Huguenot

Haha, well there's fashion, and then there's Vivienne Westwood. There's a particular kind of attitude that goes with this 'look' that I don't think is so much fashion as conceited self-regard. It's unbecoming in man of substance etc.

Football and football fans are certainly different to what they were 40 years ago - but let's be honest, the whole of society has changed - I don't think you can put that down to seats! The fact that football violence can still take place with seats is really missing the point - people still get killed in car accidents, but that doesn't mean seatbelts don't work!

It's probably my age, but I can't shake off the feeling that admiring oneself in the mirror is not a characteristic a man should be proud of. The 'urban woodsman' is such a ridiculous affectation that it falls front and centre in the 'vanity' category. It's a particularly pathetic look because unlike hipsters (who consciously look vain and pretentious), woodsmen try and pass themselves off as capable and manly. Twerps. I first came across this look a couple of years ago sported by some early doors Facebook employees, and it's fair to say that they were total tw*ts.

I'm not sure there's enough information given for people to make educated judgements. One obvious example is the question whether the Mayor should do more or less events - how can someone make this calculation without knowing what the current schedule is? Unless the Mayor currently has unused time, the suggestion is that they must stop doing something they are doing now, in order to do something else instead. Likewise your point about the ?230k allocated to the office is a good one - but what's the actual allocation of this budget? Salaries, overheads, travel costs etc.? For example, if ?50k is going on a stretch limo it might not be so wisely spent. You say the role is mostly ceremonial, but there would undoubtedly be a question of what ceremonies are attended and why, and what is the benefit of the ceremony itself? For example, as a nation, our ceremonial leaders don't really play any part in our lives - so is the cost of a mayor swearing in new citizens simply a pointless bit of fakery?

neilson99 I'm not sure it's as simple as that - most people make a cost/benefit analysis when choosing how to get from A to B. When sufficient vehicles are available then traffic will simply rise to the point that traffic jams favour alternative forms of transport - for example on foot. People don't use private cars because no other alternative is available - they do it because it's convenient. In whether continued investment should be made to support ease of private car usage, I think it behoves upon government (local or national) to take a medium term view. Private car users don't. The reality is that private car users don't even carry the full cost of their choice in terms of environmental impact or global unrest cause by unequal distribution of resources, and are consequently making poor cost/benefit analyses. So no, bearing that in mind and until car owners start to pay the real price for their choices, I don't believe that government should invest any further in private car convenience whether it parking spaces or car friendly roads. BTW, introducing top speed restrictions doesn't necessarily slow cars down - often it mean average journey times are down, and hence average speeds are up.

Isn't the extension privately funded? If it is then all of your wild speculation is neither here nor there. This seems a complaint based mostly on spite - but can you imagine the hoohaa if a developer had redeveloped Battersea Power Station and NOT contributed to public transport enhancements? I'm impressed with the bizarre conclusion that rail investments are a subsidy of the rich by the poor. Do you actually believe this, or is it a religious act of faith as part of a class war dogma?

Such a lot of bizarre claptrap on this thread! I love the way that people mix and match reasonable judgement with extraordinary leaps of imagination and cause/effect speculation. On they subject of rich people 'working harder' that's obviously just a silly dig - but what rich people do is invest - either through banks at a fixed rate of return or individually at more variable rates. Anything that can incentivize them to invest personally with time money and expertise is critical, as banks are very poor investors in business (particularly SMEs). I'm extremely grateful for my own investors, as are my employees who wouldn't have jobs otherwise. That probably also includes your own jobs, so abusing these people is neither necessary nor astute.

You may not have received a direct reply because it's been dealt with publicly in previous threads. The site currently doesn't retrospectively change usernames as it creates confusion on the site if people have referred to a username which no longer exists. If you want to use a different username then simply register a new name - your old posts will remain under the previous username.

Surely it's also legitimate as part of the debate to ask why Foie Gras should be singled out? If it should transpire that eaters of Foie Gras are indeed as 'disgusting' as you say, would we still come to the same conclusion if we discover that consumers of cod and chips and tuna sandwiches are equally abhorrent? Would we be quite so loose with our attacks if we knew we were about to be hoist by our own petard? Not to get all hoity toity about it, but there's considerable moral weight in the observation that people in greenhouses shouldn't throw stones.

I'm sure Mark will find the time, but you may find it's not too complicated. Why do you want to know? I met Mark during the set up period, and it's fair to say that initially it was a small scale exercise in setting up an open source bulletin board using Phorum software. To much amusement, Mark himself was several of the initial users in late 2006, but there was probably a hardcore of around 40 to 50 individuals only for the first 6 months. So far as I know the site is still moderated by a group of voluntary, reliable and highly committed locals to a consensus opinion that manifests itself in a partially written traditionally liberal set of user guidelines. Apart from the addition of sub forums and some tweaking to get the ads working, it's not had any major changes I can recall over the last 6 years. I'm guessing that the small amount of cash generated through the 'Donate' button at the bottom and some limited advertising probably doesn't quite cover the serving and occasional administrative costs so Mark probably still pays some of this himself. If he's set it up as a charity I'd be extremely surprised!

I'm sorry DC, but that's union propaganda. Whilst unions may have helped disperse ideas, the first firm to intoduce most of those elements was Cadbury during the 1850s. They recognized that a healthy, secure, well educated workforce whose remuneration was in line with productivity was the recipe for corporate success. As one of the most successful corporations in British history this had a greater impact on business practice than the workers. Notably, Cadbury didn't have work councils until 1918 and unions until 1969. What they did have was Quaker ethical beliefs. Unions may claim to have helped negotiate improved conditions with employers, but they're rewriting history if they reckon most of those things were their ideas.

I can't see how a rail seat would be less expensive than a standard seat (probably more so as it has moving parts) so you'd need to ride roughshod over the economic argument if that was your end goal. You'd also need to understand why the presence of seats made grounds more sterile before assuming that the installation of rail seats would make it less sterile. I'm wondering how much footie fan psychology has in common with US gun enthusiasm - do nostalgic die-hard terrace purists believe a certain amount of death and serious injury is a price worth paying for being in the seat-of-your-pants excitement of an out-of-control crowd? There is no doubt that being in a big football crowd is a religious experience - the idea that your own existence has become subordinated to the mob, a transcendental out-of-body experience. Where sound has become a full body sensation, like war drums and tribal chants, or the delirious Roman Bacchanalia. The biggest mistake that modern stadium design has made may have been to forget that most people are not there to watch the football, they're there to be part of the crowd?

Lobsters have it easy compared with gill net or long line fishing, which may allow fish several days to asphyxiate or bleed to death. Even fish that get caught and released can die over 3 days as lactic acid from struggling (like when your muscles get tired after exercise) alters their metabolism and shuts down their organs. But I guess Parkdrive hasn't shared his position on these? Looking forward to hearing whether these are okay, and whether Foie Gras is the only 'disgusting' one?

Incidentally, holiday and working time rights were not the product of the unions, and it does a massive disservice to 19th century philanthropists like Lord Shaftesbury along with Quaker, Anglican and Methodist religious movements to claim they were. For the majority of rights we have today, thank the churches. That's not to say that unions have not been able to make concessions in the present day - however, at 43 days holiday on 35 hour weeks, the LU unions are getting perilously close to making demands that their members should be paid by harder working and lower salaried taxpayers for NOT working. Lost their way and lost their sympathy? Yes.

I can understand DC's desire to redress the perceived imbalance against unions on here, but a fairer way to put it would be that there needs to be a working balance between productivity and reward. The favored mantra of union supporters - that everyone would be much better off and have longer holidays if they had a union is a misapprehension. A business only survives because it can produce goods and services that meet customer expectations at a price they feel is appropriate. It's ridiculous to assume that crucifying a few 'fat cats' or having a good union negotiation is going to increase salaries or holidays and perks in any meaningful way - it simply lowers productivity or quality and drives up the price for the customer. When the price exceeds a customer's willingness to pay, they stop buying, and everyone loses their jobs. This was the reality of Britain in the 70s - a country bankrupted by the greed and avarice of the unions. The reality is that if the LU was a normal business it would have gone bankrupt years ago The LU's unions have managed to make extraordinary demands not because their union is clever, but because the LU is so important to the capital's infrastructure the government has had to subsidize it from taxpayers. The taxpayer currently funds the LU over ?300m a year. The reality is that the outcome of this round of strikes is just to take more money from taxpayers. The striking drivers are taking this cash as tax directly from the pockets of people who work more hours than them, for less money and fewer holidays with no travel perks. That's why the LU drivers have no sympathy - not because unions are great, but because this union operates outside the market realities and holds taxpayers to ransom. Public sector is a bullshit argument for union achievements.

I'm reminded of a certain direct action group who, when challenged publicly about their beliefs and methods would respond with an attack on 'the other side'. Radio interviews about their justification for terrorist atrocities would invariably start.. 'The British Government...' It sounded idiotic, and was a pointer to the essential bankruptcy of their position. They couldn't justify their approach and went onto the offensive to deflect attention. It's both naive and narcissistic in assuming both that other people will be deceived by the red herring and deterred by the bluster.

That little baby's a trimphone - 1964 to 1982, but actually designed in the 50s. The paper design to handset journey was slightly longer (about 5 years) than the 3 months it takes nowadays. The first 13 years were all rotary dial, but they were useless because the cradle was so light the phone used to twist instead of the dial. When they introduced keypads in 1977 it solved the problem, but the electronics to produce dial pulses were so clunky that they had to increase the size of the cradle and it didn't look so 'trim' any more ('trim' actually stood for 'tone ring illuminator model' and they were illuminated because they were radioactive). I grew up with the 700 series, and we knew it made us the dowdy side of the neighborhood.

I think Loz was suggesting that if you were refusing to eat Foie Gras because of the suffering of ducks and geese, that you'd need to follow that principle through to all the other animals in our food chain. If you didn't do that, then you would be simply picking and choosing what suffering you thought was okay according to your own favored foods - a practice that would undoubtedly be hypocritical. Far from saying that it didn't matter how animals were treated before consumption (which is what you're accusing him of), he was pointing out that Foie Gras was simply one item an extremely extensive list when it came to 'cruelty'. It's worth pointing out that when you get independent scientists involved in an appraisal of the treatment of ducks and geese in the creation of Foie Gras, that they can find NO evidence that this process is any MORE abusive than any of the other standard processes in breeding fowl for consumption. Before anyone does their nut over that comment, please read it again: scientists didn't say force feeding wasn't cruel, that just said that they couldn't find it was any more cruel than the rest of the insults we dish out to poultry.

Blessed are the cheesemakers

An eclectic altar indeed! Who's the Greek chap on the right - is that Dionysius?

Wrong thread MM?

Is it only geese and duck that gets you this angry PD, or are there other examples? How are you with breeding animals for their flesh in general?

Interesting use of the word 'heathen' there silverfox - it doesn't simply mean 'atheist' of course - it's used as a term to denote a class of subhuman who lacks the basic requirements of civilisation. Contextually it seems it was related to biology? In that context a teacher would be quite within their rights not to answer a question about religious beliefs simply because it was an irrelevance and a distraction from the lesson at hand. Education need a structure. Mind you, if this was an experienced teacher she'd have been used to diversionary tactics from precocious students.

I don't think that's what anyone said at all minder. What people said was that with an average salary of ?44,500 per year on a 35 hour working week and 43 days annual leave for a job they KNEW would entail working on bank holidays when they took it, there is NO justification for holding London to ransom and aggressively targeting other workers. Tube driver activity damages our economy, and anything that does that cost jobs. Given their generous existing terms and conditions, there is no public support for tube driver demands.

Ah, I've been waiting for New Nexus to arrive and trivialise the deaths of 20 innocent schoolchildren by claiming it's part of a conspiracy to prevent Americans defending themselves from the government.