Huguenot

Milo, all that is possible, but I believe that needs to be addressed through democratic government and social provision, not by helping yourself to someone else's house. Even violent gangstas have a hard luck story, doesn't give them the right to be a violent gangsta.

Quite right Jeremy, my bad. I was unclear.

Sorry Milo, goosegreenteam said the following: "We will have to see how we are approached by the owners, if they are forcefull and agressive then we will be less reluctant to cooperate." I think a 'reluctance to cooperate' with someone who is being 'forceful' is a euphemism for being up for a bit of aggro. You may not think so, and I can't prove it - but I rather think it's a euphemism. As I said, it's implied. I also simply don't believe the front door was left swinging open for passersby to move in. I think there was probably a bit of jiggling, a bit of pushing and a bit of teasing - all with the intent of claiming the door was left open so it can be claimed that no breaking and entering took place. I can't prove it, it's just an opinion. Rather than 'my interpretation' of society, I kind of think these chaps have decided that it's all about what they want, haven't they? They don't like, or don't want to apply or don't qualify for social housing, and they don't want to live at home with Mum and Dad, so they've just helped themselves to someone else's house. As it happens I agree that housing shouldn't be left vacant, that the poor and needy should be supported, but we have systems and processes agreed by democratic government. That's our society. Not mine.

Sorry Milo, I was unclear. The 'law' is 'society's self-imposed regulations'. We create the law for ourselves through a democratically elected parliament. What I'm saying is that squatters reject the law when they occupy someone else's property, but then they want the law to protect them when they're going to be kicked out. To me that's mendacious. If these guys feel they want to live outside society then fine, we'll debate it, but you can't go crying to courts because you then want society's protection. The other thing about the goosegreenteam is that they've already implied they're up for a bit of aggro if things don't go their way. That's like stealing my telly and telling me, whilst polishing a flick knife, that it'll all be fine unless I try and get it back . I mean, it's probably far more likely that these guys simply chose to spend their money on fags and booze instead of rent, the rest of it is smoke and mirrors.

I actually said quite the opposite if you read it katie1997, I said I wouldn't send it because I didn't think he needed it and I thought he may abuse the trust. Maybe I'm cynical, but there are plenty of people on this forum who complain about government waste, I do hope Rockets hasn't ever been in the category! 160 quid for a fence panel is in that box. I did however offer to buy PGC her fags, and she politely turned me down.

Well that's a good point Oliver, I don't think James is being entirely fair if he just pokes at your vision without revealing his own....

I think the idea can be revisited because the vehicles are effectively unsold but tradeable commercial goods. It's thoroughly against the law to use the public highway for commercial storage. I'd like to see the same law being used to get rid of estate agents' fanny wagons.

What prejudices? What am I prejudging? I only have the information you've given us, I didn't think about it beforehand at all. You've got a dented fence, it's not the end of the world. Five year-olds could do worse. It was dented by a policeman looking after your best interests. Treat it as 'one of those things' instead of trying to get them to buy you a Lamborghini as a replacement for your scratched bike. Have you no relations / neighbours who could give you a hand?If I were local I'd come round and do it for you. Community sprirted, that's me. As it happens I am a bit of a fence meister. It's not the fence that's pricey, it's the labour. I wasn't angry Rockets, just a bit aghast.

It does seem to me that there's an inconsistency in squatters claiming 'rights'. By occupying a vacant property that belongs to someone else without their permission you are effectively rejecting society's self-imposed regulations, and yet in claiming defensive legal rights you're trying to hold them up as a standard. This strikes me as picking and choosing the laws that you fancy. It's manipulative, deceitful and frankly a rip-off. I agree with Brendan that housing should be high up on the list of obligations, but we have a government for that and need to use the systems we create, not just take what we want. I think we'd all agree that that's not the best idea? Otherwise I'll have your telly please. Incidentally (and just teasing) do squatters also reject the regulations of grammar and spelling? What are these guys studying? How do they coherently communicate their learning?

I think all your points are pretty good PR. More than that, there's a proven scientific case. I just think there has to be a threshold of interference, and outside must be one of those. You'd be hard pushed to make a case that sitting outside pubs in the vicinity of smokers for a couple of hours twice a week ruins your health. In that case you can only talk about it being irritating, and frankly there are loads of things that I find irritating in pubs that lower the quality of my life, including other people. I don't think it's practical to ban those either. Even if you want to talk about pollution, I know that one of the many things that are fugging the skies and killing the planet are private cars. I've never suggested legsilating to ban car owners from pubs. Even then, I'd probably let them sit outside.

I think that's worth considering. You're probably too old for the health penalties to be serious, it gives you a bit of a high and you don't notice the smell if your mouth tastes just the same.

More specifically... It only takes less than ten percent of voters to move to Lib Dem, and they're in. Or, alternatively since turnout was less than 60%, a much smaller swing of existing voters, and a new gang of twenty-somethings. Swing required : 9.88% The 2005 general election: Tessa Jowell, Labour 19,059 45.4% Jonathan Mitchell, Liberal Democrat 10,252 24.4% Kim Humphreys, Conservative 9,200 21.9% Jenny Jones, Green Party 2,741 6.5% Ralph Atkinson, UK Independence Party 290 0.7% David Heather, Veritas 241 0.6% Amanda Rose, Socialist Labour 149 0.4% Judy Weleminsky, Fit Party For Integrity And Trust 57 0.1% If you want to vote Lib Dem, then vote Lib Dem, They'd be in. The only problem is that Mitchell doesn't seem to be showing his nose at the moment.

I don't think the 'none of your business' argument is valid. We enter into social agreements to share the costs of services that we all benefit from. We simply employ the tax 'authorities' to do the job on our behalf. We don't, by extension, abdicate responsibility for that task, and we shouldn't victimise the people we employ. Quite simply tax evasion is ripping us all off. It is our business. Grass 'em. If it's a poor postal service or a technicality, it'll all come out in the wash. If you can't afford to run a car, sell it. I'm 40, never owned one and never suffered as a consequence. Might not always have been totally convenient, but what is?

Agreed with most of that, but I do think that the last two [of Sean's] points aren't necessarily killers. I'd like to see Lib Dems doing an Obama: a concerted grass roots campaign aimed at the under thirties. I work in the online industry and met with the chap who ran the Democrats online campaign. I'm really struck that none of the major parties are grabbing hold of the learnings. For the Tories and Labour it's understandable that they would see youth as a threat to entrenched support, but for the Lib Dems? Those votes are theirs for the taking - engaged and 'worthy' twenty somethings driving local voters to the polls with online support could make this election for them. The UK is, like, so tired.

Damn it, I think I'm going to vote Lib Dem. I probably shouldn't be voting from afar, but hell, I'm allowed to! Crikey, Lib Dem, who would have thunk it. I bet Mockers always voted lib Dem ;-)

"Cameron loses credibility for me on the use of the word "waste" time and time again - what he is referring to is public sector salaries and real people's jobs." Totally agree Mick Mac. I though 'Dave' came across as a bullshitter. Also agree with your views on Clegg: it's easy to perform when there's no pressure and you're unlikely to be held to account. Having said that, I thought Marmora Man's views were very sound. It's about who spends the 6 billion and where, not about it disappearing. My view is that it's currently more likely to be sucked up in grand finance if it's in private hands, and more likely to keep people in work if it's in the public purse. That's only that particular 6 billion, and only at the current time BTW, not a generic view of tax and spend.

Not so omniprescient. It may be that you're foreseeing future legislation, but at the moment you'll need to check the land registry, and 99 times out of 100 it stops at the pavement. It's not always the case. If you walk down LL on the east side you'll see a clearly differentiated line between the public administered footpath and private property. On this specific debate, I'm am surprised by how effective car advertising has been - most people now associate having a car with liberty and 'rights'. Whether we're geriatric, have twenty kids or we're boy racers, having a car is a benefit conferred by the work of others. It's not a right. Currently car ownership creates significant damage to society, and whilst we'd fight this if it was a personal medical condition we bizarrely seem to talk about 'rights' as individuals when other people (like our children) will pay the tortuous price. Whilst I normally don't keep badgering on this subject, I do think that 'how can I make everyone else pay for me to have vehicle convenience that contributes to their misery' is a bit 'choice'. Drunk driving and CFC aerosols used to be seen as convenience and a 'right', but we managed to point out that glorying in the death of pedestrians and other road goers was unconscionable. I do hope that in the next decade we can communicate that car ownership sits in the same bracket.

Helga and.... Fritz? Helmut?

A few thoughts... I just can't see why people would have to buy meals for the kids of parents who are richer than they are. Why is this a pledge - has research suggested that the swing voters have a problem with feeding their kids? If you going to 'guarantee' a place at a primary school, are you planning on building more schools, employing more teachers or forcing them to take larger class sizes? What happens if the rooms physically aren't big enough? I know you're not from the area, but are you aware that the problem in ED is secondary schools? How are you going to double the recycling rate? Are you planning on making it more accessible, or introducing fines to force people to recycle? You see the pledges might make snappy reading, but it's what's behind them that actually defines policy.

;-)

I'm not sure that presenteeism, lomng hours and socialising are all-important. Those activities accrue trust, a perception of commitment and an understanding of your colleagues' approach and attitudes that benefit the company. People who want to legislate are convinced that they can acccrue or deny these benefits through legislation. Besides which, many 'European' businesses on the continent demand a culture of work engagement that will see them having dinner at home with theit work colleagues several times a week. These environments are both artificial and highly politicised.

One hundred and sixty quid for that!?! You've confirmed my prejudice! 30 quid for the panels, and 30 mins work. The reward is a police force that's confident that they can chase a burglar/rapist/violent thug without doing five days of paperwork first. I'd say that if you were so poor you needed the 30 quid I send it to you, but I'm worried you'd abuse the trust in that too!

Sorry Jezza, I was responding to an ad hominem attack from earlier in the thread. It wasn't ontopic, but hell, we're in the lounge now ;-) Disparate views on 'quoting' are of course subjective. I made the assertion to prompt a discussion, not to assume that I had the answer.

I think you're being a wee bit picky Old Yeller. Quibbling over technicalities in publicity is pretty much the definition of failing to see the wood for the trees ;-)

Clearly I'm in agreement with Mockers. To refer to earlier insinuations, I'm not sure that I misinterpret at all. I think I get it absolutely spot on most of the time. The fact that I can't 'prove' it doesn't make it any less accurate. If I consider on reflection I've got it wrong I'm happy to apologise. Moos, I note that even your entire criticism was missing a direct reference. Do I assume then that I am 'misinterpreting' and you are actually talking about someone else? Or am I in fact spot on. Again. That that was snidey insinutation and directed at me? As for aggressiveness.... well I guess that's subjective. I can only tell you that I don't feel aggressive at all. I usually shorten my posts to make them more objective. I can see that makes me appear terse, but mainly I think you're all big enough to stand up for yourselves..