silverfox

Haven't done it myself, but would love to set up a company that times these information boards with a stop watch. I'm sure Google/Facebook would pay me billions. What annoys me is when several 'out of service' buses whizz past, knowing thet are going to pass the very stops I wish to go to. This should be outlawed. Any bus with a driver burning fuel should pick up passengers en route even if that route terminates early. There is no excuse for an empty bus

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Demand for housing in London (private and > council) outstrips supply..." > > So what's new? This has been the situation for > centuries and will continue in all urban centres. > > Rubbish silver fox - as a student you could pick > up hard to let flats from the councils in London > the early 1980s and the poulation was in decline > and some other Urban centres are dying and > diminishing in popultion and full of empty houses > - Detroit being an obvious global example, but > plenty of inner city UK emptying and boarding up I seem to remember that in the early 80s London operated a system of 'Essential Worker' housing/accommodation whereby postmen, tube workers etc would be given priority for council flats. This would imply that a problem existed with affordable housing. And yes, I remember some students were also getting some of these flats. Unfortunately people like me paid top whack for dodgy bedsits and have always had to pay true market rates through life.

You've asked a number of questions here LondonMix that may put people off trying to Reply. "Demand for housing in London (private and council) outstrips supply..." So what's new? This has been the situation for centuries and will continue in all urban centres. "Don't get me wrong, I think the social engineering that the UK gov't does to ensure that London doesn't become a city for the 7m most affluent people in London is definitely the right thing (and leads to a better socio-economic mix than in the city centre of Paris and New York where I have also lived)..." Why is a 'better' socio-economic mix necessarily desirable in a particular area? Will people become more friendly, more neighbourly, more altruistic? Will they share the same public services or will there still be a divide between those who, from economic necessity, need to use public services (Doctors surgeries etc) and those who can afford/company provides private services (eg, Bupa). I understand that ghettos here are undesirable but that is what Market forces would produce. Social engineering, no matter how noble the intention, will not stop more affluent people people shopping in dearer stores and poorer people shopping in cheaper stores, for example. The fact that a banker may live next door to a postman does not constitute a more equal society. "... My only concern is that the more of the existing housing stock that is used for social housing for the working poor and unemployed, the more expensive private sector housing gets..." A basic economic fact here. Are you worried for your own prospects? Also, as the age of austerity has now forced us to address, in what sense are the long term unemployed entitled to live in (social) housing in areas of high demand at the tax payer's expense? If a family has grandparents, parents and adult children that are unable to secure employment and dependent on benefits why not say sorry, you cannot live in The borough of Westminster, but we can relocate you to Hull next week. What is wrong with that? "...What does the forum think is the right amount of social/ council housing for London (as a % of total housing) taking into account that the greater the percentage is the fewer middle income people can afford to live here? Can't speak for the Forum here, but you seem to be saying that you're worried you (middle class people) will be priced out of London. The fact is, like generations of people before you in any major city, you need to work harder and scrimp and save like the rest of us to stay in London or throw in the towel and move out to the shires. "...Should we be trying to make sure London mirrors the country in general so it doesn't become a rich bubble rather than accomodating the potentially never ending demand for those who cannot afford to live in the city trying to stay here (people migrate from elsewhere in England and move into social housing in London all the time). I mean if I were unemployed or working minimum wage, I'd rather live in London than Kent for a lot of reasons so I think the demand is potenatially never ending... Clearly we need key workers but how many low wage jobs does London actually have..." The problem is, and this is why there are attempts to socially engineer a solution, people flock to cities to try to get on in life and improve their lot. Thousands of graduates flood into London and other cities each year to get on the career ladder. If they stayed in Leicester and Wolverhampton for example, it would decrease demand on housing stock. If you choose to go to a city it's easy to criticise those on social benefit as making things more difficult for you. however, any reduction in the numbers of (controlled) social housing will not necessarily help the situation and may in fact increase rents, house prices, so that only the truly affluent can afford to stay in London and other big cities.

So, was it substandard before?

I like the "...it's only ?3 a week..." speel. If I gave ?156 per year to all the charity collectors who've come to my door over the past year I'd need charitable help myself.

As suspected and confirmed by my unsealed envelope. Is a transcript of this debate available? - it would be interesting to see the for and against arguments

Try going to Menu on your remote and then selecting channel list. This will retune your stations for you. You will need to do this a second time after April 18

I've written down my guess as to what the result of this 'debate' will be and put it into a sealed envelope.

SUSURRUS (soo-sur-uhs) noun As in "a soft susurrus of conversation" plural -rus?es. Definition of SU-SUR-RUS (also su?sur?ra?tion - noun) - A soft, whispering or rustling sound; a murmur. su?sur-rous, su?sur?rant?adjectives Origin of?SUSURRUS Middle English susurracioun, from Late Latin susurrti, susurrtin-, from Latin susurrtus, past participle of susurrre, to whisper, from susurrus, whisper, ultimately of imitative origin. First Known Use: 1826 Cited today by Brendan, as below Re: ?45,000 a year not enough for truck drivers new Posted by: Brendan Today, 04:27PM I want to be a susurrus.

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > on another thread, jelly excused the Catholic > church from association with the behaviour of > child-abusing Catholic clergy thus: > ------------------------- > > To be fair, Jews are just as guilty as Muslims > of practicing genital mutilation. ... Cristians > (sic) - especially > > Catholics, of which I am - are taking an > underhand bashing on the strength of their faith's > unfortunate association > > with a few very bad apples among a far greater > number of good. > > not just racist and disreputable, but hypocritical > as well > don't waste your time on her Civilservant, your name implies a degree of intelligence so why not address the absurdity of the headline of The Telegraph article rather than having another cheap swipe at the Catholic Church. You have fallen into the lynch mob mentality of this thread. Only MGolden, as far as I can see, has asked any sensible questions. I'm not here to defend Jelly or paedophile priests, but The report in The Telegraph raises serious questions. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9162051/Woman-died-after-Muslim-nurse-refused-to-help-as-he-was-praying.html) It's not clear to me why the lady's sad death was the fault of Abdul Bhutto. It's obvious the care home didn't have adequate procedures in place. Where is the direct link here? It's easy to pick on the Muslim boy no matter how negligent he was - saves the care home a big insurance pay out no doubt. Jelly hasn't grasped the significance of what he or she is railing against, but nor have most of the lynch mob attacking Jelly and starting related ambiguous threads.

DJKQ: "What offends me most about SF's stance is not the continual diatribe that 'marriage' is for men and women only (an argument SF is losing miserably)..." That is the factual and legal position at the moment so I'm not stating anything that should offend you. "...but the avoidance of saying why homosexual relationships can not be seen as equal to heterosexual ones.....because that is what is at the core of it..." My whole position has been that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones (not just seen to be) - they are called Civil Partnerships. "...SF earlier pointed to the orthodoxy of the African Anglican movement for embellishment of his/her view..." This was mentioned in the context of the looming schism of the Church of England. The (Western) liberal desire for change regarding women vicars, bishops and gay clergy/marriage will paradoxically lead to the destruction, or fragmentation into sects, of the Anglican community. Some, like sphillips, may regard this as a price worth paying. "...in some African countries, up to half the population is infected with HIV. The churches refusal to promote safe sex and aid efforts to educate on HIV prevention played a major part in taking those countries to the abismal place they find themselves in now..." A gross over-simplification of a terrible tragedy

Now now El Pibe, no need to resort to base postings

big?ot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. Such a definition could well apply to you Otta

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is evidence that single sex marriage was > accepted and practiced in Ancient Greece and Rome > until the Christian Church took over and made it a > sin punishable by death. There will always be anomalies Maxxi. However, the following from Wikipedia seems to show a distinction existed in Roman Law - not unlike the current Civil Partnership/Marriage distinction The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[55] For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles.[56] It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[57] Furthermore, "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."[58] Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period is obscure.[59] ^ John Boswell, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." (New York: Random House, 1995). Pages 80?85. ^ Chris Scarre "Chronicles of the Roman Emperors" (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, 1995). Page 151. ^ Corbett, The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford, 1969), pp. 24?28; Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford, 1991), pp. 43?49.; "Marriages where the partners had conubium were marriages valid in Roman law (iusta matrimonia)" [Treggiari, p. 49]. Compare Ulpian (Tituli Ulpiani 5.3?5: "Conubium is the capacity to marry a wife in Roman law. Roman citizens have conubium with Roman citizens, but with Latins and foreigners only if the privilege was granted. There is no conubium with slaves"; compare also Gaius (Institutionum 1:55?56, 67, 76?80). ^ Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford, 1991), p. 5. ^ Eskridge, William N. (Oct 1993). "A History of Same-Sex Marriage". Virginia Law Review 79 (7). "The Romans may have accorded some same-sex unions the legal or cultural status of marriage."

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think this thread may be going in circles now. > > SF, without any new evidence I think leave for > appeal should not be granted ;) As the consultation phase has only just begun, I suspect this thread could run and run.

"... people were getting married for hundreds of years before the church decided to get involved..." True maxxxi, men and women were getting married for hundreds of years...

Officials are elected on the basis of manifesto promises. This one was never mentioned to the British people

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyway, in terms of the original propsal in the > EDF Referendum it looks like > > For a referendum - Silverfox > > Against - Everyone else Quite right El Pibe. All this shows is about 10 people have disagreed with me. I suspect there are many in the wings who would like a say whether the meaning of marriage is changed, rather than have it forced on them.

Article in the Daily Mail today. The case, based on specific facts under French Law, threw up these interesting points: Gay marriage is not a 'human right': European ruling torpedoes Coalition stance Same-sex marriages are not a human right, European judges have ruled. Their decision shreds the claim by ministers that gay marriage is a universal human right and that same-sex couples have a right to marry because their mutual commitment is just as strong as that of husbands and wives. The ruling was made by judges of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg following a case involving a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who complained the French courts would not allow them to adopt a child as a couple. The ruling also says that if gay couples are allowed to marry, any church that offers weddings will be guilty of discrimination if it declines to marry same-sex couples. It means that if MPs legislate for same-sex marriage, the Coalition?s promise that churches will not be compelled to conduct the weddings will be worthless... ...They declared: ?The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states? governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.?... The judges added that couples who are not married do not enjoy the same status as those who are. ?With regard to married couples, the court considers that in view of the social, personal, and legal consequences of marriage, the applicants? legal situation could not be said to be comparable to that of married couples.? The French civil partners, Valerie Gas and Nathalie Dubois, tried to secure marriage rights under clauses that prevent discrimination and protect privacy and family life. But the Strasbourg judges said there had been no discrimination against them because they were lesbians. Lawyers said the decisions transformed the impact of David Cameron?s planned same-sex marriage law. Neil Addison, a specialist in discrimination law, said: ?Once same-sex marriage has been legalised then the partners to such a marriage are entitled to exactly the same rights as partners in a heterosexual marriage. This means that if same-sex marriage is legalised in the UK it will be illegal for the Government to prevent such marriages happening in religious premises.? The Government?s consultation paper also said that no church would have to conduct gay weddings. It said there would be different legal categories of civil and religious marriage and same-sex couples would not be allowed religious marriages. But Church of England lawyers have already warned that if same-sex marriage goes ahead, then equality law is likely to force churches to fall into line and perform the wedding ceremonies. The Strasbourg ruling won praise from campaigners against same-sex marriage. Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said: ?For too long campaigners have been using the language of rights in an attempt to add moral force to what are nothing more than personal desires. ?In many cases they have bypassed the democratic process and succeeded in imposing their views on the rest of the population by force of law. ?We are seeing the same principle at work in the Government?s sham of a consultation on same-sex marriage.? He added: ?The ruling from the ECHR will embolden those whose concerns about same-sex marriage and adoption are not inspired by personal hatred and animosity, but by a genuine concern for the well-being of children and the welfare of society. ?Instead of rushing to legislate without seriously considering the views of the electorate, the Government should be encouraging a measured public debate on the nature and meaning of marriage.? The Stonewall pressure group called for same-sex couples to be allowed religious weddings if churches agreed. It added: ?The vitriol seen in statements by many political and religious figures, particularly some senior clerics, in advance of this consultation demonstrates the persistence of deeply worrying prejudice towards gay people.? Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117920/Gay-marriage-human-right-European-ruling-torpedoes-Coalition-stance.html#ixzz1plpIgEPo Why do I cite this? Not because nasty Silverfox hates gays. It's because the premiss of the Government's Consultation Process is naive, as are earlier comments on this thread such as: "...Finally it is staggering that anyone would imagine that gay marriage has anything to do with anyone but gay people themselves..." This is a big change which deserves proper scrutiny by society, democratically, rather than just slipped into law

I recently bought an espresso machine to which I was hugely attached until I noticed Whittard was selling the same model to gays. Suddenly my macchiato seemed cheapened; and questioned my commitment to the morning shot. Homophobe!

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- "...There is a simple yes or no answer depending on belief...You did in an > earlier post agree that it was wrong to > descriminate against someone because they merely > are gay and that the law was right to outlaw > decrimination..." Agreed. Race, creed, colour, sexual orientation etc - it's wrong to discriminate (also illegal), especially if you call yourself a Christian "...Sometimes people have to be prepared to change too..." Agreed However, it does not follow that because a person may not agree with Gay Marriage in a Church they are homophobic. Many Christians may simply see it as 'inappropriate' given the particular Church's teaching and tradition especially as there are secular alternatives. They don't hate gays. You could also turn this on its head and ask why some gays insist they will not be equal until they can be married in a church. sphillips seems to take the view that rather than leaving his or her church because of its stance it's worth staying within the fold and trying to effect change from within. Fair enough. It could also be seen as a divisive aim, selfish even, as such actions may undermine the shared consensus of that religious community to satisfy the demands of the few (see looming schism in the CofE between the western liberals and African conservatives).

DJKQ: "But SF you still haven't said if you think gay Christians should be allowed to have their relationship blessed in a church before God..." I see this is one of the issues that has driven The Archbishop of Canterbury to retire early. There is no simple yes or no on this.

El Pibe wrote: > > *with apologies to silverfox for making him sound > like an extra from Cocoon!!* No offence taken El Pibe, you make some good points

DJKQ "...So SF accepts that some views are abhorrant even when backed by a firm religious belief..." Of course I do, I don't like to see discrimination in any form - what do you take me for DJKQ? (you don't need to answer that). The issue in question is whether we need to re-invent the term marriage when there does not appear to be any demand for the change, even from the gay community. You have stated on here DJKQ that you didn't give the issue much thought before so it obviously wasn't high on your list of priorities. You should be thanking me for bringing your attention to this issue.

DJKQ "...Just because a group of people all believe the same thing...doesn't make their beliefs ok..." SF "Presumably this applies to gays as well?" DJKQ "What on earth do you allude to here?" SF - your views