Huguenot

Assured Gimme. But if we assume that the first time you visit a house the probability of a plane free day was 30% - or 0.3, then the probability of two plane free days is 0.3 * 0.3 = 0.09 or one in eleven. After 7 iterations (visits) you end up with one in 2,350 (well, not quite, I improved the odds to one in 0.33 because of your original one third assertion). This is so unlikely you'd have to assume that the Estate Agent was only taking people to houses on plane-free days. To do this they must either know the weather in advance (which the Met Office doesn't seem to do) or they make the bookings on the day itself after checking the wind. If it's the latter they must guage their business assuming that they only do business just over one day a week, even though their business is mostly on Saturdays - so maybe only one Saturday every few months. As I said, it doesn't make sense.

I appreciate that the proximity of giggirl's post and my train of thought read as a direct challenge. I didn't think about it that way, it was simply a logical progression. I apologise for the 'liar' inference, it wasn't intended, it wasn't alleged, and swearing at me doesn't help. I recognise the desire to make this a 'people issue'. However, it's just chemistry this one. Conservation of energy in chemical form. A denial of this basic premise is a refutation of clinical evidence and even the basic recognition that if you let go of an apple it falls. If in spite of this you want to go with the 'people angle' go ahead. On that basis you can believe anything you like.

This is the 2006 Canadian Medical Association... "Within the context of environmental, social and genetic factors, at the simplest level obesity results from long-term positive energy balance ? the interaction of energy intake and energy expenditure. "With progressive improvements in the standard of living in developed and developing countries, overnutrition and sedentary lifestyle have supplanted physical labour and regular physical activity, which has resulted in positive energy balance and overweight." In other words fat people are fat because they overeat and don't get enough exercise.

I'm only ignoring your ranting and abuse giggirl, it's all "I knew a little girl who had a little curl...". Whoosh, duck's back and all that. I'm most certainly not an expert. I wasn't aware I said I was? I don't think you're telling big fat lies, and to be honest I wasn't even talking about you. You and your personal story were not in my mind when I posted. Your story had simply reminded me about something else. These days we tend to interchange Prince Charlie's 'One thinks that one knows' with 'You think that you know'. It leaves a lot of scope for the paranoid to think it's all about them. Your story reminded me about the countless studies I've read about the contradictions in fat people's diets between reported and actual consumption. That document was a modern one, the reference to the 70s was that belief in hocus pocus of chubbiness was dismantled by the medical profession 30 years ago. You didn't read that either, because you didn't want to. Your story also contradicted the first law of thermodynamics. The fact remains that fat people are fat because they consume more energy than they expend. That's it. In loose parlance they eat too much and they don't exercise enough. It's flippant, it's a joke. It's also true. To be honest giggirl, I don't think you care. I think you're focusing all your problems on me. That's okay, I'm a big boy. I'm not sure it'll make you happy though.

Sorry danielgriffiths, no need to be resentful, I didn't call you a liar. I said what you were saying made no sense - nonsense. Let's say I'm wrong. I'm more than happy to apologise if I've missed your point. Can you clarify your point? You say you visited your house 6 or 7 times and there were no planes? (I should add that if planes land from the West, they take off over the East, and take-off is noisy too) You say you lived a few streets away and there were no planes? You now say that planes 'use your roof' to line up their approach (I haven't heard of this in a recent flight manual, and grey London often meant that I couldn't even see ED when flying overhead. You must have one BIG unique roof!)? It seems like you're saying that you were swindled by Estate Agents who (despite incredible odds of 1 in 2,350) took you there all seven times when there were no planes, and that now the airlines are pursuing a vendetta? That sounds like no sense to me. Can you be absolutely clear in what you're saying happened? That way I won't need to make incorrect assumptions?

I should add that the article only states a tendency, and in no way implies that giggirl is mistaken regarding her diet. It's seems entirely plausible that there are people out there who are a living refutation of the first law of thermodynamics.

Just to illustrate the point isn't just uneducated and mine alone, this is from the British Medical Journal: "Obesity exhibits both genetic and familial associations, suggesting an element of individual susceptibility that interacts with adverse environmental conditions to cause extreme weight gain. "There has been a tendency for aetiological research to focus on possible metabolic defects which might explain why particular individuals are unable to regulate energy balance. For instance, in the 1970s the perception that obese people ate less than their lean counterpart triggered massive research investment into an abortive search for an energy sparing defect - the "Doctor, it's my metabolism" syndrome. "Such investigations have now largely been abandoned since it is clear that obese people tend to provide biased diet records and habitually eat far more than they claim, thus eliminating the initial basis of the hypothesis. Many similar investigative trails could be cited. This emphasis on research into metabolic susceptibility persists and was exemplified most recently by intense public interest in a genetic cause for obesity following the sequencing of an "obesity gene" from ob/ob mice." In other words, fat people tell tall stories about their diet.

You didn't read my post giggirl, and calling me names doesn't change the facts. I didn't say that eating more would make you gain weight. In fact I'll even quote my post so we're all clear: "Eating too many calories doesn't necessarily make you fat, but you can't get fat without eating too many calories." Neither at any point did I recommend that you should eat less. You made that bit up. It is entirely possible that you put your body into famine mode with your ridiculous diet. In doing so you increased the efficiency of your digestive system. Let's quote me again: "It is true that some people have more efficient digestive systems than others." It simply meant that you were taking more calories out of the food you ingested, rather than letting it pass through you. Either way, there's no way you could ingest 800 calories a day over a sustained period and get fat unless you were burning fewer than 800. Were you perhaps lethargic and sluggish? I also pointed out that there are secondary dietary issues that could influence calorie uptake. Here's me again with an example: "Uptake of protein influences the way you process carbohydrates, so the mix of your diet can influence how quickly you get fat." I think you'll agree that those points allow for the condition you put yourself in, despite your somewhat hypersensitive and perhaps overhasty response. I suspect that in your self-indulgent foam flecked delirium you've identified some personal slight that simply didn't exist. Getting fat is what happens when your body ingests more calories than it consumes. You cannot do this unless the calories are there in the first place. It really is simple giggirl. I've read both of my posts on this, and there doesn't see to be anything more I need to say. You are of course perfectly entitled to go off on one again over some perceived slight, but forgive me if I politely ignore you ;-)

danielgriffiths making a sound play for the 'absolute nonsense' award there... "When ever we were shown around the house that we were to buy there were no planes flying overhead... No one mentioned it. We saw the house 6 or 7 times before we moved in and got quite a shock" The planes go every 2 minutes, and the estate agents don't have the schedule. If you didn't hear it, it was because you didn't notice it. Nobody stitched you up. I have quite bad tinnitus. People ask me how I cope, and I point out that because I don't get angry with it, or obsessed by it, my brain edits it out. The result is that rather than hearing a high pitched squeal, I'm simply 'mentally' deaf at those frequencies. Same thing used to happen with planes. In Worcester it was Starlings, in Bali it's Cicadas. Here in Singapore I've got this moronic hooting bird. There is no way that ED is worse than Fulham. It's the same planes and they're lower by the time they reach Fulham. Sometimes planes can wake you early in the morning, especially when it's cold and there's a high pressure zone overhead. If you have even reasonable windows it's not enough to kill you, or even to raise your blood pressure. If you have a problem with planes in ED you're probably better off seeing a psychologist about anger management.

I'm afraid that despite your convictions, it's chemistry: not old wives tales. I'm not a fat Nazi, I'm just trying to explain the systems. A 'calorie' is a unit of energy. You need energy to make your body work. It can be found in food as chemical energy, and can be stored in your body for easy access as chemical energy - as fat, or muscle or a few other ways. We store energy as fat to get us through quiet times on the hunter gatherer circuit. When you do anything - think, move, breathe - we turn this stored chemical energy into other forms: heat or movement. In other words you 'burn fat'. Being a heavy thinker can burn fat almost as quickly as having a jog. Your brain turns over and your head gets hot. You cannot get fat unless you put the calories in. Unless you photosynthesise or ingest chemicals through your skin (both of which are technically plausible but unlikely) you cannot get fat without eating. Eating too many calories doesn't necessarily make you fat, but you can't get fat without eating too many calories. That's it. It is true that some people have more efficient digestive systems than others. Some people can eat loads and stay slim, some people take on calories quicker. However, the calories must be there in the first place. Uptake of protein influences the way you process carbohydrates, so the mix of your diet can influence how quickly you get fat. However, the simple fact is that you can only get fat through ingestion of calories. You may think you stopped eating and still got fat. It's simply not what happened. Your memory is faulty (not necessarily in a bad way, I forget things all the time). As for exercise, it burns chemical energy stored within your body. Dependent upon the type of exercise it may burn fat stores or other stored energy (such as muscle), or just blood sugars. Either way the only source for these calories is food. If you're fat you take in more calories than you need and don't burn them through exercise. Simple. I appreciate that some people may eat compulsively. Other people do the same with drink, cigarettes or heroin. If you make up stories about this you may justify yourself psychologically, but you're quite simply wrong.

I've been irritated by the lack of input. 15,000 occasional visitors. Not worth weeing on apparently.

Newly democratic countries don't use ID either. They use semi-permanent blue finger paint. It's a little impractical, because losing parties tend to try and stop people voting, so a blue finger can sometimes be the mark of death.

Rat poison and steak. Just make sure you buy household brands a few days apart and from different non-local shops. Alternatively there's usually something to copy in CSI.

I think going to war will completely change your perception of right and wrong. That's why armies are so hot on discipline. I think the US armed forces confuse ill-discipline with motivation.

Couldn't you have take the jeans off?

I agree with Legalbeagle's assertion that women have an interest in government: "family matters - child trust fund? Government funded childcare? State school system/national curriculum? No fault divorce? Child support agency? Maternity rights? Paternity rights? Flexible working legislation?" What I disagree with is that most people have got a clue about each party's stance on these. There's a general feeling that Conservative is low tax, low benefits, and Labour is the opposite. There's an air of consternation about 'what makes it better?', but I think most people's interests are closer to home: 'Can I get a job, can I pay the mortgage, can I go on holiday this year?'. I don't think there's any difference between men and women on this. I think men in general prefer to take a position because it demonstrates 'leadership' qualities, and then defend it right or wrong because that demonstrates 'strength' and 'commitment'. These are aspirational masculine traits. 'Leaders' apparently make their mind up early. I think women in general probably prefer to be seen as more 'conciliatory' and 'open minded', and that means appearing to be listening by taking a fluid stance. I also think that's genetic. There will be exceptions because that's how standard deviation works. Legalbeagle may well be an outlier. Either way, despite appearances I think most people have made their mind up gradually over the last ten years, and in the end they'll revert to type. The only variation is if there's a game changer like the Lib Dems, and that's why the other parties are working so hard to destroy confidence.

On a similar note I see that Lloyds has gone back into profit, netting the taxpayer a cool profit on their investment. It has proven its long term strength. As will the Euro, as will Greece and Portugal. Yet the bankers were doing a run on Lloyds because they were looking for short term gains and didn't care if the bank was essentially sound and that slaughtering it would destroy the lives of millions of people. They did it to the financial system, now they're doing it to nation states. Those loan repayments that have skyrocketed are the Greek debt - they're what the new 'loans' are paying off. The money is going straight from European taxpayers to bankers simply because the bankers want more.

I don't dispute the challenges, I dispute your assertion that this is the end of the road for the Euro. Greece represents 2% of the GDP of the Eurozone, not 30%! I'm confused by your gloating. I'm also confused by your confidence that this somehow makes England clever - the pound is in a far more shocking state that the Euro, and Britain has suffered more from recession that any other G8 nation. The UK economy contracted for six consecutive quarters (that's quarter on quarter, not from the start point), the worst anyone else managed was three. There is absolutely no doubt that Britain would have been far better off in the Euro than out over the last four years. If Portugal gets in trouble that will be because the bankers had a go at that too. It should be illegal to bet against your investments.

I notice the first to downgrade Greece were Goldman Sachs. Leopards, spots. What's the chance they deliberately attacked Greece after investing client money because they'd make a ton?

I think JAMESF is making it up, odds anyone? Quids, you always take a bet?

Despite being an anti-car monster, I agree with HAL9000. There is fundamentally no point to an average speed penalty in a built up area.

It it a sad sad disaster, that the very same banks who tried to do a number on British people with Northern Rock have been allowed to do a number on Greece. They defaulted because the money markets did a dirty on them, and inflated their cost of borrowing to the point they couldn't pay. It's called loan sharking. The banks destroy people. The only thing they rely on is the fact that they hope people hate the Greeks. I don't. I know a scum bag, and it ain't the Greeks.

Interesting economic data on this debate (of which VoteEnglish is not worthy, but still) 'Gross Value Added per Capita' is a measurement of productivity. It's the difference of what comes out of a region economically, compared with the resources it consumes: (this figure is the amount of value added annually in pounds per person) 1 Greater London, Eng 26 192 2 South East England 21 514 3 East of England 19 599 4 Scotland 17 789 5 South West England 17 467 6 East Midlands, England 16 982 7 West Midlands, England 16 583 8 North West England 16 234 9 Yorkshire / Humber, Eng 15 968 10 North East England 15 177 11 Northern Ireland 15 175 12 Wales 14 396 This would appear that before we think about kicking Scotland out, we'd be far better off kicking the West, the Midlands and the North out....

Except that voting against your conscience is the best way of ensuring that you'll have to continue voting against your conscience for a very long time... Tories have no intention of addressing inconsistencies in the voting system.

Point taken Brendan. In most nations supporting ID cards you're issued with your ID registration at birth and legal immigrants on entry. The ID is needed to to register for employment, to pay tax, and to reap social benefits. Currently (i.e. before ID cars are isssued) UK Police can detain someone until their identity is proven if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime taking place. I can see police being suspicious that you're an illegal immigrant if you refuse to show an ID card, and hence have neither been born, worked, paid taxed or claimed welfare. However, I can't imagine that's practical, so I assume that it will only be a benefits card for a considerable amount of time.