Huguenot

I'm sure now you've stopped using a convenient spelling mistake to call him a c***suck he'll cease and desist ;-)

It's probably a bit difficult to judge the sexual morality of the late 60s and and early 70s from the wrong end of a telescope and then apply it to the present day. We've moved on a lot since then, and the very fact that these cases are being brought is a reflection of that.

*giggles* surprised that one took as long as it did.

Agree with EP - the anarchy of libertarianism doesn't result in some delicious opportunity for self actualisation. It devolves into sectarianism, self interest and the destruction of social infrastructure. I can see the dream, but it's about as plausible as an effective socialist state - it flies in the face of the human biological condition. We simply lack the intellectual capacity to engage in enlightened self-interest beyond social groups of around 200 people, and the world's a bit more densely populated than it was in the 7th century.

I don't think liberalism rejects legislation does it? Wouldn't liberals of both UK and US persuasion prefer that legislation was enacted to enshrine the rights of the individual? Both flavours reject autocracy by individuals or oligarchy through institutions. Libertarianism conversely rejects the idea of authority/government in favour of free association and subordination to market forces. Since the natural consequence of free association is cartel activity and mob rule you'd have to be pretty daft to imagine the libertarianism was an effective social strategy. So that means I can see two types of support for libertarianism: those that use it as a check/balance upon unlimited state power, and those who quite fancy the idea of cartel activity and mob rule. Hence a certain type of libertarian sees it as a step via anarchy to install a totalitarian government of their own devising. The Tea Party seems to contain both types - those worried about excessive government spending, and those who see it as an opportunity for white supremacists to set fire to black people under the guise of political respectability.

What, sociopaths? ;-)

The entire nation built its empire and wealth off the back of genocide, slavery, torture and murder. By your argument woodrot, you'd have to strip yourself and plunge into pauperism. I can think of no other civilised country that would or has exacted such punishment for the sins of the fathers. The monarchy doesn't decide bank holidays, that'll be parliament. Your hate trip is monumentally misguided and unnecessarily unpleasant.

I guess the argument is that the more distanced you are from the reality of your crime, the less likely you are to question your moral foundation? I don't really 'get' weapons protestors - if we assume that those who instigate wars are happy to put people to death for their cause, I don't really know what bleeding heart arguments are likely to persuade them to do it less efficiently, or with an increased chance of losing.

The are plenty of 'undeserving' rich in the world if you want to take that angle - why pick on her? You're simply singling her out and attacking her for the crime of getting pregnant and being of public interest. That's not her fault. A lot of very nasty cowardly spiteful attacks on here. Bullies in a schoolyard taunting ring. Says more about the people posting than about Kate Middleton.

*snorts* RosieH!!!

I think what's creating confusion Mick Mac is that you're justifiably trying to judge coffee making IP as a fixed price asset when it's not. I have the IP on Huguenot's magic egg mayonnaise - but it's effectively worthless as it brings no profit opportunity. The IP is the profit opportunity associated with a brand. Take ground beef and a wet beer mat in isolation and you have nothing, if you call it a Big Mac you have a licence to print money. It's the same model as a franchise - head office can basically 'tax' UK subsidiaries what they wish, and the more they make, the more they can 'tax' as it represents an increase in brand value. In practice franchise fees of this kind are calculated as a negotiated solution with the Inland Revenue, and whilst they're significant, there's often reason involved in their apparent madness. As someone else pointed out, be carefully what you wish for, as the value derived by such practices is often delivered back to you in terms of pensions and reduced insurance premiums. Law of unintended consequences and so on.

Are you implying that you believe the Christian Union decision to ban women from positions of influence, and to make them subordinate to their husbands was the correct one dulwichtoo?

Doesn't Gidget have form on this? *taps nose*

What happened when you clicked those links? What did you see?

Did you click on the links that ianr provided? What happened? It's important that you click specifically on the links that ianr provided - NOT your username, and NOT the search tool. JUST the links that ianr provided. Can you tell us what browser you are using? Have you tried clearing your cache (internet history) recently? The reason you're being asked to do that is to ascertain whether there's a problem with your browser and the 'query string' that delivers the information back to you from the server. It looks very much as if it's a problem at your end rather than the server, because the problem is only happening to you.

I think what you're missing DJKQ is that the nature of the press means that it has been able to act with impunity outside of the law - principally because of the power it wields over public opinion. It means that regardless of demonstrable, persistent and offensive lawbreaking the press has been able to stop both the police and politicians acting against it. The election of police commissioners make that more, not less likely - since challenging criminal activity by the press may simply result in press campaigns based on fabricated material to destroy the lives of those who challenge it. What Levenson proposed was a statutory body that would be able to act where politicians and police cannot. I repeat the question to both Marmora Man and to Quids, what is your proposal to deal with this?

No no, tiresomely I agree. Gotta find a balance against the PCC though. It's a waste of time.

You've posted it three times, I suspect it's a problem with your browser refresh rate and your own impatience ;-)

That's a given, but the press has also demonstrated itself incapable of self-regulation. What's the balance?

No man points lost for that - it's an absolute bastard to sort that yourself. Must be a pro out there somewhere?

Are you suggesting that there are allegations about contemporary artists? This is getting crazy!

(none of us are admin so far as I know)

Strange, I've clicked on it and over 300 posts come up, as does your Tefal steam cuisine posting. That means it probably does for everyone else also. Have you tried searching the forum when not logged in? Have you tried using the forum from a different computer both logged and not logged in? What were the outcome of these exercises?

Hmm. Any area has a boundary. You're talking as if the only type of boundary is an electoral one. The responses on this thread clearly highlight that the actual location of the boundary is different dependent upon which mechanism you choose to describe the East Dulwich area: electoral, or postcode, or any other.

'misinadvertencies'? That was so good it was a googlewhack. Ripsnorting!