Huguenot

I'm guessing that it depends whether you're looking at national averages or specific locations, or manufacturing versus services and so on. Specific locations are also subject to reclassification. Did you know that the entire global supply of Worcestershire Sauce is made by 40 people? With that as a reflection on the automation and systemisation of industrial process, I'd be inclined to predict a general downgrading of commercial property. I look forward through some New York 80's fug to the pleasure of loft living :)

Richard Tudor, what do you imagine took place, and what do you think their motivations were?

PGC yes - it's the age of the eggs. Leave 'em at least 10 days and silky quick every time.

Okay, whatever the fight you have to fight, I wish you all the strength you need! I have every conviction the forum will be here to fight it with you :)

Never forgive, never forget ;) Isn't that a line from somewhere? India is coming up soon, any India correspondents?

It's just gone 2013 in Singapore! Best wishes, health and happiness! We ALL have a wonderful year ahead :)

Oh come on computed shorty, give the guy a break!

I'm a bit torn on this - I recognize the rights of the individual not to suffer false accusation, but also recognize that one of the largest deterrents against is crime is actually the fear of being caught and shamed (not the penalty itself). It's a responsibility of a community to be largely self policing - and that means that residents should have the right to identify individuals causing concern and publicly challenge unusual behavior. Likewise those who behave unusually should recognize that it increases the chance of their being publicly challenged, they should respect this and be prepared to either defend their activity. A deliberate campaign of libel is already punishable by law, and our communities should be cohesive enough to accommodate persistent troublemakers and boys crying 'wolf'.

Just to point out the obvious - a vegetarian wouldn't pillory a lion as a 'murderer,' because they would point out that the lion can't make an educated rational judgement. It's just doing what it comes naturally. The differentiation that the vegetarian makes in that context is sufficient to demonstrate that vegetarians consider humans and animals to have different moral standing. In other words they are being inconsistent when they claim the killing of a human being has equivalence with the killing of an animal. By their own affirmation, meat CANNOT be murder, because humans CANNOT be judged the same as animals. Alternatively, if vegetarians insist that they are being consistent, then in claiming that the death of an animal has equivalence to the death of a human they are consciously REDUCING the value of a human life to that of an animal. That's a sociopathic judgement - and reinforces what I've always suspected about vegetarians (that they're secretly on a misanthropic self affirming quest to kill us all - a suspicion reinforced by the recognition that like any dangerous religion it requires self-enforced and tortuous abstinence as part of its rapacious mental discipline). ;-) BTW - I'm just having fun at the end there!

Murder is specifically killing a human being - I think even you malumbu would recognize that being unable to distinguish between a human being and a whelk is bordering on mental illness ;-)

I'm not sure, I read it a couple of years ago about legislation at that time. It would be great if anyone knows?

That seems pretty weak - to turn down a real opportunity now for private funding to create infrastructure to regenerate an almost delict inner London area, in favour of non-existent plans for the future that in any case would come a long way behind other proposed projects and ambitions for the Bakerloo and Victoria lines? It's not a dead end incidentally - it may well extend to Clapham Junction (although that would be public not private money).

Ah, no offense taken - you may be right, but there's no evidence that anything untoward is wrong here. Granite was an auto-correct :))

Sorry Southeast Twenty Stu, I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing? This development is an extension from Kennington to Battersea, it doesn't cross the river. Regarding financing, there is no potential future extension this kills off, and the development of the area signals a clear increase in future demand. From that document the exact split of the development cost between developers and existing businesses has not yet been agreed. However, it is clear that the cost is not being carried by the tax payer. The loan from the public works board replaces one from commercial banks, and as a loan it 'creates' debt at the point of exchange - it doesn't use taxpayer funds that could have been used for something else. It is, however, secured upon taxpayer revenues.

Granite, it seems fairly clear from the quote above that the council are borrowing the money to buy the holding, and the cost of servicing the debt is lower than the cost of the rent. It's also clear that since the property was abruptly put up for sale, that the council had other potential future costs to consider regarding the new owners. The building maintenance cost will have been considered as part of the arrangement - freeholders contribute significantly less in commercial property than they do in residential property, and the costs are invariably a subset of existing rental fees. I'm sure that if you want to see the entire calculation it will be available in due course through the annual report. In the meantime, why do you waste so much energy slagging off the council for hypothetical scenarios wherein there's no evidence of malpractice?

Interestingly, my impression is that if this were a private faith school, the school would be required to justify the need for faith for a particular role - i.e. a biology teacher would not require faith and hence would be subject to anti-discrimination law. If this were a state funded faith school (voluntary aided) they would not be subject to the anti-discrimination law - so the biology teacher may be required to have faith in order to keep their job. Can anyone clear this one up?

Well there you go - there's always the question about whether vegetarianism is rooted in rational value judgements.

Well I guess a lot of that is simply to do with interest isn't it? If you take a high profile morally conflicted position then people are bound to ask questions. I'd do the same if it was a Wiccan. ;-)

Possibly, everyone I've met with that look has been American, so it's likely that they didn't realize it.

Well it's kinda like sex scandals and the Tories - nobody's bothered if a liberal gets tied up in a sex scandal because they never strutted around claiming they were holier than everyone else. It's only worth talking about if it's a Tory who's spent most of their career harping on about family values. If you don't eat meat no worries, but if you start sporting your badge proudly and refuse to eat from kitchen crockery that might have been breathed on by a ham sandwich then you're setting yourself up for a fall.

They didn't put chalk in, the white was calcium from bonemeal. There's much less bonemeal in animal feed these days because of fears that nerve tissue inside bones may carry prions - the proteins thought to be behind variant Creutfeld Jacob Disease (vCJD), mad cow disease and scrapie.

Your definition of 'trickle down theory' is a confused and deliberately inflammatory interpretation of supply side economics. Supply side economics suggests that the way out of recession is to encourage investment in the creation of good and services, delivering funds directly to the consumer through the labour market. Far from delivering 'economic benefits to the wealthy', supply side economics encourages investment capital to stay in circulation by cutting taxation and delivers economic benefits directly to the labour force through additional employment. It doesn't matter whether the money is invested directly by rich people, or whether it stays in the bank - because both approaches (as I explained earlier) result in direct economic investment. An interpretation of that as 'economic benefits to the wealthy' could only be used by someone who didn't understand basic economics or wrote for the Socialist Worker. I apologize if I allocated you to the wrong segment. Why you should feel hard done by when you persist in distributing misinformation masquerading as fact is beyond me ;-)

Forgive me for pointing it out Zebedee Tring, but your entire approach to this issue has been predicated upon the idea that there is a conscious conspiracy taking place to persecute the poor. Even the premise for this thread - that the Battersea extension is using poor people's money to subsides the rich - has been proven to be wrong as the extension is privately funded. You've made several other unfounded assertions exposing a lack of grasp of basic economics. In an attempt to divert from this foolishness you're attempting to smear me as Thatcherite? It all sounds like a rather sad binary student union debate.

Not sure that anything I've said could be classed as 'making statements' Zebedee Tring, you are of course welcome to describe my observations as claptrap and let people draw their own conclusions. It might be worth you looking up the definition of subsidy through ;-)

Well, I always put a tie on to watch Match of the Day.