Huguenot

I run a hosting business. Because I get calls at all hours and all places, from customers who cock things up, I store most of the 100-odd business sites passwords on my crackberry under restricted access. Last Thursday, after a long (non-boozy) lunch and an extended taxi drive with the rain lashing down, I legged if from the car into the house, had a quick trip to the loo and settled down back to work. About 5pm the wife called to ask who on earth I'd been talking to all afternoon as the phone was constantly engaged. I cast around for it, but surprise surprise it wasn't there. I turned the house upside down but no sign. I rang it but still the peep peep peep thing. I must have left the bloody thing in the taxi, because despite the driver claiming not to have seen it, I did use it in the taxi. I nearly parped myself: if the 'new owner' of the phone (be it taxi driver or the next passenger) could hack the code to use it, then they also had the knowledge how to crack the password protection. Consequently they would undoubtedly realise the worth of these passwords. That was massive. I was going to be sick. In a state of almost pathological terror I had to thrash through all the domains changing all of the passwords. It took me from 5pm to the small hours and then again from 7am the next morning. I had to notify all my clients, whilst bullshitting about this being standard practice and putting up with the abuse I suffered as a result. I even forgot one of the passwords I changed, but clearly believed this to be down to a hacker attack, parped myself again, and threw myself back at the task with even more hysterical vigour. Finally at 5pm I got a call from one of my mates to have a beer. Having reached a state of nervous exhaustion, and done everything I could to protect my buisness, I finally agreed and decided to have a quick poo and join him. After 24 hours of hell I collapsed ingloriously onto the porcelain throne, pushing the door closed to stop the dog staring at me. There, underneath the door itself, in that gap between the bottom of the door and the floor, perfectly fitting the width of the wood, was my phone. There's no signal in the downstairs lav.

I don't think that it's particularly big step from believing that natural tragedies are an Act of God, to assuming that something must have pissed him off. I had a Palstinian girlfriend albeit briefly - she simply couldn't not compute that I didn't believe in God. She didn't quibble in religious debate, her God was very 'human', very powerful and highly vengeful. She was a bit of a wet blanket as it happened.

I can't quite put my finger on what HAL9000's getting at. He seems to object to the 'surveillance' (a deliberately military term) in this case because it's made work for him refuting allegations, i.e. because occasionally the surveillance gets it wrong. However, there's only two alternatives: either more traffic wardens (that people hate, also make mistakes, and are very expensive) or no enforcement of traffic regulations. I can't believe that HAL9000's advocating the former, so he must be advocating that latter. If you're not going to enforce, then there's no point in having the regulations. So is HAL9000 suggesting that there should be no regulation at all, that regulation should be optional based on the driver's opinion of their need, or just no regulation for him? ;-)

Ha ha Women getting uppity...? Punch 'em in the face Unemployed...? Punch 'em in the face Disabled...? Punch 'em in the face Kids not working hard enough...? Punch 'em in the face Someone looking at you funny...? Punch 'em in the face Banker...? Punch 'em in the face In my way...? Punch 'em in the face Murderer...? Punch 'em in the face Terrorist...? Punch 'em in the face Judge...? Me Jury...? Me Executioner...? Me Evidence...? What I say Someone disagree...? Punch 'em in the face

I love Milo's blart about "what people do when they're hiding their real motivations" What exactly do you think their disguised agenda really is?? How silly. My belief in property rights can be found in this useful summary: "The fundamental purpose of property rights, and their fundamental accomplishment, is that they eliminate destructive competition for control of economic resources. Well-defined and well-protected property rights replace competition by violence with competition by peaceful means." I can confirm to you that I have absolutely no other agenda (for those that requested, have I explained myslef now? Even if I haven't I never actually said I would, unlike the manipulative and menacing GGT). What squatters do, whether they realise it or not (and judging by GGT's grammatical incompetence probably not) is play their little bit of turning society into a destructive, violent place devoid of social responsibility - where might is right. That's why they're a gang (a team), and their posts are laced with implied violence (or their euphemism of 'uncooperative force'). No-one else posts on here as a 'team', the GGT do because they're trying to intimidate. They're already metaphorically punching the rest of society in the face, so why stop there? I not only think that's retarded, but by extension then if they are rejecting society, they are not entitled to be a part of it, or entitled to use its laws to defend their 'rights'. If you'd like a concise clarification of what a property 'right' is, it's not getting up in the morning with a hangover and stealing someone's house: "A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used, whether that resource is owned by government or by individuals. Society approves the uses selected by the holder of the property right with governmental administered force and with social ostracism. Private property rights have two other attributes in addition to determining the use of a resource. One is the exclusive right to the services of the resource. [The otheris ] the right to delegate, rent, or sell any portion of the rights by exchange or gift at whatever price the owner determines (provided someone is willing to pay that price). " What these prattish squatters are doing is suffering 'ostracism', and for good reason. If you want to destroy society, then don't expect it to welcome you with open arms.

PeterJohn, I think you're confusing a 'principle' argument like universal provision with a practical argument 'why should I pay for this?' Another way to think about it is to compare your essentially Marxist approach: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" with more modern liberalist thinking: "from each according to his responsibilities, to each according to their rights" Your argument seems to be that some parents are stupid (erm... what? so I have to pay for their stupidity?) and some people are borderline (erm... that't the thing about borders); therefore the kids have a need. Your surpirse is that you think people don't recognise the 'need' However, I don't think anyone would challenge the 'need', I think people are challenging the 'responsibility' - is it the taxpayer? You've got a lot of people out there deliberately doing the washing up badly. Your average joe doesn't think the appropriate solution is for the taxpayer to hire a maid. People don't want to pay for the kids of people richer than them simply because they give their kids crap food. At some point these parents have to take responsibility. Everyone's tightening their belts, and you want to throw poor people's money at rich kids because their parents are stupid. Vote loser. On the combined services front, you're simply not thinking long term. For all the abuse 'business' gets, it often thinks long term. For example, a good business doesn't often go for the cheaper 'all in one' offering that delivers economies of scale, mainly because it reduces competition. This year you cut costs, next year you have a monopoly, no competition, costs rise and services suffer. For that reason a good business spreads its bets. If Lambeth and Southwark pool resources to cut costs, that's good socialist thinking, but rubbish business and we all pay in the long term. Besides, the inevitable conclusion of economic integrations is political integration - and I think that many people don't welcome the idea of living under a vast bueaurcracy known as Lambewark.

I thought that was a splendid summary reggie, let's hear it for honesty. I'm surprised by the number of twerps who actually think these 'squatters' are anything but freeloaders. Regards the squatters, I don't think that saying 'woo woo we've explained ourselves' means you've explained yourself at all. There's only one thing you've actually said that could claim to be a fact - that you're students. You also lied about being legal, because secretly you know you targeted the house and jiggled it a bit - forced entry. When people make assumptions, it's because you've left an absolute vacuum. If you'd like to create an air of mystery (like a sixteen year old sporting a unicorn t-shirt in a pub being mysterious to attract women) then fine. But don't pretend you've explained yourself.

"This will be our last post on the forum because we don't want too take part in the predictability of the EDF any longer." That's a great one! It's like a kid stamping off because they can't have it all their own way. Yay, you go girl! The 'law' as you put it is 600 years old, and designed to address property posession when established records were few and far between. It was essentially to stop feudal Lords from putting the peasants off their land on trumped up claims. Think Sheriff of Nottingham bullying the serfs and you're in the right place. It's sustained into the modern age to prevent oligarchs destablising society by confiscating large tracts of vital housing. It wasn't designed to allow freeloading students not pay the same bills everyone else has to. You're not white knights fighting the good fight. You've got technology and dongles and beer and fags, you just don't want to pay your way. So you've stolen a house. To paraphrase Monty Python... you're not the messiah, you're a very naughty boy.

Ratty, old chap, you're posting on here because you have a great deal of support. You can't wim 'em all.

I do enjoy arguing with MM :) I just think it's consistently wrong: greater local charity is called patrony! You have to rely on your local wealthy bloke to bail you out, it's feudal! "Oooh Guv'nor *tips hat*" Tax and business is just not honest either. My business size is defined by 'customer reach' and 'demand' and the inertia of employment strategies (nothing to do with government taxes, just finding and training the right person). Reduce my tax bill and I won't build my business, I'll just stick it in the bank and pay myself a dividend. So that may be small business - but big business for the last few years has been a net tax beneficiary - the government is paying them to keep the wheels of employment turning!!!

So far as I know, Ratty's been working in favour of the local homeless population for many years. I can appreciate that he would be aggrieved if his works were thwarted by freeloaders.

I just don't think there's any evidence that what MM says is true. I think HK is a poor example. Government (not regulation) has shrunk there because they've had their democratic rights curtailed. The apotheosis of libertarian thinking re. low subsidies and low regulation can be found in failed East African states amongst the robber barons in their SUVs and the starving population driven to savage acts of self-defence. I realise I'm exaggerating to the point of absurdity - but what it proves is that 'libertarians' actually do want some regulation, just not all of it. Mainly they want to keep the regulation which suits them. The interesting thing is that the 'regulations' MM picks are a combination of lowered business regulation (which increases the wealth of the already wealthy) and lowered social regulation (which reduces the rights of the less fortunate). Aside from that, MM contradicts himself. He claims he wants simpler regulation, but actually in practice he requires more complex ones. My example of this is the 'Pen Knives' thread, where MM criticises a catch-all knife legislation of 3 inches (which is 'simple'). He says there should be exceptions - which makes the law more complicated, not simpler. Unless he was proposing that there should be no knife law at all, which would be just crazy.

There's some good free ones knocking about, but they seem to be in Javascript. I'm not sure the forum has Javascript turned on?

So someone's bought this house and by the sounds of it needs to do substantial renovation. In the few weeks since purchase, when they're probably organising finance and builders, a crew of 'students' (yeah, right) have rocked up, changed the locks and started to talk about rights and veiled threats about 'force' and 'reluctance' to move. They're no better than Somali pirates.

No jenny1840, I still don't think you're getting it. In the thread on the ED Issues page James Barber is actually doing his job. He invites people to keep him informed of issues as and when they arise and then attempts to deal with them with various levels of success. Try reading it if you're still not clear - it's about lamposts and parking and swimming baths. He's not the only one doing their job on those pages - Station Manager Barry Jones also does part of his job the same way. The other candidates are actually campaigning. Campaigning goes in the Drawing Room. Your BBC comparison is inappropriate. In the EDF all campaigners have equivalence in the Drawing Room, in much the same way as the BBC offers equal coverage to the main candidates. However, Gordon Brown doesn't stop being Prime Minister during the election - he still gets on with his job, and James Barber must be allowed to get on with his. I sincerely hope that the winning councillors will continue with this very successful engagement strategy. They will be afforded the same opportunity.

That's hardcore!! :))

Only teasing MM, hence the winkey, the article was also in the Daily Mail. I don't really see how you could shape a law that isn't a catch-all unless you specifically added an exclusion for 'disabled caravanners'. Then you'd have a load of muppets in Mile End asking the CPS to prove that they're not disabled caravanners. We have to rely on common sense. As for this situation, I'll be betting that there's more to it than meets the eye. Unlike felt-tip, I'm not willing to use this ridiculous story to damn all police.

It wasn't a Labour Councillor (you're still repeating the error), it was a Labour candidate. The only service they could offer is 'vote for me'. I'm sure if a Labour councillor wanted to engage with the local community they'd be very welcome to the East Dulwich Issues section. The rules have been applied to all candidates so far as I can tell. You may have noticed that this thread is also entitled 'candidate for MP' and it's in the Drawing Room. Smily face with a tired and disappointed look slightly shaking it's head. ;-)

I reckon there's far more to this that meets the eye. The problem with law is that it must by nature be arbitrary. Hence if you set in place a law for knife-wielding extortionists, it can equally be applied to caravanners. So we end up applying it with a heavy dose of common sense. Unlike many readers of the Telegraph I'm not prepared to assume that we had a perfect storm of idiotic police and magistrates. I think it's much more likely that there was something else going down and this proved an appropriate warning shot. Now. That aside. I've looked at this in coverage across the web, and it's almost uniformly conflated with highly politicised statements about Labour hating people and 'nanny' state - even though Labour clearly have no direct control over the police or judiciary on an incident by incident basis. So bearing all that in mind, I've come to the conclusion that there's probably a heavy dose of bullshit in this, and it's probably Tory electioneering, and that's probably why Mamora Man was the OP. ;-)

I don't want to seem picky, but I do take umbrage at the idea there is an 'ever increasing tax burden'. As a share of the economy, the tax bill has rise from 37.1% to 39.1% in the last 15 years, so it has gone up. Agreed. Not an awful lot though. Certainly not 'an ever increasing tax burden'. Technically maybe, but not as implied. However, under the Tories we had buckets under leaking roofs in schools, and people dying in hospital corridors. There's a perfectly reasonable case to say that Tory taxation policy is so poor it buggers up public services, whereas recent tax policy is funding these services more appropriately. Why don't Tories just come clean? They're rich, and they don't want to support public services because they go private to stay away from the proles.

Hmph. Yes and no. If you consume more calaories than you burn, you get fat. If you consume less than you burn, you get thin. Genetics can predispose your body to turn excess calories into fat quicker, but doesn't negate the basic equation. Fat people are fat because they overeat and don't get enough exercise. Interestingly, just 'thinking' can burn a lot of calories, so there might be case for suggesting that being heavily overweight also implies you're daft! ;-) Quite literally. I guess whether it's sexy or not is subjective. There are plenty of places in the world where our Miss England chubster would be seen as underweight in the wife-choosing game.

Ha ha jenny1840! I think your quest for a 'new kind of politics' should start at home - and ruling out gossip and smear would be a fine place to start. I noticed on another thread you accused the forum of being run be a political party. Quite simply an unfounded lie. Your reference to 'projects in East Dulwich' is quite simply a strategy to create conflict in our communities. Don't get yourself a rep for that! ;-) Council expenditure is limited by the tax contributions of local citizenry, not all of whom share your agenda. This means that not everything can be funded. Budgets get prioritised and the Livesey didn't make the cut, bad luck indeed - but also honest, democratic and transparent. The reasons for the withdrawal of budget of the Livesey were fully documented, and subjected to a vote at council. The budgets were redistributed to other higher priority projects, not champagne and caviar.

Hee hee. I love crazy squatter logic: "if we have the property for a few months before being approached by the owners, we would be [more] reluctant to give up the house" I can almost see your eyes crossing as you say it ;-) So, I can just take my neighbour's car can I, if they don't drive it enough? And if they haven't driven it for a while then it's really mine? Anyway, come on mate, 'reluctant to give up the house'? By saying that you already accept the house isn't yours. What you're really doing is taking it with threats of violence. If you think you can use euphemisms and they're clever coz you can't prove nuffink, you must take us all for idiots. If that were true, it wouldn't make us the idiots.

I understand that they do. There is an assumption made that squatters are reasonable.

Divergent mainly means they don't agree with each other. There's no bias. The local councillor is a public service, but every time the poor fellow gets political he gets bodged into the Drawing Room.. He does clearly have an advantge from being the incumbent, but that's a default position from providing local services. It's a double edged sword, because he also gets to carry the disappointment. I don't think it's necessary to challenge the situation, because I think it's being run well.