Huguenot

The problem with referenda is that they are manifestly not democratic. Their dependence on Yes/No answers makes them subordinate to the black & white politics of fear, rather than the grey areas of complex interrelated challenges which contribute to social progression. Before you suggest that this makes me a dictator, I'd point out that the biggest historical users of the plebiscites were tyrannies - Hitler, Mussonlini, Napoleon and Pinochet in the modern era. It was rumoured that 90% of the German inmates of concentration camps had actually voted for withdrawal from the Geneva convention on the basis of German sovereignty, without realising that they had also given the state a mandate for the Final Solution. In Ireland the no campaign was lead by Declan Ganley, an unelected businessman on the basis of loss of sovereignty, high taxation and legalisation of abortion. This is neither democracy, nor honest. It is however nicely black & white, and that wins referenda. I'm sure Ganley is no idiot. One possible outcome of this decision is that Ireland withdraws from the EU and all the economic support that it offers, leaving Ireland once more to become the European backwater it was, with high unemployment and corrupt leadership. These leaders are no doubt sponsored by the cash rich monopolies favoured by big business. Handing power from the people, to Ganley. Referenda - Democracy? Don't make me laugh.

I tend to think that a sausage be-fingered lady would have plenty of female friends in comfortable shoes. Isn't an argument about excessive expense on cosmetics kinda wasted? I spank loads of cash on pointless gadgets that do things that don't need doing, and I abhor people who point that out. I bloody know it, so if you point it out then you think you must be smugly squatting there convinced that you're cleverer than me ;-) However, until this moment I did think that laconic had something to do with foxy guile but had never looked it up. Now I understand, hurrah! Asset, indeed you are! *Returns to intriguing discourse on Socrates and Sparta* *Glimpses self reflected in monitor and is staggered to note the resemblance with Ray Winstone*

When Will Hutton trousers the free market in favour of governemnt intervention, you know something's going wrong. I'd have to say that he knows a damn sight more than all of us!

'Complete anbd utter f*ckwits' springs to mind

"Actively promote good"? This is why conversations get confused. The majority of tax expenditure (national and local combined) is spent as follows: Social Security (read wealth redistribution) is about a third, and most of the remnant is NHS, Education, Defence, Public Order and Safety (police and fire) and transport. The rest is sod all. How do we propose to address this with small government? Perhaps (in order): No Social Security (workhouses pay for themselves), Well Meaning Grannies, Tribal Elders, Dad's Army, Vigilantes and Mobile Wooden Pumps at Uncle Eric's house, and maybe for transport we could make the criminals break stones and pull carts (see Social Security). At the risk of sounding like a broken record, pressure groups and foundations (in the most part) lobby government for redistribution of existing tax revenues, they don't reduce it!!! Those that request charity or direct debits are merely requesting hypothecated taxation. I agree that I'd prefer less bureaucracy, but let's try and vote for people with ideas and experience to help make those improvements. Not say 'government doesn't work', that's meaningless griping with no foundation in reality.

In fact, fantastic facts on speeding here. Including the fact that the cost of preventing the accidents that took place in 2000 would have cost this country 5bn quid less than the actual cost of picking up the pieces afterwards. And some people on other threads wonder why the government is interested in traffic management ;-) The reason is that we know naff all about it! This one I really like :"it can be shown that an annual saving of 23,000 injury crashes (200 deaths, 3,500 serious injuries) could be expected, resulting from a reduction in average speeds (across the whole network) of just 2 mph."

If the speed limit changes from 30 mph to 40 mph four times in an eight mile journey then your total time benefit by zig zagging between the top speeds (as opposed to doing 30mph all the way) is around 100 seconds. (For the pedants mathematically it's 120secs, but you can only speed up after leaving the 30 zone, and have to slow down before you renter a 30 zone.) Since I think we'd all agree that it's hardly worth the bother for 100 secs, why don't you just drive at 30mph all the way? 100 secs... c'mon... think about it ;-) Did anybody ever watch that time trial between three different motorway drivers over the same distance at the same time? If I recall well, one drove with gritted teeth swerving from lane to lane to get highest speed, one drove middle lane all the way, and one followed the highway code. The difference over 100 miles between the best and worst solution was something like 4 mins. The answer is just relax, think of your fellow man and if you don't know then drive at 30mph. You'll be safe in the knowledge that at 30mph half of pedestrians survive being hit by a car, at 40mph 90% die. 100 secs to double the chance of death. 100 secs.

I guess the geographic heart should be where there are equal areas of land on all sides. Well we've got two EDs to choose from: SE22 and the Electoral Ward If we go by SE22 it strikes me that the heart of ED seems to be.... The CPT. If we go by the Electoral Ward the heart seems to be.... The Blue Brick Cafe.

According to somebody or other, Chewing Gum costs 3pm a stick a buy, and 10p a stick to remove from the pavement. There's a case for appropriate local government taxation if I ever saw it! Although over here in Singers the ban on Chewing Gum is the most quoted symbol of human rights abuse. Wierd eh? (I should add that's it's just Chewing Gum, not gummy sweets in general, the 7-11s are packed to the rafters with Fruit Gums etc.).

Sure DaveR - I agree. Individuals deciding collectively what is done is called democratic government. It's impractical to have a referendum on everything from Christmas lights to a bypass once an hour, so we decide through local and government processes who we nominate to act on our behalf. Sometimes we try and nominate people more perceptive, experienced and educated than ourselves... or not. That's probably why potato marketing is a government issue. Perhaps someone older and wiser than us has recognising that trashing our agricultural heritage in the name of the free market allows foreign companies to monopolise the markets and then ram the prices up when it suits them! Bugger me if it's not food and fuel that are the major sources of the current economic situation, or will small islanders solve that for us? ;-) I'd probably go on to suggest that Bethnal Green and Canning Town have reached the state they're in precisely because the middle classes have decided in their myopic way that they 'individually' know just 'what's right for themselves' - and it involves letting the impoverished sit in the cesspools we've created for them. All those people who look after number one are just more likely to be answering the door in ten years time with a shotgun in one hand a fight-or-flee response giving them a metallic taste at the back of the throat. The 'government' are those nominees, not a subversive mob of undercover fascists out to get us! Well at least if they are it's because we didn't use our vote well! I don't see taxation as righteous oiks 'discouraging' others to do stop things of which they don't approve, but I do see it as a way of rebalancing costs when primary users of a product or service are failing to pay the true cost of their asset - for example car drivers. Incidentally, there's some quality science fiction that discusses the possibility of government by perpetual referenda.

At last some names I recognise!

Quids, to suggest that everyone can have money back from the tax, is the same as saying they shouldn't pay it in the first place; to say that it's independent of income means it's non progressive. The last non-progressive tax on citizens was the poll tax, and I can't believe you agreed with that? On an overall note... Progressive taxation is there precisely to redistribute the wealth 'from each according to their abilities' into public services and to the disadavantaged. In addition it's rechanneled into opportunities which help keep society running smoothly with a balance of services ranging from agriculture and infratstructure. We don't have hypothecated taxation, (which means you get to say what is spent on what) because people won't pay for things they don't use/don't want. A particular example would be rich people refusing to pay for bus services they don't use and the poor can't afford. We're all in a mess. We're expected to use our vote wisely to select appropriate and well educated spokesmen for ourselves at government level. This all seems to revolve around a complete absence of faith in the process of government, which may either mean that we don't understand it (in which case get a book), or we don't use our vote well enough. What was turn out at the last election? How many of the critics on this thread were a no-show? I'm guessing those that didn't only have themselves to blame for being disenfranchised?

What did the 'C' stand for in recordable tapes?

Im not sure that you could define East Dulwich as much more than SE22. The actual district is Camberwell Friern (hence redundant signs saying 'welcome to Camberwell'. Friern Manor was up on the eastern side of ED, outside Bazza Road.

I agree with STB broadly. I don't think that the debates are helped by half-truths - there's no suggestion that it's an offence to not to produce an ID card on demand. The streets won't be patrolled by jack-booted neo-nazis in an evil cameo of the 'Worm that turned'. However I don't think it's unreasonable in a world of sophisticated criminals to provide some sort of evidence of identity to qualify for state subsidy and support. I'm quite startled that people are smug enough to take advantage of a society that other people's tax cash built and then squeal about the mildest forms of reciprocated responsibilities. Ditto CCTV, it's a little bit inane to imagine that one is interesting enough for people to track our every action. Most CCTV cameras are not supervised, they're just used for review after the fact. I'm reminded of that 16 year old thug on the Croydon tram preening himself on the CCTV with stolen jewellery. Nobody was watching him do it, but it caught the little shit. I reckon 42 days detention is a little bit more complex. I agree with STB when the case is well made, but I can't possibly agree with terror laws when they're used by councils to spy on families to see if they're really resident in a school catchment district. I'd hope that they didn't get 42 days for that ;-), but it is a demonstration that these kind of laws are very much open to abuse and need very close monitoring. On the police/army issue, I'm not sure that salaries have much relevance. I can't believe that anyone takes up a job like this assuming they're risking their lives by doing so. Hence I don't think people say "I won't risk my life for 25K a year, but I will for 35k a year". Even the railway system prices a human life at something like 4m quid. I do believe that these guys have a right to medical care for injuries sustained in the workplace however. I don't think it needs to be a function of government - medical insurance companies are perfectly capable of taking up the task at moderate cost. Not sure I quite understand MM's angle on this though. Are we to understand that you don't believe in government spending on job creation and stimulating agricultural growth, but you do believe in investing in the war machine? :)

;-) Isn't there a saying 'blue and green should never be seen'? I don't know why that should be, but I certainly find it difficult to resolve them separately. It sort of has a muddy ill-defined feel to it. Someone suggested that it was an issue with colour-blindness also?

Number 5 is just hideous. It's really second place? Blinky blonky blimey. There's an awful lot of people smoking the crack pipe.

Global economy etc. People in the top tax bracket are more than capable of negotiating their salary based on net income. If you up the tax then that's either a tax on the business who pays them, or they just bugger off to Singapore. ;-) I can't even remember the proportion of the UK's business that's based on financial services that have no geographical tie. If you increase the burden on the businesses then they bugger off too, and you end up with a country based on excessive charges for Maslow's hierarchy. Clive, you're on the button, but it's circular - reductions in government spending is what MM seeks. MM you're an idealist, but you're realistically proposing a benevolent tyranny. We won't have a keen market of competitive service providers, we'll have cost-efficient behemoths that fu@k everyone. Business isn't full of sages, it's full of small minded megalomaniacs, it's only the administration that keeps them benign. As part of that dynamic equilibrium it's a fantastic contribution, but we should think carefully before making it a mantra. Organised religion has many failings, but at least it recognises that we're all inherently evil. The free market fosters tribalism and the abdication of social responsibility, not engagement and long term thinking. Quangos are cool, because they're not populated by Mandelson and Campbell but by teachers and small minded leather-elbowed social workers. They keep checks on business types like me. In that three year period after university when I earned less than my outgoings before food I was desperate, it was a mind wrenching, twisting experience that left me bundled with hatred. You can't mess with that, it's not a numbers game. We'll still be bleating free market economics when the mobs burn down our houses and slaughter our children. Whilst I applaud Thatcher for the compromised unions, I curse her for the dimunition of the family unit and the reduction of the social bloc. The twenty quid week is Tim Nice But Dim. It's not about an effing price. We're plonkers if we think that. It's about disenfranchisement, social dislocation, envy and rage. Low earners don't hate wealth because they want a thirty quid Stilton, but because they despise the arrogance and ignorance of those who would buy it. Low earners have to put weekly savings into a 'business' Christmas Club that buggers off with all the sodding money a month before the date. Market forces? Thieves. Snot-nosed schoolboys won't end up with a debating club merit point, they'll wander lonely in a world with litter-strewn streets and neighborhood cages.

I'm aghast. Does hubby know? These fora aren't as anonymous as we think! I did make a similar mistake once in the distant past, and now utter no names in the sack, just prime numbers.

Just watched it again... "There's only three things in life I'm afraid of... electricity, heights and women. And I'm married too..." What are we afraid of?

Macker, you're dreamy. Floating Onion, I have never to this point seen anything on this fabulous forum that I felt made me a better person. That clip changed my life.

Annaj it's not a small thing! It shouldn't be that difficult! As a primary colour red is associated with danger, so NO! 2 and 4 are both too clinical to appeal to young people. 5 is too busy. 3 is the default. Are you asking people for the veneer of democratic respectability? It really shouldn't have reached this far! I think it's a brilliant contribution, and your sister is the bee's knees.

I sometimes wonder whether gormless ninnies would vote against democracy given half a chance. An Irish Independent survey suggested that 80% of those who voted against the treaty made their decision based on elements that weren't even in the bloody treaty. Prats. At some time, small town morons (that refers to a global not local market) are going to have to respect that the majority of resources that keep their tiny world turning over are generated from outside the nearest 25 miles. It would make arse-clamping sense that we retain democratic purview. Is it a lack of imagination? Do these bough-swingers think that mommy's going to make it good if they squeal when it's hurting? I've total respect for Marmora Man for well constructed arguments against the nanny state on another thread, I think I may have quoted him in admiration after a beer or two. However, it remains banal and witless for a community that's sucked 30bn from industrialised nations to kick-start a crippled nepotocracy [citation needed ;-)] to bite the hand that feeds them. Government is all about the redistribution of wealth, and if it's from the Badgers of The Apprentice to the pencil pushers of the Job Centre so be it. Better that than the tyranny of righteousness from double-glazing salespeople. I'd have sh*t squirting from a backed-up toilet whilst Lordship Lane was dominated by nasal backstabbers claiming it wasn't their fault. Pillocks. There, I've said it now.

I can't believe there ever was a Blitz spirit when it come to that - it's just we view it with a rosy veneer of romance. For 'My mum used to get a few extra favours from the butcher' read what you will ;-) Rationing spawned it's own special time of criminal - the Spiv - and laid the foundations for a lawless East End populated and dominated by criminal gangs.

Crikey, whilst the Police are only human like the rest of us and prone to a bit of frustration, and every organisation can have a few bad eggs, it completely escapes me why not telling the police about a stolen jacket could be seen as reasonable behaviour.