Huguenot

Incidentally, I note that there is currently debate in Malaysian parliament about those found guilty of homosexuality to be subject to both federal and state punishment consecutively. If passed, it means that gay people will first be caned and imprisoned for 20 years, and when they reuturn home after release they will be executed under sharia law. And they want to charge Bush and Blair regarding human rights? Laughable.

Currently public sector workers can retire on full pension at 60, whilst the private sector have to wait until they're 66 - presumably so they can pay for the public sector workers already playing golf for 6 years. The government also wants to target an intrinsic fraud in the system that allows public sector workers to get a dramatic increase in their job title and salary just before retiring so that their 'final salary pension' gets a bump. The government would like to make the pension proportionate to their whole career, not the bump. Labour doesn't support the strike either, because they, like private sector workers, can see that the public sector is getting a bit grabby whilst everyone else is suffering.

Private sector pensions and public sector pensions are quite different. For a private sector pension you need to save all your life for enough money to support you when you stop working. If you don't save enough or you live longer you need to keep working until you can afford to stop. A public sector pension is an agreement that private sector workers will continue to pay them for 30 or 40 years after they stop working. The strike is because public sector workers think they have a right to bigger salaries, bigger pensions, more perks and stop working earlier than the desperate private sector workers who pay them. The unions are pretending this is against the government so that they can cash in on public frustration, but in reality this is public sector workers turning both barrels on private sector workers for more cash, when private sector workers are worried if they'll be able to pay the rent and have to work forever. So don't be surprised, ontheedge, if you don't get the support you think you deserve.

I think 'sorry' is a better and more accurate statement than 'excuse me' isn't it? 'Excuse me' is an attempt to lessen the blame, to say it's your (or someone else's) fault. At least 'sorry' is being honest about it.

It's a measure of the public sector labour force that they are so short-sighted that they think whooping it up about a strike on a forum read by private sector workers who pay their wages would be a bright idea. Private sector workers are worried about their job security and their future, and their pension isn't even on the horizon. Most of them think they're going to work until they die. And public sector workers are striking over the size of their perks?

We have a perfectly serviceable democratic system that allows us to create, debate and refine ideas to be absorbed by those people that run for office. We then elect them according to their manifestos. If the people on this forum want to do more than 'just talk and complain about it behind a computer' then they (and you) have every right to enter that electoral process. Not doing so is not a 'resignation', it's just a reflection of their priorities. What you are proposing is to jack-in that process in favour of what you believe to be a better system - one that involves teepees and listening. The natural conclusion of teepees and 'listening' when applied to large groups of people is a parliamentary democracy - which is exactly what we have. So either you're complaining because you want what we already have - or you actually have no intention of creating a democratic nation at all and you're actually trying to create a state run by peruvian beardies.

I wasn't laughing off a nation, it wasn't a Malaysian national court - I was laughing off this faction of ideologues in a country plagued by social extremists. Hence my reference to an Iranian faction that's not representative of a nation. This mock trial was likely as not held by the latest bunch of suburban academic wallies that in the UK would be selling the Socialist Worker outside East Dulwich station. The giggling girls in camera shot supported that interpretation.

I called it 'yours' because you called it "Our Safer Spaces Policy.." I was just matching your claim of ownership - if it's not yours then I don't mind changing it back again? Hypocrisy is not a unique attribute of the establishment - as I said, you claim a right under law to camp free of interference in central London, but you offer no opportunity for the owners of other properties that you covet to assert their own right. Hence your own organisation is riven with sufficient hypocrisy to demonstrate that revolution is no cure. As for the 7 billion people who have no voice, it's an illogical proposition. We all live in such a state of interdependence that it's only a lunatic fringe that can lay claim to do exactly as they please - and the occupiers of tent city and the plutocrats of the City are no different in their indulgence and exploitation of others to satisfy selfish pleasures.

Hi gsirett, well said mate. I think Cllr Barber answered the 20k question here: effectively there IS no 20k - "If/when a section 106 agreement is signed they [the developers] will eventually around 2014/15 give ?20,000 towards a CPZ consultation. I don't see any appetite for another such consultation within 3-4 years. Do you? So in all likeyhood that ?20,000 will sit in a council bank accounr for a number of years. The 72 Grove Vale S106 agreement had this problem and evenutally the ?50,000 was spent on the orignal Herne Hill CPZ consultation."

Bank of ideas isn't offering a space, you stole it - you've simply usurped the reasonable compromises of property rights in order to get your own way. If everyone did this you and your 'protest' would have been steamrollered by people annexing your tents long ago. It's rather childish of your supporters not to recognise that your 'right to protest' is upheld by the laws that you've just arbitrarily decided to dismiss when they're not to your adavantage. I think Loz is probably highlighting the fact that our society is too interconnected for us to make decisions through hand gestures in teepees. It may well be that you don't believe in nation states, but global resource and energy challenges and decisions for 6 billion 7 billion people are not going to be accommodated by such a process. Frankly it's just silly.

It wouldn't be at all unusual for food retailers to try and pass off a poorer quality product as the real thing, I'm sure butchers are no different. We're fortunate that the EEC has protected us from despicable charlatans trying to corrupt British products like Cornish clotted cream, Stilton, Cumberland Sausage, Plymouth Gin, Melton Mowbray pork pies and West Country Cheddar. Our kitchens and tastebuds are better for them. To be a Capon, a chicken nees to be both surgically castrated and fattened for 77 days. Butchers trying to pass off doctored meats and accellerated growth as a Capon should be put straight, and I imagine they and their wallets hate the thought of it.

Oh dear - you're going to have to explain the Ted Max one to me...

'Occupy London in Lebensraum scandal as they assert sovereign birthright and annex neighbouring properties' I have to say that seeking 'home education' is the worst excuse for this pathetic and pointless protest I've heard yet. Are overprotective parents whingeing that their kids are scared of school really going to get us out of this 'current crisis'? Really? Really?? We're going to sort society by singing Kum Ba Yah at glazed eyed six year old children dressed in androgynous clothing?

I think gsirett should be aware that defamation includes innuendo, and that by refusing to clarify or apologise for his accusation he is aggravating his offense. It may be that both gsirett and penguin68 have been overcome with an infatuation for Private Eye's boyish strutting, but I sincerely doubt that they have the legal support and several hundred thousand the Eye has to pay out each year to sustain this approach. I suggets that parties involved in this irresponsible and borderline criminal accusation grow up, take a deep breath, and apologise.

Ha ha! :)) Malaysia? This is the country where the political opposition are falsely accused of the offence of homosexuality in order to get them out of the picture? In Malaysia you get caned and 20 years jail for being gay. You might as well say that the Iranian Republican Guard have indicted and charged George Bush with being the big satan. What a joke. Carter, you need to see the bigger picture, these guys are laughable.

Nah Thomas, it isn't the desire to save the planet that's childish - it's the manipulative behaviour and petty half truths from propaganda leaflets.

"How do you regulate OTC derivatives trading to achieve robust risk pricing without stifling genuine creativity in capital markets?" Call me a cynic but I doubt I am going to get interesting answers to those questions from a moonlighting social worker in Peruvian knitwear. :)) Thanks DaveR

I don't think the world wants to crush your spirit Thomas, I think the world wants you to stop childishly trying to mainpulate it and find something more interesting to say about yourself. The video was 'Every Sperm is Sacred'.

That's a big acccusation Thomas - what's your evidence?

I think the point binary_star was that every situation is different, not that regulars get favours. I think it's pretty insulting to admin and the mods to suggest they indulge in that sort of thing. It's not possible to have a blanket rule that either bans or endorses negative posts. There'd be no court in the land that would attempt that either. It's a judgement call, and taking down a post doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it's impractical to resolve.

Those 30 million chicks that get totalled each year probably have it easy compared with the 800 million that get eaten, or the 11,000 million that never get out of their eggs! Seriously Thomas, unless every sperm chicken is sacred, a 3.5% collateral damage rate ain't bad! See Thomas, every Tuesday at the institution clinic he runs at the much imposed upon Blue Brick ;-):

Hmm, I wonder whether therein lies the answer. If the forum owner could demonstrate they had taken all reasonable measures to check the accuracy of statements, and the correspondent takes personal responsibility for their opinions and absolved the forum from blame... then would that solve it? It looks like any contentious material would then require the correspondent to sign a witnessed contract with the forum and pay 100 quid costs? Not exactly practical, mind ;-)

You don't see the irony in that?

Legally it's a complete mess. In fairness to Mark - his comment was from 2006 and most of the very small crowd that contributed to the site back then had very idealistic visions of how the forum could support the community. It took several legal cases before the forum managed to find an uneasy balane between serving the community and staying out of court.

Except the evidence from HH is that it's not significant enough to prompt an extension of the zone...