from torture or abuse under other regimes. We do this for many reasons - not least that it reinforces our political position on the world stage when we are negotiating trading rights or access to critical resources. Many critics argue that the 'UK is not a charity' to which the only response is 'Of course we're not a charity, we're doing it for a self interest which is undreamt of in your philosophy.' We also undoubtedly suffer from illegal immigration, in the same way that we suffer from burglaries or benefit fraud. Our ability to deal with this as a nation is limited by the populations willingness to be taxed to pay for increased security. We could 'ban foreign students' but in doing so would damage an incalculable benefit in international trading relations that is reaped from greater international understanding and contact. It has about as much sense as banning Magpie from his car because of a drunk driver in Middlesbrough.

I though it was because you're a flasher...

Or else they do jobs that locals won't do, even at high salaries: "Coventry City Council complained that it was prevented from recruiting seven social workers from the US and Canada, while one south-east council wanting 11 social workers from Canada was told by the UK Border Agency that it could have five work permits, including any needed for existing overseas staff." "The interim cap and proposed future limits on economic migration to the UK from outside of the EU are already and will continue to have an extremely damaging impact on local authorities' ability to care for and protect vulnerable children, young people and their families." You simply can't persuade me that people were moving across from North America to be paid berries and mirrors. The fact is that the reputation of social work in the UK has been destroyed by tabloid hysteria and mob frenzy. Thank the heavens we have immigrants to care for us and our children, eh? Immigration is all about balance, you can't have the good stuff without experiencing the odd not-so-good side. In balance, intelligent well informed people recognise that the the overall result is better than a closed door policy.

And more importantly, what do people think the outcome of this 'new' history would have been? Can I just remind people that firstly most people most places in the world are perfectly friendly, and have less 'anti-someone else' thinking than the average resident of Beckenham. Secondly, where it can be found, the majority of anti-western thinking elsewhere in the world has little to do with the Iraqi war and mostly to do with the ongoing economic rape of their resources. Chinese people don't like it when westerners tell them they have to live in the dark and the cold so that a pasty faced fat bastard can drive an SUV.

I don't think that you can argue that one action 'prevents' another until the same situation has repeated itself so many times that the probability of cause leading to effect is 100%. The unfolding of history is an uncontrolled experiment. We'll never know what 'might' have happened. However, here's one option. As an alternative to a military war that Saddam knew he was likely to lose, he concentrated on an economic war, investing heavily in driving up prices from the oil fields of the Middle East and Venezuela. Coupled with the inevitable collapse of the sub-prime housing market, the double whammy with high oil prices resulted in a collapse so sudden and precipitate that it exceeded the ability of western governments to control it through quantitative easing. Russia saw it's chance and started cutting off gas supplies to Western Europe on the basis of unpaid bills - an argument it uses frequently with Eastern European client states. Under the shadow of dried up power stations and street riots that were killing hundreds every night, the West embarked on a War for Oil in the middle east that, because of its swiftness, couldn't be so easily covered up as a compassionate liberation. The lack of political compromise drew both Russia and China onto the opposite sides into a fireballing conflict in the Middle East and.....

Nah, s/he's Buddhist. I can't believe that s/he is up to speed on other forum activity, it's not exactly a brand name to covet! :D

I'm Jewish.

Incidentally on the subject of a 'flood', net UK immigration is just over 100,000 a year. In a population of 65,000,000 this is just over 0.1% - or the equivalent of a single drop of water on a table top. Whatever your definition of 'flood' a single drop of water on a table top wouldn't be it. Hence there doesn't 'appear' to be a 'flood' at all. However, if you think there's a flood it's most likely because you've got your eyes screwed shut and your fingers in your ears. There's nothing anyone can do to help you through this mania. Like small children worried about the monster in the cupboard, sometimes you need to just grow up.

gas?tro?lith noun \ˈgas-trə-ˌlith\ Definition: a stone or pebble ingested by an animal and functioning to grind food in gastric digestion

The cost of the bath depends upon the seasonal temperature, the type of water heating system you're using, along with the depth and the temperature of the bathwater itself. It's easier to think of it as around a pound. However the opportunity benefit of drowning passing wallies in it may outweigh the costs...