Magpie

On a cost/benefit analysis, it is probably the case that the common market between countries is beneficial for the UK. However, this could be achieved without any political or legal union. I can't see any real benefits of political or legal union. Sure many "Victims" of injustice run to the COHR, but so do a lot of timewasters. The peace is NI was brought about by exhaustion on both sides (military for the IRA, political from the Brits) so ultimately they talked. Nothing to do with European Law.

Maybe but the point was we never gave up our claim despite vacating the island, and it is therefore incorrect to say we stole if from the Argies. I appreciate that supporting Britain in anything is an anathema to many people on here, but in this case it is difficult to argue that Britain's case for ownership is not the strongest. Sure strategy comes into it (the only reason we gave up HK against local opinion was because we knew it could never be defended from the Chinese), but rumours around oil deposits are pretty recent, we went to war in 1981 to defend British Citizens from a facist regime, and it is an insult to the soldiers who died to say it was all about oil.

It was the Uplands Tavern prior to the last refurb about 7/8 years ago - I am assuming that it had been the UT for a while before that

There is loads about at the moment - Melbourne Grove always seems to be bad, as is the top of Lordship Lane. The animals that do this annoy me, but I don't mind their dogs.

Question - why the need to rename the pub - it seems a shame to get rid of the original name, part of the areas heritage and all that. The same question applies to why you felt the need to lose the Forester's name, one of the oldest pubs in the area I believe, and rebrand it as the Bishop.

Britain, while recognising the Argentinian state did not recognise their claim to the Falklands. The islands were unoccupied during the period after the Spanish left in 1811 to about 1826 when the Argentinians attempted to settle the islands, however, the British maintained that they had a claim to the Islands during this period. The Islands were not stolen from Argentina. The Islanders are, and want to remain, British, and hence should be offered full protection in their status as British Citizens.

Its all very well listing the supposed benefits of the European Union, but how many can you demonstrably prove are a direct result of the European Union rather than, for example, a result of better transport links and would have happened anyway.

The problem with funding is that it builds dependency and gives influence to the fund giver. I'm sure it is difficult to obtain funding from the art council as presumably you have to tick all the "flavour of the month" boxes, and reflect the preferences and tastes of the body awarding the grant. Surely its better to have editorial control and produce what you want. Further, a question, how is the effectiveness of art funding judged? What kind of studies are undertaken to support the promotion on one activity over another?

Depends how you define Arts. There is a case for funding to support free access to Art galleries for example, and I believe, to ensure that great works of Art can be held in these great Art galleries. However, not sure there is a case to support the creation of Art per se, especially as much modern Art is intensly political. Further, the Art council decides who grants are awarded to (ie have you ticked the boxes of all the latest social fads if not you don't get the cash). I'm not sure there is a case for producing Art for Arts sake as there is, for example, for some areas of Science. Surely if the stuff is any good then people will pay for it. The art form that arguably we are most internationally successful at is music, the best of which appears organically without state funding.

My personal experience about the capabilities of elderly men are pretty different than yours, and anyway national service stopped in 1963 (I think) - any man above the age of 65 would have experienced it. And sure Grandads have fixed views, but then so do teenagers, twenty and thirty somethings, and the middle aged. Anyway wasn't looking for an argument more making the point that there may be significant advantages of having elderly parents around the place

Womanofdulwich - how can you post such sexist rubbish - I am shocked!!!! Any grandad who was old enough for national service is more than capable of cooking, cleaning, and generally looking afterthemselves. Plus they are far more likely to be able to do DIY than the current stock of menfolk. I recommend that families sans-parents sweep the streets looking for Grannys/grandads to steal (or adopt if you prefer to keep things above board)

The point about the bailout is that the government has not given the banks a cheque, it injected cash in return for equity stakes or as loans with interest conditions attached. At some point the government can (hopefully) expect to get its/our money back. The approach taken was based on what the Swedish government did with their banks in the 1990's, and actually a profit was eventually made on the orginal investment. Paying off someones debt directly or handing out cash would mean that the money is effectively gone. The banking bailout is working reasonably well, low interest rates are being used by consumers and banks as an opoportunity to repare balance sheets. We need banks to be profitable so that they can pay off the debt they held, and restore sensible asset/liability ratios so that at some point down the line they can be sold off. What we don't need is banks paying their staff whopping bonuses. This is because its a big FU to the taxpayer not because the amounts are particularly significant in total.

Oh dear, I was being flippent. Part of the attraction of rugby over football to me, both from playing and watching, is the physical aspect of the game. You're telling me there is no violence in a scrum, or a big hit, or a rampaging forward on the charge batting off the tackles? and if it all boils over into a bit of fisticuffs then it shows you that the games is being played on the edge, as it should be at its most intense.

Its the violence that attracts people to Rugby . . . .

David - I understand what you're saying, and indeed my Father, who failed the eleven-plus but went onto to a successful academic and professional career in engineering, always railed against children being grouped as "clever" or "secondary modern" at 11. I went to a comprehensive school that did have streaming, the result was that by the age of 13 subjects were taught in sets judged by ability, which meant that both high performers and low performers had the appropriate level of support. I'm not sure to what extent this is the standard model across the comprehensive system. We should probably also accept that there will always be children who cannot be taught academic subjects, physical beings rather than mental beings if you like, that don't have the patience, the attention span, or the aptitude, for sitting in a classroom for 6 hours a day. One could argue that these children were also better served in a 1950/60s style education system that put far more emphasis on vocational training in woodwork, metal work, mechanics etc

Interesting debate - what is missing here is social mobility. The US is less equal than the UK, but social mobility is higher. Perhaps a more elitist approach should be taken to education, with selection based on aptitude so that the brightest or the most gifted (in any field) are identified at an earlier age and supported accordingly. This is not to say that we should not see return to grammer schools, although that model was actually pretty successful in encouraging social mobility, but more use of streaming by ability in schools with effort focused on the most gifted.

But actually the opposite has happened though. 30 years of failing to encourage integration has led to the UK and London being centres for extremist activity. Many second generation muslims are far stricter than their parents in terms of dress and behaviour. The increase in extremism isn't a reaction to tougher government post-2001, it happened well before that, and was ignored, in the hope, that you share, that magically they will all turn into liberal tolerant secular westerners. Well they haven't, and we reap the whirlwind of that failure.

And so back to Eversfield initial point - freedom to express opinions, but not freedom from being accused of: "a desire for imposition and if not hatred then antipathy emenating from someone" And as to Brits behaving badly abroad, then cases routinely lead to prosecution, deportion, and generally getting a hiding from the police, and are usually accompanied by tabloid agreement in the UK . The sex case in Dubai, was a great example, the consensus opinion appeared to be one of "Stupid feckers". It makes perfectly logical sense to make it a requirement that someones face is visible when in a public place, especially if this is defined in a limited sense, as being somewhere "official" such as a school, hospital etc. Fine if you want to cover your face in the street then do so, but it is an obvious statement that you do not want to conform with the society you live in, in fact you do not want even to make the tiniest compromise with the culture of the society you live in. And note I say face, not hair.

Exactly Kidkruger - when in Rome and all that Although I think its as a result of self-hate from the political establishment, rather than a lack of cultural identity in the indigenous population.

Well at the moment they are effectively imprisoned in their veils - the distinction is "Public space" - defined, I believe, in France, as areas of "State" such as civic buildings, schools or hospitals not the street.

I agree that in the majority of cases the state shouldn't dictate what people wear. However, there are certain circumstances where the state should dictate what's appropriate or not. If you distinguish between a full face veil and a hijab (which just covers the hair), then banning the use of the veil in public spaces - ie schools, hospitals, law courts etc is obviously consistent with a policy that prevents people wearing motorbike helmets, for example, in public places. I personally find the site of a fully veiled women in the UK offensive, if enforced then it is repression, if voluntary then it is a political statement that says I do not want to engage with the society I live in. As I understand it there is no requirement to cover ones face in Islam, and hence no religious necessity to do so. In certain circumstances as described above, I also think it should be illegal. Further, despite arguments that state that women find it empowering to completely obscure themselves from the public space, I find it slightly confusing that many people who consider themselves progressives or social liberals have no problem with such an obvious symbol of patriarchal power.

Do I think that people in this country are free to express an opinion on this? Yes of course. However, you may get sharp intakes of breath from all your guardian reading friends if you dare to state the obvious (ie support the French position)

I think the French are right. I feel intensly uncomfortable about seeing women completely covered underneath black robes as a result of cultural (note not religious) attitudes about the role of women. I find it surprising that so many "progressive" people don't have a problem with this clothing. This not about covering hair, but about covering faces, it prevents human interaction.

flicked through the document. The actual stat is that one third of males born in 1953 had received at least one criminal conviction. 7.5% have received a custodial sentance. So it is 7.5% of males born in 1953 have been to jail. Still far higher than for women, but no where near the 33% mark, and the stats only relate to men born in 1953. The proportion declines in later year partially (according to the paper) as the police started giving out cautions for first offences rather than seeking convictions. According to the paper, most convictions occur between the ages 13 - 20 and are non-violent. The likelihood of being convicted post-20, if you have never previously committed a crime, declines dramatically.

If you read the first post you can see that I use the Kraft takeover of Cadbury as an example of loss of cultural identity in the face of bland corporatisation. The remainder of the discussion is clearly on topic. Anything to add?