Huguenot

I believe we already have laws against incitement to violence, and this would certainly fall foul of them There's also social taboos - 'innocent until proven...' etc. On the former there's a legislative issue 'cross-border'. On the latter such liberalism is not really a concern of the great mass of humanity, hence all it takes for evil to prosper is good men to do nothing etc.

Just to clarify on the 60% figure... They were incorrectly charged (not issued) because the included a 1.5% credit card handling fee.

Tony, you must have choked on your cheerios. Ha! :))

Atila, I think that's hilarious. I think TLS probably didn't think your family was immigrant when he sided with your support for the market.... In his own words "EXACTLY what I was saying and surprise, surprise it comes from someone who IN PRACTICE NOT THEORY actually lived there during the halcyon days of a very vibrant market that was universally loved in South-Eaat London, then. "It IS all about the loss of traditional English Culture, in this case exemplfied by a Street Market that has existed for 100 years only 3/4 miles from the heart of Central London. " True colours indeed. Still laughing very very hard. Eyes watering :))

Well it's not strictly valid, as all of these were not only debtors, but also creditors. It's a perception trick. In isolation, each of these not only owed 100 euros but were due 100 euros, so their 'current account' was net zero euros. As a consequence of this round robin, none of them were in any different position: their account is still zero euros. A little less stressed because the credit was realised perhaps, but no better off. We're confusing 'money' with trade - money is only a transaction facilitator. The real business is the exchange of goods and services. For one individual here, a good shag had an equivalent value to half a tonne of pork: but the hooker didn't need meat (or maybe she did if you know what I mean) so the barter wouldn't work. The money concept meant that she could barter that shag 'value' for things she did want - such as a hotel room. So in effect, this tale reminds us how bloody important money is. Instability in the modern world is introduced because money is used to generate money -an intangible asset that has an imaginary value. The original barter is lost in the fog of the banking world - but in execution 10 minutes of your time in the office is worth a 'fraction' of all the people involved in the process of baking a loaf. Hence you buy it.

Am I alone in finding Italian women amongst the most beautiful on the planet, but their men worthy all too often of nothing more that an raised eyebrow?

:))

Ha!

The thing that's so blinking frustrating with your point MM is that you talk about 'belief' vs. 'rational discussion',as if you're the rational one and everyone else is dogmatic. Quite the opposite is true. The vast majority of the scientific industry has demonstrated time and again the links between human activity and the climate. Driven by your own 'small government' ideology, you cherry pick isolated lunatics to prove that not everyone agreed with the experts, which means that you're only being 'reasonable', but as a consequence you claim we should do nothing. There lies the rub - your motive is in the 'do nothing': you want to 'do nothing' because anything else would require organisation, government and a social commitment which you reject on dogmatic grounds. As a free marketeer, your position on climate change science works backwards from that. It's the scientific equivalent of hailing David Icke as your messiah.

And yet still no shag?

Science bod points out that the top is higher than the bottom, and gainsayers says 'yeah but my mate Dunk sez fugging no, and this maffs shite is just greek.... wuz a greek made my sister pregnint so maffs is shite too' The whole rejection philosophy is so close to 'no but yeah but noe'.

Sure MM, but climate change science is discussing converging data. It's a bit like a ball running down a slope, and you're arguing that you can't prove it's a slope until we hit the bottom. With all respect....

I can do the ol' live by satellite trick with skype, Moo's laptop and the Canning wifi.

Alan Dale eh? Demonstrating your infamous ability to predict the future. It's a pretty good rule of thumb (called the Alan Dale Law) that the truth of a situation is inversely proportional to Alan Dale's level of conviction. How's the property empire? Marmora Man has already said on another thread that nothing could persuade him to change his mind on the subject of climate change, which rather demonstrates his position to be an ideological one rather than educated. It seems Alan that you share the same delusional capacity, and it fits neatly with your conservative leanings. It's notable that the only people who don't believe in man made climate change are demonstrably NOT the experts.

So you're aware beardy, the purchaser was aware of the listed status at the time of purchase, and the second building meets all planning requirements. In fact the planning permission on the new property was conditional on the restoration of the concrete house. So the purchaser was highly cynical in his approach to the house, and quite deliberately let the concrete house go to rack and ruin in order to force through the building of apartments on the land. Are your views on the house specific to this building, or do you not believe in the entire listing process and/or maintenance of our cultural history? Despite your concerns about government, we don't live in a fascist state, and the delays over the compulsory purchase are entirely in line with our democratic systems, and the desire to give full opportunity to the owner to make good on the legal agreement. The owner was deliberately evasive on the subject of the repairs, claiming that things were underway, and obfuscating the issue to the point of making himself unavailable - 'gone away' - to prevent legal papers being served on him.

Singapore has the death sentence, and very little crime. But it's fair to say that the two things aren't related. The low crime is a reflection of the cultural sense of responsibility that residents have to their society. There's a huge social pressure on people to contribute the family unit, the kampong and the country. I think the drugs issue is a reflection of a breakdown in that perception on both sides. Taking recreational drugs that you have access to - in spite of the lives that a ruined on the other side of the globe as a consequence - is outrageous. It's just not funny. Users are criminals in more than just a legal sense. But to 'torture' the suspects compounds the issue - it does more damage to our society and breaks the ties that bind us together. So this 'obvious' solution achieves exactly the opposite.

*Bob*... 'growing bamboo up the anal passage'???? How the f*ck do you think up these things? You're a sick sick man. Seriously, I could never have thought of that one. Ever. :))

I've never come across any evidence of the death sentence as an effective deterrent. I remember watching a lorry load of forty something men in orange jumpsuits in Chongqing, China laughing and cheering as they zipped along in an army convoy. It transpired that they were off to be executed. I was naturally surprised by their good humour, but my local colleague explained that most of them would have been convicted of pickpocketing western tourists, and the night before would have been the best night of their life as they dined out on the the thirty-odd quid in the stolen wallets. Since they'd had such a great night out, they no longer had anything to aspire to. They were fulfilled. It's worth noting the ten happiest societies: 1. Denmark 2. Switzerland 3. Austria 4. Iceland 5. The Bahamas 6. Finland 7. Sweden 8. Bhutan 9. Brunei 10. Canada It doesn't coincide with the top 5 countries for executions: 1. China 2. Iran 3. Saudi Arabia 4. Pakistan 5. USA Those five countries accounted for 93% of the world's executions. I think the best argument against capital punishment or torture is an entirely selfish one. Perpetrating these acts against someone else poisons our own existence. I'm sure they satisfy some sort of primal rapacious instinct, but we rein in our other instinctive destructive traits in favour of a better society, so I don't see why we shouldn't continue to do that with this issue too. I can't believe that JTT is being entirely serious. We're surely not recommending that we allow the police to torture 'suspects'? JTT does demonstrate how vulnerable liberal societies are to fear. The Stasi and the death camps aren't far behind a nod and a wink to the coppers. Tragic.

Listed buildings are identified by our appointed nominees as buildings or other structures of special architectural, historical or cultural significance. The concrete house undoubtedly falls into this category as is demonstrated by the support of so many individuals on this forum. It would take a particular kind of idiot to think that their views shouldn't be taken into account, but it is understandable that 'cultural significance' would be a subjective issue. Nevertheless, once we've 'listed' a building the owner and purchaser have legal and social responsibilities to maintain our heritage. I can understand how frustrated owners would become if their property was listed whilst they were resident, but if you actually buy a house that is already listed, you do so in the fully knowledge of the responsibility you take on. If you then deliberately let the property go to ruin in order to demolish it and build a block of pre-fab battery chicken coops then you're showing a disregard for your society that calls into question your right to be a part of it. If others then support this obnoxious behaviour, then quite frankly they are contemptible.

I do sincerely feel concerned at the discrimination they've suffered, and wholeheartedly support anything which will bring them a degree of equality in Sri Lanka. However, the guys in paramilitary outfits are an outrage. The LTTE used child soldiers and male and female suicide bombers - an idea they exported to the rest of the world. The military element to the conflict was largely the brainchild of a racist megalomaniac. One of the wife's friend's family was forced to leave Sri Lanka because the father was a Tamil member of the Sri Lankan parliament. His kids were kidnapped and tortured by other Tamils who wanted the father to change his liberal strategy of conciliation into fomenting violent unrest. Really really sick terrorists.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say there, keano77? Nobody would disagree with your advice to keep your wits about you and report incidents to the police. What's all the stuff about black people? No black people, no crime? No blacks in gyms? Black people hate white people? Blacks go to Africa? Your son shares your prejudices? It appears that you don't need to try, to be racist.

Did it bring 'it' to an end? (whatever 'it' is). I understood the problem was far less severe and far more pervasive than could be solved with one TV programme?

I'm guessing that Greegz and antijen weren't at the hearing either? In which case I assume that their argument is hypothetical, and by consequence no better informed than anyone else's? I favour annaj's views because they're both circumspect, and pay reasonable respect to the conviction that you don't blow the rules of your profession wide open because you've subjectively decided that the time is right. In principle I support the concept of the ultimate (whistle-blowing) sacrifice, but can't endorse an indiscriminate green light.

Didn't this happen with Egg, where thousands of cardholders lost their creditworthiness because they paid off the bill every month?

Pizza