Huguenot

That's genius - the Brits found it first, but didn't tell anyone and didn't write it down. As they did, also, with the undocumented moon landing of 1854

There?s an old man sitting next to me, making love to his tonic and gin. He says, "Son, can you play me a memory? I?m not really sure how it goes, but it?s sad and it?s sweet and I knew it complete when I wore a younger man?s clothes".

So far as we can tell Magpie, the Brits were third in the Falklands ;-) They did make the greatest investment though.

I like the real estate idea. You're quite right Piers, but essentially I perceive the nation state as a political rather than geographical entity. Hence if there 'was no-one there' it means that the first settlers were entitled to the right to organise themselves, cultivate and develop the land. The land becomes theirs by virtue of their right to reap the rewards of that investment rather than by its location. The fact that they may exploit it to criminal ends doesn't negate their right to the land, but does entitle their neighbours to ostracise or persecute them. Hence the Brits were very naughty and deserved the slipper, but Hong Kong is still British. That's what makes me so cross about Zionism - land of my fathers, entitlement, old book, some religions are more equal than others etc.

Sure, all good observations. I just think these things go hand in hand. You can't open up a common market without legislating for it, and standardising trading practices (straight bananas etc.). This creates regional bodies by default. A moral element to trade agreements is inevitable (I don't want to trade with Mugabe etc.), which inevitably leads to centralised political debates and integrated attitudes. In other words, once you become mutually interdependent then political union is the endgame - and the last time we were truly independent was during subsistence farming in the 9th century. Everything else - war and political debate - has simply been squirming. The practical consequence is that the high profile issues (e.g. abortion) take undue precedence when they represent a tiny percentage of the impact of european legislation. There's four nations with opt-outs, and the only reason they've got them is because they don't really matter.

We are advised that the Falklands are a floating crustal fragment of Gondwana that broke off along with Antartica with the intrusion of volcanic dykes that are still seen in the mid-Atlantic ridge. It subsequently floated off from Antartica and did a mini pirouette before dropping into a post-lunch snooze. So geologically they're a right spodge. And nothing to do with South America. Apparently.

IIRC Hong Kong Island remained the ownership of the UK in perpetuity (under the treaty of Nanking). Similar set-up - in that no fecker lived there / wanted it until the Brits built a colony, and when it proved successful everyone wanted a piece. However Kowloon and the New Territories were acquired separately (under the Convention of Peking) had to be handed back when the lease expired ('97?). Since HK Island couldn't exist without the New Territories, the UK government had to either compromise or face controlling a substantial population that would eventually starve to death. The compromise was HK's Semi-Autonomous Region status, and not a bad job at all. Good credit to Chris Patten regardless of the rest of his political convictions.

We could probably research some inspiring role models from the music industry. They'd be flush. They'd also probably need a solid track record in assaulting women who get above their station.

:))

I wonder what the qualifications of a proper judge are. (If we're really going to take this seriously and include personality as well as physique, then should we be including critical social skills - cooking, cleaning, ironing etc.? They all combine to create a fully rounded female personality) I would like to be judged by Lionel Blair and Vanessa Feltz.

I think the couples thing is reasonable isn't it? This is entertainment after all, not a public service. They need to have at least two people to create that kind of conflict dynamic that hooks viewers. I guess if you had determined headstrong teenagers it might achieve the same thing. I'm not sure about the heterosexual thing. If it's the 'ED' profile they're aiming for, then their audience isn't going to take umbrage at a gay couple. I'd even make the sweeping generalisation that homophobic people aren't necessarily going to be the core audience of flouncy middle-class home makeover shows...

It is a good example, but location is everything. It's only 20 mins from central London. Sir Peter Hall's links between the theatre and the university certainly don't hinder it, and yet they still say they need an additional 600k per year in private sponsorship. It isn't a good model for national theatre provision - it wouldn't be reasonable for a football club like Chelsea to flourish in Worcester for example - the catchment isn't there. The same applies to theatres like this one. You could argue that this project demonstrates once again that with free-market economics the (Kingston) rich would get richer and the (provincial) poor would go without.

I'm wondering why they target camper vans, and I'm thinking that a big market is that international student/gap year type who wants to do a Europe run. The thieves may be right in guessing they are unlikely to do many checks on the vans provenance. Perhaps it might be worth sticking something up on Oz/Kiwi/Saffer traveller sites?

Perhaps the house is split into two self-contained flats. The ground floor resident may be a hard of hearing popular music enthusiast with a loose grip on the hour. At around 10pm to 11pm as he gets ready for bed, his/her neighbour feels the need to draw attention to this, and needs only to leave the light on sufficiently long to illuminate the path to his neighbours door?

Well that's right, but it was the Argies who were squatting.

"And do remember we nicked it off them in the first place" Desperate Quisling words.... ;-) Apparently the French built the first settlement on these uninhabited island in 1764, and the Brits in 1766 at the other end. The Spanish helped themselves to the French colony in 1767 and burnt out the Brits and claimed sovereignty. Then they let the Brits back in for expediency's sake. The Brits disappeared a few years later as they were skint, leaving a sign saying 'Ours. Back soon'. The Spanish administered the colony from Buenos Aires unti 1811. They also left a sign saying 'Ours. Back soon' The Argies were the last to arrive, and estalished a colony in 1828. They put up a sign saying 'Ours' The Brits came back in 1833, pointed out the 'Ours. Back soon' sign, and observed that just because the Argies had broken into someone else's house, they couldn't claim it was theirs. So the islands were uninhabited, colonised by Europeans, and the Argies turned up late and occupied as an invading force for only 5 years. Conversely the Brits have been there for 200 years, and most importantly the residents voted to be British. If anyone were to claim the islands had been stolen, it would be the Spanish, and they certainly hadn't granted the islands to the Argies.

Ah right, I see. I think the simplest answer and most natural assumption to make is that they wanted kids. It's always possible they were persuaded against their wishes, but I think this would be an irrational starting position.

I don't think for one minute that the government raises taxes because they think it doesn't affect people. After all, they micromanage VAT because they believe it controls the economy. Either way, as Timster says, hating tax doesn't alter the reality of climate change.

Well I think you both make the same point. There is no hard and fast answer to the financial benefits question. The only way you could do it was to have two identical planets where everything was identical up to 1957, and then one started the moves for European integration and one didn't. The Reverend T. Blair made the pro-European estimates of 60% of GDP and 3m jobs in a speech in '99. He was subject to much criticism, but mainly on the 60% figure, not on the 3m. Civitas, the think tank, made the anti-European estimate of 10% of GDP from Euro activity, but again didn't challenge the 3m figure. At the end of the day it is quite simply immpossible to say what would have happened had the common market, the EEC and the EU not developed. As magpie suggests, maybe all the trade would have existed anyway. I simply don't think this is probable. The history of countries located on the edge of a common market is not one of economic success. Most major internationals are fiercely pro common markets for legal and financial reasons, and they simply would not have located themselves in the UK, trade tarrifs would have highly disincentivised UK trade. The same applies for legislation and policing. Critics claim they have no effect, but victims of injustice are very quick to run to the Court of Human Rights when they feel the government has stitched them up. The Court fought to prevent torture of IRA suspects in NI. Priceless, and perhaps lead directly to the political solution. It undoubtedly plays into the hands of euro-sceptics that it is easy to quantify the 'cost' of EU membership in terms of subs fees, but impossible to generate a consensus figure on benefit. What is of no doubt in my mind is that even the 'worst' case figure for financial returns as calculated by the anti-Euro brigade far exceeds the cash paid oiut.

Are their human rights being used? I should blinking hope so. That right allows them to have children howsoever they choose. Any other outcome is taking away that right from them because they're gay transgenders. The only ideology I'm expressing here is that of human rights. I can't believe you're really arguing that they shouldn't have them?

Don't ge me wrong. I'm not dissing democracy, I just disagree with government by referenda. I'm full on for political engagement, but I don't think referenda deliver this. They merely hand the government of our country to populist tabloids and the ad budgets of big business. I think it's all a bit moot. Secretly I reckon Cameron know the huge economic and political benefits the EU confers, but he also knows that an anti-Europe stance is a populist one. Hence he calls for a referendum when he can't be held to account for the drastic repercussions, and cancels it when he can.

Do you really, honestly, believe that 'human rights' are only an indulgence of 'do-gooders' 'pandering' to 'whims'? Human rights are granted by nature of being human - you can only either protect them or take them away. You are actually discussing taking away human rights from these people (because they're gay transgenders), not about do-gooders giving them. In proposing to take them away, you make them less than human - and you're suggesting this because of their sexuality. I can see that the inability to pigeon-hole this couple is a frustration, but I think it's unwise to project that frustration onto the child. The child will just see two grown-ups who care for them. The child may be subject to spiteful behaviour from others who would prefer to pigeon-hole people and bully, but kids are pretty hardy, and unlikely to suffer any more than millions of kids do for innumerable trivialities. It certainly is not sufficient to remove 'human rights' from the adults.

If you think government by mob is a good idea Quids then you're entirely welcome to your conviction. My argument on Europe is a financial one as well as a legislative one, sorry you don't like me poking fun ;-) If the cost of moving out of Europe would cost us $146bn a year and 1.5 million jobs, what are the overriding convictions that you feel are worth paying that price for? WW2 cost the lives of 450,000 UK citizens and around $1trn - $2trn in today's money. If the EU has prevented even one war then we've won many thousands of times over. You only have to recall the Balkans to see the consequence of political disintegration. To me it's just another example of people taking the benefits for granted and refusing to pay the piper.

Ah, the climate change levy for business. Just wanted to highlight that, as it doesn't apply to domestic users - so we don't want any myths circulating. It needs to be put in context. I'm guessing your overall business turnover may be 200k or more, including rates, salaries and baking ingredients etc. If that were the case, that would make the levy 0.5% of your overall turnover - or a penny on a loaf. I'd argue that a penny on a loaf is a small price to pay for climate stability, a green environment and political resolution. It would even lower your taxes by making cuts in the defence budgets needed to wage wars thousands of miles away to protect oil supplies which generate your electricity.

"Pawns in an ideological game" - isn't this what you're making them silverfox? I accused you of being nothing other than daft - you clearly suggested that the solution to bullying was the eradication of the victim. My allusion to the race debate was only to highlight the ridiculousness of this assertion. I could equally well have pursued the subject by saying that you recommend ginger people are prevented from marrying because their children would attract disparaging comments. Let's be honest, you made some unusual observations that gay people can't be good parents, that male gays are worse than femal gays, and that transgenders are the worst parents of all. You based this on zero evidence, merely naked prejudice. Yours is the ideology, other commentators have merely highlighted your misapprehension.