Huguenot

Great post dogkennel. For ED... Everything's going to be alright! ;-) For people living in Battersea and Clapham using Denmark Hill as a swift route to London Bridge and the city, bit of a nightmare, but hey, haven't they got their own forum?

Three interesting things with that Euro crime survey... The rate of crime has dropped 35% since 1995 (nobody was calling us the surveillance society then, so can we assume that the introduction of CCTV has had an impact?). The researchers claim it is the increased chance of being caught and greater security that has had most of the impact (to which we assume CCTV must contribute??) Contentiously I note that since we're happy to blame Labour for bad things since they came to power, then surely we should also give them credence for the good things too? ***** On the camera issue, I'd say that the average camera sees 10m x 10m, so 100 square metres. 150 of them cover 15,000 square metres. A square mile is 2.6m square metres. That would mean that only 0.5% of a square mile is covered by security cameras.... Hardly worth the fuss? Is my maths right?

I suspect that neither of you know much about it. Regardless, I've seen you supping champers down Davy's Snorks ;-)

Oil companies are split into two main businesses: upstream (exploration and distribution) and downstream (refining and supplying). If upstream businesses respond quickly to supply and demand issues by raising costs to downstream businesses, but their downstream businesses only respond slowly to cost decreases by 'floating' the price at the pump then that is profiteering. BP's YOY 2nd quarter profits are up over 50%. The discussion about whether it goes in dividend or reinvestment is misrepresentation. Reinvestment is made on the assumption that the profits will deliver greater returns in the future than their cash realisation now. Profiteering is not excluded from this cycle and it has no impact on the debate. The differentiation between salary, bonus and reward is also misrepresentation - it's all labour remuneration. Labour costs are a very high part of overall costs. The differentiation between 'reinvested profits' now, and 'government taxation' in the past is also misrepresentation. The profits derived from the company in the past were the government funds. The fact is that significant competitor oil and gas companies are in their respective government hands, who then control pricing at the downstream end to their own domestic businesses and consumers. These reduced costs have a major impact on the competitive position of domestic companies in the international markets and plays to their advantage, not ours. The question of windfall taxation should rest on whether the current debilitating costs to consumers are derived from sharp practice, and whether the oil companies have a responsibility to the community they supply. As it happens I don't believe that windfall taxation is the answer, I'd like to see heavier commitments to reinvesting this cash actually within the UK in alternative domestic energy sources, research and development.

There seem to be mixed agendas here. Macroban and MM are simply parading their usual arguments of lower taxation for all (consumers and energy companies). It seems to have sod all to do with the original question, which is whether there has been excess profiteering by the energy companies that should attract a windfall tax or greater regulation. We're then into the welfare state creating dependency and abdication of responsibility. If it's a windfall tax it's not hypothecated for social security or energy payments? It'll get divied up into the government's usual budgets? If you want energy for OAPs (and everyone else) at more reasonable prices, you tell them to cut the price. If you just want more money for OAPs then you either increase taxation or take it from another spending budget. You could find it from another budget by cutting costs, but let's be honest... the greedy, work-shy union classes wouldn't accept that without the country going on strike. If you try and overtax 'rich' people, firstly there aren't enough of them, and secondly they leave the country and everything goes to the dogs. This isn't rocket science?

Sorry AFN - are you making out that since I work the advertising industry I'm a... 'filthy mole', 'swine', 'immature', 'arsehole' 'pigman'? I'm astounded to think that a toilet mouth is the making of a gentleman. Is this how we do it? Having exhausted the scorn we can pour those who may deserve it, we then extend our aim to spatter our diseased prejudices over any other target of our choosing? What a shame.

I was once (a few years ago!) walking past the leisure centre on a chilly november night and was accosted by four young mooks (1 male and 3 female) who surrounded me and aggressively wanted to know the time. When I guessed at 8.30, they demanded accuracy off my mobile phone which I claimed not to have, and then demanded to see my watch, which again I denied having (although trust me, they wouldn't have wanted it!). This apparently flummoxed them and they stamped off up the street with the girls pushing the bloke around for not displaying sufficient machismo. That's about as dangerous as ED ever got for me! Although I don't know if the reduced likelihood of a gang bang later that evening persuaded him to up the stakes next time around....

AFN, I'm unsure of your motivation on this one - are you really suggesting that the many individuals who've had unfortunate experiences with this chap are making it up? What possible reason could they have? Either way, differing opinions doesn't mean we should resort to name-calling does it? Have a cup of camomile.

Totally agree DM, the question is whether we're prepared to pay for this, and for the people who treat doctors as a social service.

The unspoken issue is that we don't look after our old folk very well, and they tend to look for doctors to deliver emotional support rather than clinical excellence. The premium rate is there very much as a dissuader, on the grounds that you won't mind paying a quid for a call if you're genuinely ill...? If you want to pay for an NHS to deliver friendship then you have to pay for it... (Increased tax MM?)

Yep, it's Google's Ts & Cs. They claim the right to pass on all your data in it's entirety. Naughty Google. It's becoming an increasing struggle to consider they 'do no evil'.

T.LS where's the link? I tried that and didn't find it. I hate Seinfeld so I was looking forward to it. CDOL!! Outrageous

Ha! At last MM back in the naughty corner! The issue with the energy companies is that they've misrepresented the impact of rising resource costs. A rise in 10% at the well doesn't mean a rise in 10% at the household. It's a fixed cost. The reason the windfall is being discussed is poonishment. However I must say that SMG's a bloody cheap date with his heart strings stuff ;-)

:)

Easy tiger! We just had a literary pun from T.LS!! :)

Grammar, MW, grammar ;-) Chortle

You seem to have taken it pretty personally Kidda?

Gaaah! The French! ;-) I don't see why energy shouldn't be underwritten by government. I just think it should be transparent.

I hope it's great. It sounds all Footballer's Wives though. 'Magnolia' as a colour reminds me of talentless interior designers. It's not whimsical or ironic, it's insipid and washed out, devoid of personality. It's not 'subtle', it simply has nothing to say. It's all 'nouveau riche'. You can imagine busty bottle blondes in tight fitting tiger print t-shirts turning away from the baby pink lipstick applicator for a moment to announce tonight's destination to their emasculated husbands. You can hear the neighbours.... "Oooooh, 'ark at 'er, in't she posh" Like Boycey and Marlene, 'Magnolia' suggests art means taking a word you've recently learned and writing it with curly letters on cheap plastic frontage with neon lights behind. It's garish and barely skin deep. It's all fakery and pretention. Like a stage set, the lights are on but no-one's home. Having said that, I hope it's a nice place. It strikes me that they're going to struggle to fill the place by targeting mums in the evening, they'll be tucking up little Tyler. Is there perhaps a secondary target audience at the effeminate end of the gay market?

Emails are perfectly easy to forge I'm afraid :( Since there's a very clear link between 'No Tax', 'No MOT' and 'No Insurance', I'm well with the criminal justice system on this one. My flat mate's wheels were once stolen at 6am although I happened to disturb them halfway through. By the time I got out of the door with a cricket bat they'd apologised (?!) and screeched off down the road in their untaxed, un-MOT'd and uninsured Rover 213 leaving scratches down half a dozen other cars. It was, of course, every honest person who paid for the damage through increased premiums. The police explained they were untraceable. However, if the local government had crushed every car without a Tax disc, this would have been an easier task. It may seem petty but in auto-crime terms it's tragically true that if you look after the little crimes the big ones look after themselves. The lesson is to get your tax done early and over the counter.

Singapore, Sue, but it's no loss as this month is Hari Raya for Malaysian Muslims. The fasting from dawn until dusk for Ramadan is compensated by a huge fair than runs the opposite sides of the clock for the period of a month. It's party time all year round ;-)

Are there any Chinese families around there? Yesterday was the last day in the festival of the Hungry Ghost, where offerings are made to ancestors in the afterlife. Round our way the streets are rammed with braziers burning 'Hell Money', which is a kind of ancestor-related inter-bank transfer.

Top post from the SMG

Just to put this daft landing direction preoccupation to rest.... Planes take off in the same direction they land, and you have exactly the same number doing both. It doesn't matter which way they go, you'll have the same number of planes. The stack extends both sides of Heathrow. Planes taking off are noisier. It's safer to put populated areas under landing paths rather than take-off paths.

I find that polls tend to be abused unless they're used for only the most joky subjects. A good example was the parking survey. From the results obtained earlier this year, a straight poll on controlled parking would have returned an 70%+ majority rejecting controlled parking schemes. However, for those most affected - i.e. residents of the streets around LL and the station - we would have seen over 90% in favour of controlled parking with either residents only or pay & display. Hence opponents of controlled parking were those that had most to gain from gaily flitting in and out of the centre and parking as and where they wished - exactly the group whose activity controlled parking looked to curtail. Their arguments were disingenuous, as they argued as if they were the ones living in the controlled streets and the benefits didn't exist. A straight poll would have incorrectly allowed this group to claim overwhelming support for their position, against the misrepresented wishes of those who desperately want a parking scheme.... So, not a great fan of polls. What is it you want to poll on?