Huguenot

Why would someone pay ten quid more on eBay than in Boots? I've racked my brains, but the only conclusion I find plausible is thst the buyer is mentally ill. Any better ideas?

Ah, I kind of liked that idea. Many thanks Oliver for your considered response. The provincial thing was only a dig you know ;-) Now, about that business plan....

Lol :)) I think if you ask the question 'what can I see from here' and look in more than one direction, you'll always find yourself in the middle.

Is it just me, or does Barber come across as an insightful hardworking rational councillor, and these Labour guys come across as priggish deceitful prep-school blow-ins? For me the straw was the point about agencies and consultants - it's far wiser to have street cleaners only working when the streets need cleaning. But the Labour team's casuistry would have us believe it's a load of suits snorting coke. Shame on you. And seconded Quids point about point scoring - this thread is about local issues that need solutions, not about running up to the window and throwing a poo at it.

The number wouldn't be as important as the percentage. Labour have a majority after all. The BC isn't exactly meritocratic is it? That photo feels like staring into a cuntaquarium and having some moronic carp pull a double-barreled shotgun on you.

BTW, did anyone else notice Oliver ducking out there when he was exposed for being a draft-dodger? University of real-life mate, go on, have a go ;-)

Lousiana has merely highlighted scenarios that are as easy to apply to paper records as digital. Get a grip first mate. I can't even believe that it's Lousiana who's saying this. She's a campaigner for freedom of the internet, against digital rights management, and is pro freedom of information. Now she's coming across like a petty control type. Out of character, or inconsistent, or both. It makes a point about the medical industry, but is absolutely no reason for being 'out' of digital. Any progression is necessarily a cost/benefit calculation. What we've got here is plenty of people wanking out 'cost' arguments, and as with the luddites, many of them are half-baked. What you don't see is productivity, efficiency, money saved (your tax), better treatments, more informed staff and lives saved. Idiotic. When I worked for the Torygraph in '97 (yes '97) we were the only paper that didn't do computers. I wrote out request forms for everything in quadruplicate. I had a secretarial pool for my department that had more people in it than the 'front-line' staff. They typed out each form I gave them in quadruplicate. I was the laughing stock of my peer group. Morons, morons.

Sure Loz. Different time, different location, different results. Sowing confusion or undermining the data is practised by many interest groups. I've been fortunate never to have been hit by a car. I do know that I'd prefer to be hit by one at 20 rather than 30, and if it's going 20, I probably won't be hit by a car. My neighbour that I grew up with was hit by a car when we were 16. He's dead. I can't believe how righteous people get about cars. Face it, you didn't even invent it or make it. It's a fecking gift from someone else. Make use of it and concede it with good grace. People talk about conspiracies, but the biggest conspiracy is the 'public interest'.

*hangs head in shame* That aside, I tell you, this treatment is the absolute dogs nuts. I'm wondering whether anyone would like to get together in a group and discuss it? We could meet regularly. People who bring acquaintances could obtain knowledge stars, to demonstrate that they're insightful. I've got a great book, with pictures and everything. As a published author, you need no greater evidence that I know what I'm talking about.

PeckhamRose in danger of Godwinning this thread ;-) For the uninitiated that means exaggerating an argument until it becomes ludicrous, most pertinently in comparing unrelated legislation to the Nazis.

?? What should any party line be on school bullies... 'we don't like it and we'd like it to stop'? You can't expect a local council to renovate our cultural history. Steveo's approach to communication is pretty weird. How many people do you think you'd reach in a library, and how much info do you think you'd deliver with ten words on a poster? T'interweb is a runaway achievement in terms of 'cost of reach' (a technical term for how many people you reach per pound). There is a significant irony in that Steveo's on a website communicating his opinion ;-) I'd be inclined to dump any other communication in favour of the web. The only thing that infuriates me about council and political papers is how patronising they are.

No guys, I don't agree that property is theft - I just point out that there's a highly plausible argument to sustain that conviction. As a consequence any other proposal is a compromise, and it ought to be a fair one. My 'fair' proposal is that property rights should be governed by investment (and I'm not so childish to think that investment is a cash proposal). Investment comes down to cultivation and enhancement. The Falklands have a weak history of political affiliation, so the argument about the rights to return on investment are all the stronger. Hence we confer the rights to self-determination on the population, and they vote to be Brits. If we don't then sustain their right to self-determination, we're in danger of letting the entire social contract (what makes us a nation) collapse. The reality is that we didn't fight the Falklands war for the Falklands, we fought it for Birmingham and Norwich

The first Telegraph quote is silly billy. It's not new debt creation, it's simply reviewing and sustaining existing debt. The banks fookin love it, they only complain to drive up the interest. Magpie's assertions on poor countries getting their just deserts for governance is weak. Rich corporations (nor governments) exploit and sustain bad governance against the wishes of the electorate because multi-million pay-offs to a coterie of narcissists is cheaper than paying off a nation. Shambolic, magpie, go to the back of the class.

Thanks Oliver, I noted the unusual coyness on your background and did a little googling. It appears from the results that you were the membership chap for the Labour students at Oxford a vouple of years ago, that you've made pitches for a couple of elected roles including Oxford City Council (where you got 216 votes according to Wiki) and somewhere up north, and that you now work for a political PR firm / lobbyist / business outreach program. In fact, to quote directly... "In [our] pioneering political work, we manage candidates, leaders, and parties as brands. With this foundation, PSB developed a hybrid political-corporate approach using research to build the type of corporate image equity that provides market lift in good times and inoculation in times of crisis." Is that fair, or have I found the wrong Oliver Kempton? If it is true, then would that suggest then that the Southwark role is merely an urban stepping stone for an ambitious provincial twenty-something looking for a fast-track to power? Like I say, the world has changed and information is more freely available - best not be coy, make your attributes strengths. ;-)

BTW, having just read through the report, the conclusion of the committee was that homepathy claims are fraudulent and practitioners practise deception.

As a long term practitioner and participant, I'd like funding for my new treatment that involves breathing a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide and various trace gases. There are various documented quantum nano effects that trials have demonstrated prove effective in healthcare. It has been comprehensively demonstrated that ALL patients who showed improvement over time breathed in this mixture, and that all patients who ceased taking it DIED. This is because poisons have been dissolved in it, and then diluted until they have a negligible effect. I offer various services including access to this treatment, and trained practitioners, all of whom paid for training and know charge their patients for services. I take a commission on these treatments. This insight clearly requires time and funds from the public purse to rethink itself, perform research and deliver grounded answers. It's survived to this day because of widespread consumer support. Consumers do not need to be intelligent or scientific to know that this is making them better. In the absence of evidence based science, people will believe in any product including leeches and burning witches.

That's an interesting one there Nashoi! It would be an interesting position to take if it's true. Logically if you don't intend to trade with a neighbour then you don't need any political affiliations at all. I guess you could have a defence pact independent of trade affiliations, but I can't see why your neighbour wouldn't want to protect you if they get no trade benefits. Any Greens reading?

Ho ho. On what basis do any people have rights to any territory? Most people have been alive less than a hundred years. If you don't get sent to jail because your Dad was a bad boy, why should you get land just because he ploughed it?

And back to... free trade can't act without legislation, legislation can't work without political convergence. These all require common european institutions. All of these require a stable social environment within which to function. The CAP is part of this and is under reform, having dropped from 90%+ of EU spend to just over 50%. The net annual outlay by the UK for these benefits is around $4bn, the estimated benefits is $146bn in GDP and 1.5 million jobs. Mainly magpie, you're proposing that you want it both ways. That's just not plausible.

It's alright SteveT, you don't need to believe me, it wasn't my idea. People have been working for years to keep traffic moving smoothly despite ungrateful self-indulgent drivers trying to feck it all up for everyone else. I sought out their opinion. The changing lights system is used in the UK outside of London. You've probably worked it out, but you can't just turn a light green when SteveT approaches - there might be a car coming the other way ;-) The traffic light system in London is integrated - you can't turn lights on demand because activity at one junction has an impact on activity at the next.

As I think I covered earlier, the net annual benefits from the EU could be calculated conservatively at +$146bn in GDP and +1.5m jobs. It could be considered that what you're proposing is cutting off your nose to spite your face. When I was paying tax in the UK I was certainly paying much more into the system than others who were driving the same roads, enjoying the same education, health and welfare state. I even took public transport everywhere and was scorned for it. Myself and other people do this because the net social benefits far outweigh the disparity in contributions. In fact the last time everyone paid equally, we had the poll tax riots. The last time we had poll tax riots in Europe we had WW2. Europe works.

I like shared space too - I think we'd need lower speed limits first.

Of course we opt out of laws we don't like - the UK shares top spot in the EU with four opt outs: currency, border controls, fundamental rights and police & judicial cooperation. You could quite clearly argue that the UK is the country that's taking the biggest advantage of the EU by taking advantage of other state compromises whilst conceding fewer itself. The UK's not only different, it's more indulgent! And you reckon we're hard done by!! *shakes head*

Fair comment Jeremy, the link time calculation isn't guesswork - however there is no consistent figure as every junction and route works differently. Traffic scientists measure it in test scenarios, and the key point is that it is significantly shorter than in a 30mph zone. The final point is about CO2 and pollution. Altough engines are less efficient at 20 mph rather than 30mph, they spend less time idling at junctions and less time accelerating hard to the desired speed. This means that in practice there is no significant difference in CO2 output between 30 mph or 20 mph in an urban scenario.

No, at 3 mph the link time would be 60mins and the junction time still around 5 to 10 mins, hence total journey time would be around 70 mins. Quite a bit slower. The optimum speed is around 20 mph - that's why it's being recommended. The irony, Silverfritz, is that you'd love it even more because it reduces the requirement for traffic lights. Traffic lights tend to be forced upon junctions where the time taken to approach a junction at 30 mph is less than the visible distance of oncoming traffic. Lower the speeds and fewer junctions need traffic lights - meaning even less time rapping your fingers giving way to non-existent traffic coming the other way. It's ALL win for you Silverfunk.