david_carnell

The salmon mousse!

I'm not making up rules, Brendan. Nor am I arguing that humans do not need to grieve. I'm just stating my aversion to them. For different reasons to you but an aversion nonetheless. I'm not advocating a ban or telling people they can't do so. I'd just rather they didn't. That's all.

"Unless it causes harm"? You mean besides an aesthetic blot? I don't want to sound cold hearted but that's a pretty weak argument for tolerating such a thing. But I'm resigned to it continuing, tbh. No-one's going to ban it, and I'd be uncomfortable if they did, but there's a limit to acceptable behaviour in public beyond not causing harm. The fact that people have a "right" to do so doesn't make it okay in my eyes. I'm all for tributes and shrines. It's called a graveyard (or remembrance garden or whatever) and it belongs there. Not on the street. Pay your respects there. Someone previously mentioned allowing these shrines to remain until the dead are buried - a most sensible suggestion and compromise I would have thought. And nor should they be treated as some sort of public information film warning drivers that their vehicle has the possibility to kill. A death should be treated with respect, not as a billboard.

PA Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gimme a decent bakery, record shop, haberdasher, a > well stocked library to overtake from Foxtons, no > crazy fools speeding in cars and ramming > pushchairs and hey presto PA and the rest of us > can enjoy a stroll down LL again. x A decent bakery? You mean like the East Dulwich Deli or Luca's or Blackbird (x2) or Ayers in Nunhead or the Flower Power at Peckham Rye farmers market? And a library - like the one in Peckham....? Or Dulwich Library? Or the small one on Grove Lane? There's a haberdasher's on North Cross Road on Saturday's and more fabric shops than you could want on both the Lane and Rye Lane. Oi oi oi.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > With respect. Who are you to make a judgement on > how someone else expresses their grief? I'm no-one Brendan, just one of a number of people who feels uncomfortable with the manner in which death is becoming an exercise in showing how many bouquets of flowers can be put on display in a public place. I'm not attempting to outlaw this activity or impose my beliefs, merely trying to dissuade people from continuing with it and outline my reasons. I think I'm entitled to that since the streets on which they are placed are as much mine as anyone's. And I'm afraid the whole "well it's a cultural thing...." doesn't wash. We don't get paid mourners lining the streets and only now is the first Hindu pyre being granted permission in remote Northumberland - it'll be a while before it's seen on Peckham Rye. It has nothing to do with "culture" and more to do with the modern phenomena of being "seen" to mourn the deceased in public. And whilst Bellenden Belle questions how else school children could expect to pay their respects to dead classmates, gathering around the crash-site (or whatever) strikes me as just a little macabre. Surely, a memorial inside the school would be a more suitable location?

Whatever happened to private grief? Why the need for public displays of sentimentality? It's all a bit (and the Diana stuff was the prime example).... mawkish. When a loved one dies, no one, including myself, questions the need for grieving and/or celebrating their life. But why can't this be done in the same manner as 99% of other deaths - with quiet, dignified and private reserve? The only exception I can see are those who died in large groups, such as the touching memorial that Woof referred to. But these roadside memorials (for it is traffic related deaths that appear to be the predominant feature) seem to be being given some special status that I'm not sure they warrant. I'm not trying to be deliberately provocative, nor do I wish to cause offence to anyone who has participated in this sort of thing, but frankly I'd rather they didn't exist.

Michael Palaeologus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It could be worse - your loved one could by you > the Morrisons meal deal for Valentines day - nasty > soup, nasty pasta, nasty pudding, nasty wine - all > for ?8. That should do you. Huh? But it seemed like such good value. What with that and the Danny Dyer box-set I've bought for "'er indoors" I thought I'd be a shoe-in. It costs ?15 at Waitrose for the same combo....do you think that would do the trick? Money talks, right?

You're looking for sophistication on Valentine's Day?!

A last minute Wilkinson drop-goal does strange things to a man's libido. My advice would be to find some of your, ahem, bitches as I believe you refer to them, that are also single and go and get trolleyed at a nice cocktail bar in town before putting the world to rights.

In the words of South London's most popular revolutionary: Power to the People & Freedom for Tooting (and East Dulwich) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Citizen_smith.jpg REVOLUTION!

Whilst ensuring the correctness of his Bobship I've now discovered that even copying a CD onto your computer and onto your ipod is technically illegal. This is a nonsense. Whilst I'm not proud of having thieved music from the net before, the vast majority of my collection is legally purchased CDs or itunes albums. To then not be allowed to make duplciates of those for private use seems ridiculous.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'Fraid not, DC. > > This is copyright infringement = illegal. Really? How so? Surely if I own a legally bought copy of that album (on any format) all I am doing by downloading it is obtaining a duplicate. As long as I then don't attempt to distribute or sell that copy I have done nothing wrong. Surely that was the loophole that would allow you to make compilation albums on cassettes. Edit: As usual on such matters, Bob, you are correct. Well, that's me with a criminal record then.....(*insert Gary Glitter joke here*)

If you own the originals you can download the albums from bit-torrent websites without doing anything illegal. It'll be quicker and the quality much better than any tape-CD-ipod converter unit you can find.

They might know about it but their national team is shi'ite.

Whilst Grammar schools (and I'm a product of one) do produce great exam results it doesn't take a genius to see why. At 11 they take the cream, those who are already intellectually ahead of their peers, and hot house them for 5 or 7 years. The end result is a clutch of A* and A's at GCSE and A Level. Any other outcome would be ridiculous. But is any "value" really added to the pupil. That is a much more interesting and difficult measure to examine. Unfortunately the side effects are also profound. Firstly, to gain entrance to these schools parents will pay through the nose for private tutors to "coach" their children in how to pass the entrance exams. The pressure on such young minds is often unbearable. House prices in those areas with grammar schools also rise, pricing many out of the area and the ability to send their children to those schools. Secondly, what of the masses left behind in non-grammar schools? If resources are ploughed towards the "gifted" as some have asked for on this thread, what of the non-gifted or normal? Can appitude not develop or be discovered throughout childhood and teenage years if resources are spread throughout the schooling system evenly? Or, perhaps even with a bias towards the lowest achievers. They are surely the ones who need the most help from society. Poor education is the number one dominant factor in the prison population. The number of illiterate prisoners is astounding. To even begin to enable them reassimilate into society you have to start educating them....as adults! This is an absurd situation for a modern society to find itself in. But we do because for too long we have ignored those at the bottom of the ladder and diverted resources away from them. But talking about SEN isn't sexy so politicians rarely care about it. The solution would be Toby Young-style "Comprehensive Grammars" - all pupils are in together but streaming exists within subject groups to allow the brightest to forge ahead and extra attention to be given to those struggling. The other major change I would like to see in education is that grades are not based on absolute marks but are a percentage or banding result. Grades are not there to tell you how well you've done per se, they are there to tell you how well you have done compared to everyone else. If everyone get's A* it says nothing about how clever you are compared to your peers. Exams are no easier or harder now than they were 50 years ago - just differently graded. Only the top 10% (as an example) should be given an 'A', not all of those scoring 90% in an exam.

Piers, she's gone and ruined it now with smileys. Un-doff that hat!

Ah - that would explain it. Otherwise your lucky dip choice isn't too bad at all.

No, but both of you might want to look at your 3/4 line as the all-Scottish line up has been subject to alteration. Godman is playing fly-half now. And Declan....your one English pick (Borthwick) is an insult. He's our worst player!

I took that as a given Mick. They're not favourites for no reason. Will this be O'Gara's swansong. I think he'll hit his 100 caps if he plays all 5 games and with Sexton nipping at his ageing heels it might be time for him to step down gracefully at the end of the tournament. Especially if Ireland win.

Interesting article in the Guardian today highlighting the rarity of Wales worrying about the English backs and England worrying about the Welsh front-row in the scrum. I think Tait might provide the inventiveness England have been lacking. Wilkinson still tackles like a lion and is good for 12 points a game thanks to his kicking. Monye was devastating on the wing for the Lions and Armitage had better be good to keep the inventive Foden out of the line-up. Cueto will be playing for the jersey with Strettle, Banahan and Ashton all gunning for the second spot. But an all-Lions Welsh front row up against an inexperienced English pack might cause havoc. I'll call an England win though. As for the rest of the tournament....hmmm....closest one in years with only Italy not likely to cause too many upsets. Scotland could shock a few people with Any Robinson turning them into a Wallaby-beating outfit of late. In Phil Godman they have one of the most inventive and dynamic fly halves in Europe and Chris Paterson is still the world's best goal kicker. If their pack can hold up they could be up there. So....I have no $$^%^"? idea.

I'll ignore point 1 as we all seem to be in agreement that this is a pretty naff piece of journalism. So onto point 2) - the point of equality. For a libertarian free-marketeer (correct me when I'm wrong) the fact that you believe in equality of opportunity astounds me Quids. But I'm glad you do. It makes the next but easier. Whilst I do not believe that there should be absolute equality of outcome I do think it should be narrower than it is now. This means that the gap between the richest and poorest in society should be smaller. Why? Because those societies that have the smallest wealth differential coupled with social equality are the happiest. From this, all ills stem. Crime, fear, violence, education, job satisfaction - it all stems from this basic tenet. 3) Measures of poverty - I agree it's tricky. You've highlighted the problem with statistics with some aplomb. I would argue that comparitive poverty is also vitally important. See above. But Labour will struggle to get the message across that actually a lot of people are much better off than they were over a decade ago. It's just that rich folks are MUCH better off. I'll be watching with interest. As for trickle down?.I'm not convinced. Can someone find a study that supports it? 4) Education. Quids - nail on head you've hit. I'm ashamed to admit that the Labour Party, and cabinet especially (although not exclusively - Diane Abbot I'm looking at you), has been a disgrace on this issue. It's hypocritical and they should be ashamed. I am. But it all starts here. By half way through secondary school in most instances it's already too late to change anything. There will be exceptions, but not many. Until there is equality in the school system the problems will persist. The debate on solving this is huge and answers varied. For my money, Brighton had the right idea a few years ago. Want to go to a local school? Sure. But you don't get a choice. You put your name in a hat and it's a lottery. Within three years you solve the problem. No sink schools. No "top" schools. Just schools. With everyone in together and everyone wanting to help drive standards up. As a socialist I'm fed-up with accusations of dumbing down - every school should have it's share of the best teachers, brightest pupils and cutting edge facilities. I want every child to have the chance to learn Latin, play the flute, exercise on first class sports equipment. Education shouldn?t be about choices?.you go to your nearest school because it is no better than any other. After over a decade in power and throwing more money than ever before into the system, the Labour Party has failed to address this fundamental issue. 5) I'll put that down to the drink. Edited.

Hoopers has two TVs and is much better than the EDT. The guy who owns it is a rugby fan and the beer is vastly superior. I shall be there for any matches I can make. Now....are we doing this fantasy league or not?!

I do worry about enclaves of any ethnic groupings be they Jew, Muslim, Skih, Hindu or great clumps of white-flight suburbia. I believe passionatly in a multi-ethnic Britain but multi-cultural Britain is a very different beast - one that even Trevor Phillips has highlighted difficulties over. Whilst forcing an outside culture to integrate into a non-defined "British" culture is a non-event, the problems caused by isolation and segregation can be just as bad. There has to be a half-way house that allows for religious and cultural freedoms whilst encouraging integration into the liberal and democratic ideals of a modern western society. Finding that point is a very difficult and delicate balancing act.

I figure it's one step closer to the Star Trek touch screen paradise that all nerds crave.

Is it a case of the French having a stronger sense of national identity to the British and thus are more prepared to legislate to defend that identity, real or perceived. Libertie, Egalitie, Fraternitie In Britain we have a much weaker and ill-defined sense of what it means to be "British" therefore we allow, tolerate or encourage diversity which includes religious garb. Meanwhile our French cousins have clearly defined ideas of being French and that includes not wearing religious dress-ups in public/state arenas but also allows for freedom of worship. I guess for them egalitie means the equal treatment of women rather than upsetting an Imam or two. I'm not sure I agree with that approach - it can lead to just as much racial and religious tension as multiculturalism does but if you are an immigrant moving to France then the message is clear and simple - welcome to western Europe and social democracy... please leave your third world religious mumbo-jumbo and misogynistic tendencies at the door. In Britain the message is much more muddled. You can come and seek work or refuge and are welcome to continue practising whatever you are use to - just be prepared to be ostracised by the local populous.