Huguenot

Well, of course, there are. Out of around 150,000 posts on the forum (10,000 by erm...), only 3,000 are property related. So arguably for other people there are plenty more interesting subjects to read (98%), but none that interest you. QED you regard property as the only interesting subject. Since they are by your definition 'stupid questions and idiotic views', then that's what you find interesting. Ergo, your compulsion to redress is ill-advised. You'll only remove the only subject you find interesting.

I always worried about "I used to..." do something. There doesn't seem to be a conditional etc. "I was using to do something, and then...."

And what a marvellous wager. *taps watch*

Exactly. Thoughtcrime. For those of you worrying about editing, no, no mistake. For those of you worrying about irony, yes, yes and you knew it didn't you?

You sound like a very reasonable person! :-$ I'm embarrassed by my fervour

I agree, whacky is cool!

"Yes, but we don't live our lives according to averages". That's quite simply not right, in everything you do you make a cost benefit calculation. In this situation your community is helping you make the decision, by researching the issue and informing you in an area within which you have little or no knowledge and cannot trust your intuition. As in any society, decisions need to be made that are in the interests of the majority, that's what laws are for. And sure sure, you should have both the rights and freedom to kill other people through indifference and principle. The point is, the 20mph limit won't make your journey any slower, but it will save 100 lives. Geddit? There is no penalty for the lower speed limit. No price, no cost. You will not get to your destination any later. There is evidence you'll get there quicker. There is another benefit, and it's 100 grieving families. Vehicles are a very weird area for legislation, as we associate cars with freedom and exclusivity. It's a product of 50 years of advertising. When you get tied up in emotional conflicts over cars, just remember it's because you believed the ads, not because it's true.

I guessed it was. I suppose it comes down to reasonable endeavours to identify and prevent a terrorist atrocity. Some people's thresholds are different to others. I don't want to see violence on either side. Whilst I can see the 'legal' issue, they did find a bomb in Spain, these PIRA guys had form and I won't be crying any tears. Mind you I'm a believer in thought-crime, and if it could be proven, I'd imprison people for just believing in armed struggle as a route to political influence ;-)

The mind boggles. You waited for two hours on the doorstep of a pub for two days running?

Chuckle. thebeard... you've only posted nineteen times on the forum, twelve of which have been on housing threads. That means 63% of what you have to say is about housing. Without a doubt, you're the most housing obsessed person on this forum. By a f*cking HUGE margin. It is therefore, with much irony..... etc. etc.

I don't really understand the protest. The average speed in London is 10 mph. At a peak speed of 30, most people die. At a peak speed of 20, most people don't. There will be 100 people alive next year, nice people, young people, that will be dead if the peak speed is 30mph. If the peak is 20mph, they'll be alive.

In through the nose, out through the mouth. Easy now, let's get the point across...

I don't know about Southwark, I believe that the percentage of accidents where the vehicle was travelling in excess of the speed limit is only about 7% nationally. I can't remember my source. Every incident that causes an injury and the police are notified will have speeds calculated. There's a substantial difference in the severity of accidents, at 30 mph there's an 80% risk of fatal injuries to a pedestrian, at 20mph only 15% - that's a big difference. But as I mentioned, lower speed is also about faster journeys: roads can take a heavier density of traffic at slower speeds, so ironically higher speeds mean more jams.

Absolutely PGL. I've noticed a similar trend of people on this site with paper-thin skin 'giving others short-shrift and hardly adding any wise thoughts or experiences to any debate on here'. I've noticed that if someone disagrees with them instead of discussing their position they make a complaint and 'seem to think its their exclusive domain to shout others opinions down'. Teasing them 'seems to really agrravates them into more serial aggressiveness, which i find quite petty and puerile and i actually end up laughing at them thinking the sad, empty lives they must lead!. ' 'Also i think the (weak?) Administrator must take a much tougher stance and nip this bullying and insulting of others in the bud, otherwise people will just not longer log on and the site will become a shadow of itself in the future. I enjoy participating in discussions on this site and also like to share with others (in a non-aggressive/open/friendly way) my own thoughts and experiences living in this community and surroundings, so lets keep it that way!. Has anyone got any opinions or experienced similar on this subject?' I wonder if they'll even find this post agressive, and note the irony that if they do, they'd be thoroughly hoist by their own petard? ;-)

The evidence is invariably scientific first mate, and there's many ways. Most involve 'energy' calculations.

I think AfN quite likes the idea of rampaging mobs armed with steel bars. In her mind the more indiscriminately out-of-control, the better.

As with the M25, you may be surprised that the traffic will move faster on average at lower speed limits.

So you think this 'lady' wasn't shouting "f*cking scum"?

Are you being ironic AfN?

Sorry AfN, I may have been misunderstood, I suggested that I can hear more propaganda from you than I can hear from anyone else. If the copper's mate pushed someone into a hedge (where did that story come from?), that gave her the right to attack someone else? I'm lost for words AfN. Don't you think it's just childish, all this "fight fight, smash smash, kill kill, shit in ATM"?

LOL!

I'm even more confused now, if the police have accepted responsibility then what's next? Do you want Kelvin McKenzie and Brian Clough put in prison, or you want the doctors put in prison? I think the criminal negligence accusation demonstrates a peculiar approach. For negligence to take place then you have to prove that the accused knew what the consequences of their inaction was, and deliberately made the choice to let those things happen. You can do it by proving that the accused knew of the consequences, or by proving that a 'reasonable person' could see the consequences. Either way, the supporters who pursue this case must believe that someone wanted to see Liverpool fans dead, and deliberately made a series of decisions to make this happen. I think that's verging on crazy for this situation at Hillsborough, and it makes me question the underlying convictions of the 'millions seeking justice'. Do they really think people wanted to see them die?

Hah ha, touche. Although I reckon a larger proportion of Europeans thought all Brits were hooligans than the proportion of Brits that were hooligans. They called me hooligan for the first six to eight months I was in China. It was really funny, I laughed and laughed.

Martini Rosso, sitting behind the jumps on Worcester racecourse. Bad bad bad.

I can see the 'research' point about condoms, but a more direct analogy would be free distributiuon of condoms if it was the prevalence of condoms causing the HIV in the first place. (I'm not the Pope, it's a debating point). I think Dom is suggesting the the prevalence of gun crime in the US is unrelated to the distribution of guns in the US, which is making me scratch my head with some confusion. No guns, no gun crime.