Huguenot

The justice system should be capable of putting crimes in perspective and in proportion. Every case should be judged on its relative merits. There are going to be those that believe in a massive overreaction to youthful misdemeanour, and it's up to the rational majority to restrain them from destroying the lives of individuals and creating lifetime criminals by a sentencing policy based on disproportionate vengeance. Likewise it's also the responsibility of the justice system to differentiate those crimes which through conspiracy, premeditation, aggravation, violence and scale deserve a much greater response. There is a good reason why the justice system demands that the victim does not sentence the perpetrator - because emotional responses colour people's judgement. Journalism that the OP proposes is designed to exploit this weakness and inflame tension in our communities to make money. It's not particularly impressive.

"A true trial process would...." Not at all - a trial can be anything you like so long as the terms and reference points are clear. "I would be interested in the justification for the reduction in legal parking" I don't think that's the case - the road markings will make explicit what is already illegal but currently only patchily enforced. A few locals have said on here that they think it's outrageous that the new road markings would prevent them parking 'safely' on corners and across people's driveways. Mind you it's a particular habit of car drivers to think that they know best - whether it's parking, drunk driving, speeding or overtaking around blind corners.

Tried that - couldn't turn it on with the door open.

For a teenager's first offence of an impulse burglary through an open door taking little of value? I know there will be those that will consider nothing less than ruining their lives for such an act - I don't agree with them, and I don't think those braying for a hanging have thought it through. I only spent 24 hours in a shared cell and it was bloody awful. 10 years for an act of gormless teenage machismo is just ridiculous.

http://www.old.alloutcricket.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/i_russel.jpg

I've been burgled twice - once with my family and once independently, so I'm familiar with the sense of violation. However, I'm pleased that it hasn't ruined my sense of proportion and perspective, nor muddied the waters on revenge, retribution and rehabilitation. The current maximum for domestic burglary (non-aggravated) is 14 years, the minimum for repeat offenders is 3 years. The current average custodial sentence is 2 years. The guidelines are that the sentence should reflect both the value of good taken AND any behviour which would have impact upon the resident (for example urinating or spreading faeces). Do I think that's about right? Yep. The problem is that when we imagine burglary we think of armed assaults by masked men whilst we are sleeping. That isn't burglary - that's aggravated burglary and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. We can't sentence people on crimes they 'might' have committed, or that we are scared of - only those crimes that they actually have committed.

"they have clearly given a reason that their 4x4 has broken" Yeah, and the dog ate their homework.

"The Lucas Gardens CPZ comes into force today in SE5 and we live just outside it and have at a stroke been swamped by displaced parking. One problem apparently solved. Problem moved. New problem created. Lack of joined up thinking wins again." FINALLY Somebody's admitted that those within the CPZ have a whole load of commuters swamping their residential streets that are using their residential area as a carpark. ;-)

Maintenance? A bike? Make me laugh....

Nah - it's like saying everyone started wearing Nike Air because the athletes started wearing them for their performance advantages. It's all spin from top to bottom. It's just posing and one upmanship. The performance thing is just something you claim to make you look like a cool hyperperformance athlete that attracts lots of girls. It's like the red light jumping - it's only part down to he need for speed. It's just as much a macho demonstration that the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to them, because they are supermenand they are immortal.

Oh dear, a right couple of charlies...

It is somewhat ironic that a community should be willing to protect a minority working unsociable hours when its convenient to them, but not to support a minority of families and elderly people who need to park close to their houses when it's inconvenient ;-) Double standards that perhaps reveal a more selfish motivation?

Just enjoyed The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. Lots of gratuitous and occasionally unnecessary (and disturbing) sex. However, that aside I was intrigued by the apparently huge variance in boob size.

Only 25 years ago 40% of households had no car at all. However, kids still got an education, shopping still got done and people still got to work. Now 65% of cars are owned by households with two or more cars. There is no doubt that for some families cars are a necessity, but these figures also tells you that there are a huge amount of car owners who got rich quick off the back of their property and filled their boots remortgaging to satisfy a greed for cars. There is a great deal of confusion betweenn 'necessary' and 'convenient'. The forces allied against the CPZ are far more likely to be in the convenience segment rather than the necessity one - it's just a numbers game.

Nationally it's only illegal if it's causing an obstruction, which usually means blocking the road, reducing driver visibility or being poorly lit. The police are the only guys who decide this. There may be a Southwark by law? If it's being used as accommodation other rules apply and they'd be in breach of a number of regulations.

If you're using IE, here's what one of the nerds said.... The Internet Explorer AutoComplete feature can be enabled and disabled by following the below steps. Open Microsoft Internet Explorer. Click Tools and then Internet Options. In the Internet Options window click the Content tab. Click the AutoComplete button. Check or uncheck the options you wish have or not have AutoComplete. Below is a brief explanation of what each of the options are for. Web page addresses - AutoComplete for the address typed in the address bar. Forms - Enable a user to fill out fields that are commonly completed such as e-mail, address, phone number, etc. User names and passwords on forms - Any forms that are requiring usernames. This can be helpful for users who are frequently needing to enter their username and password. However, can also be a security risk if that computer is used or accessible by other users.

Interesting. This is a list of public toilets from Southwark Council. For those people entertaining the kids on Googse Green, I've highlighted the nearest loo ;-) Crown House NHO, 41-43 East Dulwich Road, SE22 9BY, Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm Dulwich Library, 368 Lordship Lane, SE22 8NB, Monday, Thursday and Friday 9am to 8pm; Tuesday 10am to 8pm; Saturday 9am to 5pm; Sunday 12pm to 4pm (toilets are usually locked but ask for the key at the desk) Kingswood Library, Kingswood House, Seeley Drive, SE21 8QR, Monday to Thursday 9am to 5pm Dulwich Park Rangers Officer, Dulwich Park, College Gate Road, SE21 7BQ, Every day, dawn to dusk Rear of pavillion cafe, Dulwich Park, College Gate Road, SE21 7BQ, Every day, dawn to dusk Cycle hire block, Dulwich Park, College Gate Road, SE21 7BQ, Every day, dawn to dusk

John K asked about what the costs of running a car were that James had suggested was around 1 day a week. The AA calculate all the running costs of cars - including depreciation and maintenance alongside obvious costs such as petrol, tax, mot and insurance. It's estimated at 86p a mile for a family car doing around 5,000 miles per year - or about ?4,400 a year. With an average annual income around ?25k a year, it means people work on average one day per week just to feed their car addiction. Like any addicts, most car obsessives will go into denial about that figure. The principal issue with cars is that people have been indoctrinated into associating cars with other things - with being an adult, with being 'free', with having social status. So when Otta points out that the definition of necessity is very weak when it comes to cars (especially given the price people pay), most of those aggressive rejections are because other issues are coming into play. Can hater? Me, no. But I wish some people could look objectively at what it is they do with their cars and admit it's simply a coloured lump of metal that's not worth the price they pay.

You can see from the finances that every single premiership club is completely reliant on TV cash to function. Without it they couldn't pay the players or run the team. Without the money, Arsenal would lose 29m a year, Man U would lose 183m a year, Spurs would lose 59m a year, Liverpool would lose 100m a year, Man Cty 179m a year... It's no use saying their celebrity owners would bail them out, because the celebrity owners are only there because the football is on the telly. ETA Looking at those figures again, I can seem that many clubs equal the TV revenue from sponsorship and commercial activities that are derived from their TV fame. Some of those clubs would lose almost 2/3 of their income without TV. Saying they would survive is just wishful thinking. I'm not suggesting football would cease to exist, but harking back to the olden days is irrelevant. That was when they paid footballers in beans and stadiums doubled as dog tracks. I reiterate, current managers are in the entertainment business.

No UDT, you're trying to change the argument. This discussion was about managers forgetting that their club's financial existence is founded today on TV revenues - that they are in the entertainment business. What you tried to do was deny that with some stupid logic, and then try and twist the figures to claim that TV isn't important. Now, instead of accepting your stupidity you're trying to change it into an argument about whether football is popular, and interspersing it with a large amount of abuse for anyone who disagrees with you. Your pointless aggression hidden behind online anonymity reveals a man with a whole suitcase of personal problems, whether you'll accept it or not.

None of those problems is related to James or justifys your abuse and personal attacks. Those seem to be motivated by your desire to get given the freehold for nothing.

"This, I believe, may be why you think James has been "working with me for months" on my leasehold woes" No, the reason why I think you've been working with James for months is because you said this on another thread: "[James] I asked you for help on some ongoing problems early last year and you said you couldn't do anything." You see? I know you've been working with James for months because you said so yourself. You also said that he went through your situation with you, and explained that whilst Southwark were the freeholder they had to do the renovation work and that there were systems in place for this that he couldn't influence. In fact the only thing that seems to come out from this is your belief that if you make a big enough fuss you'll get given the freehold for nothing. That suggests a rather different agenda to one which is apparently just unnecessarily slagging off James for something he hasn't done, after suffering an enormous 2 incompetent jobs in 13 years.

Whilst 36% is technically a fraction - it's not the kind of insignificant fraction you're trying to claim. It also completely misses the point. Gate and match day income is typically only 10% of income in the Premiership - only rising to 25% for the very biggest teams. So everything else is made from commercial deals which largely come off the back of the popularity of the team as a direct result of their television coverage. Typically you're trying to change the argument to one you can win. I didn't suggest that managers had to play entertaining football. I said they should remember they're in the entertainment business - and that business is principally fed by the attention generated through TV. So the rest of your corny cliches are hardly relevant. Your semi-pro and premiership footballer friends were clearly very lucky to have the benefit of your wisdom, and I suspect that a lot of the deterioration in the game of late must haven been as a direct result of you turning your many, many skills to the development of the hifi industry.

I don't have anything against Americans - just lazy copy and pasting from US websites about US issues in an US legal or political system in an effort to look cool. I liked the prediction that said there will be no C, X or Q, and that English will become a condensed language expressing condensed ideas - txt 2 spk!!! It's interesting that you can see the American obsession with Russia even here - I guess that they'd only recently bought Alaska.

I believe that 'old bat' was referring to a suspicion that 'buddug' is in fact a reincarnation of 'batdog' I can't find the 'shits' reference, and 'bullshitter' hardly qualifies as abuse because it's a description of the inventive nature of some of the critics. If you a trying to find offence in order to try and win an argument, that may well work in industrial tribunals but is unlikely to work in the court of public opinion. No surprise to see the tactic from a union rep ;-)