Huguenot

;-) You know me Quids. As it happens I haven't been to the UK recently, and last time I went to Malaysia I went by train. Took 24 hours. Ridiculous really. I'm 38 and never owned a car. I get attacked for not having a family, so 'I don't understand' but I tend to think the way Bawdy-Nan does. I'm not an eco-nazi, I'm conscious of the impact of my activity and try to minimise. I loathe the self-satisfaction and righteousness of the car lobby, and I'm ashamed that people have confused car ownership with self-actualisation. My view of private car ownership is that it manifests itself as a psychological abdication of social responsibility. People get behind the wheel and get all 'f*ck you'. Cars in a modern city are utterly unnecessary for anything but ego-crutch. They destroy the aesthetics of existence. Poo poo.

Gosh TLS, you took that personally! I can assure you that if you saw yourself within my criticism, that was your choice, not mine. The suggestion that it was a personal attack, if I was simply disagreeing with your opinion, is a trait I tend to associate with football hooligans, not yourself. Mind you, I found your repetition of 'suffer the consequences' to be disturbing, almost threatening? I have no doubt I was mistaken. I appreciate your worldliness, but your social engagements aren't a great argument - for example wife beaters have to get married to be one. The assertion that 'plenty of people believe the same as me' is also weak. Plenty of people believe in homeopathy and capital punishment. The fact that people are proud of their homeland is by-the-by. You asked a couple of direct questions of Tory provenance. Regarding your question about 'priority', if you hadn't noticed I've got enviro-socialist leanings: from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. It's a belief that's both politics and colour blind. TBH, to compare an Afgan family with a middle class family man in Tunbrudge Wells, I'm more likely to consider victims of horrific oppression as 'needy' over economic convenience. I believe it's illogical to consider the home counties any more 'part of my gang' than Kabul. I find the 'nation state' a useful management construct, but jingoism pointless. Regarding 'illegals', you may also have noticed that I believe in the application of law, and changes in the law if they are inappropriate. This applies to immigration. Tony mate, I don't know you, I'm sure you're a great bloke. If you pursue an egocentric political agenda then I'm sure you find my views frustrating, but that doesn't entitle you to 'Invite Me Out To Meet Your Mates'. I don't need to feel 'safe' on this forum, I'm concerned that you think my safety is an issue. I simply express a view that you don't share in a public environment.

More sepcifically... "In a second study, researchers found that rats raised by stressed mothers that neglected and physically abused their offspring showed specific epigenetic modifications to their DNA. The abused mice grew up to be poor mothers, and appeared to pass down these changes to their offspring."

There you go Annaj. Recent study implicating evironmental influences on genetic traits... MIT's a pretty august body. "In Feig's study, mice genetically engineered to have memory problems were raised in an enriched environment--given toys, exercise, and social interaction--for two weeks during adolescence. The animals' memory improved--an unsurprising finding, given that enrichment has been previously shown to boost brain function. The mice were then returned to normal conditions, where they grew up and had offspring. This next generation of mice also had better memory, despite having the genetic defect and never having been exposed to the enriched environment. "

Get a nice taxi Tony, I'm sure that'd impress your ladies. You demonstrate a charming blind eye to your subordination to advertising. It's not the car that 80% of Young Single Males want, it's a symbolic demonstration of wealth, influence, independence and worldliness. It's only daft buggers who believe too much telly that associate this with cars. If allotments were plastered all over the telly then 80% of Single Young Males would want one of those.

Not sure where you're going with this 'name names' thing Xena? It was common knowledge that there was a group of artists in residence who would lose their studios if they were knocked down for the tram. There were also a whole host of other lobbyists who didn't want the tram - some because they wanted the money elsewhere, some because it was going to knock down a load of heritage buildings, some because they didn't want public money being spent on transport, some because they don't like paying taxes full stop. The forum's an anonymous zone if people want it to be, I don't see why you want to deprive people of that?

On the Tory question, I guess I shouldn't really vote, since I'm not there to suffer the consequences. Were I there, it would probably be Lib Dem. They need a more effective grass roots organisation and a better national infrastructure to make it happen properly though. On Brendan's point, I was making an observation on contributors who seem to think that 'immigrants' (erm... definitions??) should get the boot because they don't share the same taste in chicken. This isn't self-determination: our immigrant population was invited to join us because we required them for labour or rewarded them for services to the country. A tiny number of immigrants have been invited to join us for humanitarian reasons. We 'self-determined' that we wanted them here. We democratically accepted freedom of employment and residence across the EU because it was manifestly in our own interests. None of these is a violation of the right for the British (or others) to self-determination, but having made those decisions we can't go back on them. These 'immigrants' are British now and they're not going to vote to be disenfranchised. You can't vote to get them out. They're not houseboys. Self-determination (within limitations) is enshrined within "[individuals] accrue rights and benefits according to their contributions", which encompasses concepts such as property rights, economic investment and return. For self-determination to also include Europe for the Aryans, the Holy Land for whichever religious faction claims it next, or Newham for the whites is obscene. If everyone wanted the 'right to the retun' at the expense of the current residents, we'd have 6 billion people crammed round a campfire in the Rift Valley. You can't pick and choose what period in history you want to 'return' to. I mean, Mockney Piers would be able to have land in Germany, Spain and Antigua at the expense of the local population because he'd 'self-determined' to. Neither does self-determination include someone else paying for you to have a council house because your Dad fought in the war. Frankly, 'little Englanders' must be living in cloud cuckoo land.

Annaj, I can't find that research. I have whole bundles of science mags lying around the house, and it would've been in one of those :( It was interesting because it suggested that cultural issues actually impact the genetic make-up of individuals during their own lifetime.

I didn't realise that this example was real enough to cite Black Death, I thought it was just a question of whether something that has an equal number of iterations would evolve differently based on cultural issues? Recent research suggested that children of 50 year old men averaged 3 points lower on IQ tests than those of 20 year old men, owing to genetic mutation. Over 50 generations that could have a significant impact. If you have children at 30 rather than 20, then you're likely to be more secure financially and less stressed, which reduces the chances of negative mutation. However, if this was 500 years ago, you'd be dead by 35 so the kid would have to look after itself and may not make it at all?

Well, since they all survived to procreate, there was no evolutionary selection at all. Evolution assumes that reproduction is curtailed in species less well adapted to their environment. Evolution sometimes gets confused with advancement, but it's not, it's adaptation. Hence you can evolve to be more stupid if the world around you became less challenging. I'd just add that it's always been accepted that cultural/educational traits are not inherited genetically (which would negate the whole debate), however recent research has suggested that cultural items can be transmitted...

I don't know where people get the idea that because of where they were born, or the colour of their skin, or the language they speak, or the religion that they follow, that they're 'entitled' to some bit of land, or that your 'rights' mean you're more deserving than someone else. I don't believe I should be judged for the sins of my father, and neither do I believe that I should get any benefits if he was a good guy. It's just ridiculous. Society belongs to those people who are making it here, today. They accrue rights and benefits according to their contributions. It's often immigrant communities who contribute most. We should be eternally grateful for the carribean arrivals in the 60s and 70s because they dragged this country off it's knees after the war. On another note, it's very silly to describe London as the land built by generations of our ancestors. It never was. It's a port for God's sake. East Dulwich didn't even exist as we know it until 1890. It wasn't built. It was fields. After that everyone was an immigrant! Newham was docks, if TLS takes a DNA test I suspect, like Gary Bushell before him, that he'll regret his views on immigration and race.

I'm guessing neither of you has had your 21st birthday yet? (tu)

Sorry, what.. what.. is there someone there? *Looks around but not down* ;-)

You'd finally be able to resolve whether the 'soul' was distinct from the mind, and whether it was biological manifestation (which could be copied) or a spiritual one (which couldn't). Yes :(, I'd have loved it.

The challenge with teleporting is that it's more like faxing. You'd be leaving behind the original. It would render you completely invulvnerable to litigation, as the jury could never have reasonable doubt that it wasn't your other you. Hence you could cause all manner of havoc in Greenwich. Isn't it strange that Greenwich market's called Stockwell Market? Why is it closing?

;-)

Quids I need no proof. You're just completely wrong on this one. The parking restrictions have been in place for decades, and the market undoubtedly boomed throughout this period. Wrong, erroneous, fallacious and false.

northlondoner, shop closer to home, share looking after the kids with friends and neighbours, respect the fact that your laziness is reaping a cost that you are not prepared to pay, but your kids will have to. Look at them, and put the car keys back in the drawer. Besides, your with your increased social links you'll be happier and healthier. We're in a pre-credit-crunch boom time ecologically speaking. We're squandering assets and stealing against future losses. Project all the disquiet that is been addressed at the government for not managing the financial markets into a world ten years hence on environmental issues. You know why they couldn't stop that, and they can't stop this. You won't let them. You're delirious, drunk on ecological expenditure, crazed with delusions of wealth and power, and you don't care. I can only assume that you don't have the imagination to recognise the inevitable consequences of your selfish rampages. That's why I question your powers of reasoning. I too am disappointed with the Italians.

Green eh? A green flame is produced by Boric acid, which is also used as a retardant in nuclear reactors. I'm wondering if this was a nuclear power satellite?

It's so difficult to be open minded with people who put their own selfish rights to trash the planet ahead of our children's rights to a reasonable life, so they can drive 800 yards to the newsagent. I get so pissed of with these intellectual midgets screeching my rights my car my rights my rights. Can they not see how bloody selfish and bloody rude they are?

There was a chap a couple of years ago on Crawthew Grove who did this, he stopped when a community minded chap stoved the moped in. Not advocating anything mind.

You booger, I'm waiting...

Yeah, sorry, never done that before. But still...

You get it twice you bast@rds, because Asset liked it and it got no airing.... Oh, I don't know it's so black and white. I can't disagree that the government has utterly lost it's way of late, just as MM and Mockney Piers observe. I've always argued that a government can actually 'do' very little. The majority of the budget is tied up in social services, health, education and defence. None of these respond to short term (i.e 10 year) improvements because they're crippled by the unions and by bureaucracy. Nurses and Teachers got paid more, and a few more got employed. You could argue that deregulation in financial services wasn't well thought out, but that would be to ignore the larger picture. Globalisation, protectionist employment demands, and a lack of national resource put paid to manufacturing. There was nothing left but financial services. Any government would have come to the same conclusion. Financial restrictions would have brought the country to its knees ten years earlier, and the City could never have funded the nation. Other 'goverment' legislation was progressive - devolution and London's Mayor have all delivered more power back to the people. In the workplace, the national minimum wage was inspired, paternity leave was generous and you now get 24 days paid leave in full time employment. Environmental policy means we're now scoring better on rivers and beaches since pre-Industrial revolution, and fox hunting was banned. They saw the end of fur farming and greater restrictions on the testing of cosmetics on animals. Socially we saw the end of clause 28, a horrendous piece of fascist legislation which the Tories tried to enforce in the Lords. We saw the introduction of the equality and human rights commissions. Internationally we saw cancellation of penal levels of debt for poverty stricken countries, and a doubling of the international aid budget. Finally the ramifications of the Iraq war are impossible to discuss reasonably, because the majority of the nation is in denial about how utterly dependent we are on oil and how critical it was to alter the landscape of the Middle East to secure the viability of the UK. It is anathema to discuss the possibility that the UK went to war over resources for fear of inflaming global sentiment. In the end it was an exercise that had no realistic alternative outcome. If oil had hit $300 or $400 per barrel because of the posturing of dictators in the Middle East then the country could have become an industrial wasteland with no possible resolution in sight. We live in the UK at the expense of poverty in the rest of the world, because there simply isn't enough of everything to go round. They don't like it, and the UK will eventually pay the price. So who knows? But at the moment, yes Labour are prats, and so are the Tories. The whole lot of them are blundering around in the poverty of their own initiatives. So there...

Which bit is opinion DD? From the British Homeopathic Association: "In homeopathy the active ingredient is highly diluted. The greater the dilution, the more potent the medicine. Laboratory research is focusing on the ability of water to retain an imprint of substances which have been dissolved in it." I think they agree with LRon don't they? Or do you not accept their view on what homeopathy is?