Of course it was only the representatives of the British state that were armed. Surely all good libertarians would propose that the deceased RAers should have had guns to defend themselves against the oppressive attentions of tyrannous Albion?
The most important article of this year was by matthew d'ancona when he pointed out that Red Ed, Marxist, Union Member and Left Wing are all useless attack lines.
The public has moved on. The Tory attack dogs need to as well.
Oh lord, the Tories are going to collectivise Surrey
@suttonnick: Saturday's Daily Telegraph front page - "Build new home now 'or lose planning permission'" #tomorrowspaperstoday http://t.co/6yV7aFstAr
Can't read the text, but going from the headline: there's a world of difference between losing planning permission and being forced to sell the land.
This will be fun Go on then explain to us all the difference beteween Eds collectivisation of the Berkshire Kulaks and Daves Big Pink Fluffy Society I'll Tickle You If You Don't Build A Cottage Within Fifty Years policy.
As I recall, Ed's plan was for the developers to be forced to sell the land via compulsory purchase if the planning lapsed. This leads to all sorts of difficulties and potential injustices.
It's hard to know what the government's proposal is from just a headline, but at a guess, they are saying councils can force developers' hands by saying planning will lapse immediately if they do not start development. But that is just a guess, and there will be more information in the text.
Which in itself could be a slight nonsense, given that (AFAICR) development officially starts when the ground is broken.
Neither 'solution' fixes the real problems in the housing market.
anothernick said: » show previous quotes Could you cite some evidence for your assertion that the UK's infrastructure can't cope with more immigration? From the Guardian no less:
But surely an increasing birthrate is a good thing? Or would you prefer the UK to become an ageing,sclerotic society like Japan or Italy?
70 million population is far too much for an island smaller than Michigan (population less than 10 million)
If the population is intolerably high surely people will stop coming here so it settles down to a lower level?
Have you been to Hong Kong ? Not sure the density limit has been reached yet.
Surely Japan is the UKIP model, have population density sorted out by limiting immigration to almost nothing then watch as the population reduces by a third as they all die off in a mountain of debt and falling birth rates
Logically, it ends with incest !
Vice is nice, but incest is best.
Incest is the sort of thing that should be kept in the family.
Of course it was only the representatives of the British state that were armed. Surely all good libertarians would propose that the deceased RAers should have had guns to defend themselves against the oppressive attentions of tyrannous Albion?
I don't recall the details of the case - although they were found with keys to a Semtex-laden car, IIRC. Doesn't justify shooting rather than arresting though.
Surely Japan is the UKIP model, have population density sorted out by limiting immigration to almost nothing then watch as the population reduces by a third as they all die off in a mountain of debt and falling birth rates
No we don't want to be like Japan but not for the reasons you claim. The Japanese population density is truly awful and most people given the choice would certainly not (I believe) want to live in that kind of environment.
Already England has the highest population density in Europe outside of a few islands and city states. I suspect that if it was put to people in those stark terms they would not choose to see that density increase.
Now I would accept one point which has been mentioned in the past which is that if we could get a million or so of our own population to emigrate then I would not have a problem with replacing them with half a million or so immigrants. But I am firmly of the belief that we already have too many people here so would be very happy to see the population drop and certainly would not want to see it increase. Beyond that I am not as concerned as some by exactly where the population was born as long as they abide by our laws.
I'm with you there brother, give me a bottle of top Prosecco and a decent red for the same price as a bog standard Champagne every day. I've done wine at weddings where the couple have saved a grand and drunk much better stuff by making that decision, but you'd be amazed by how many people refuse to drop Champagne
Quite right too.
If you can't drink Champagne on your wedding day, what hope is there?
Oh lord, the Tories are going to collectivise Surrey
@suttonnick: Saturday's Daily Telegraph front page - "Build new home now 'or lose planning permission'" #tomorrowspaperstoday http://t.co/6yV7aFstAr
There is a difference between 'build or need to reapply for planning permission' (which already is the rule) and 'build or we'll take your property'
And the end sanction will be?
"Oh Persimmon has refused to build their bit of the Olympic Village, lets allow them to re apply for planning permission a few times"
Nonsense, it's going to have a sanction which is similar to Labours plan And right too, go and look at how the new towns were built, its where sensible opinion is heading.
Politically of course Ed Miliband has been driving the Govts agenda since the Syria vote.
Losing planning is a blooming big sanction.
The problem with reapplying for planning is:
1) It costs an arm and a leg, especially on big developments. 2) It takes time, especially on big developments. 3) It is risky. In the meantime, other objectors to the planning permission may arise, or the council may want more stringent (i.e. expensive) conditions, for instance on S106. You may not get planning again, yet alone on the same terms ...
Oh lord, the Tories are going to collectivise Surrey
@suttonnick: Saturday's Daily Telegraph front page - "Build new home now 'or lose planning permission'" #tomorrowspaperstoday http://t.co/6yV7aFstAr
There is a difference between 'build or need to reapply for planning permission' (which already is the rule) and 'build or we'll take your property'
And the end sanction will be?
"Oh Persimmon has refused to build their bit of the Olympic Village, lets allow them to re apply for planning permission a few times"
Nonsense, it's going to have a sanction which is similar to Labours plan And right too, go and look at how the new towns were built, its where sensible opinion is heading.
Politically of course Ed Miliband has been driving the Govts agenda since the Syria vote.
Land with planning permission is worth quite a bit more than land without. Losing the permission will place quite a dent in the value of the developer's assets. There is a real economic loss of losing the planning permission.
As it's the beginning of the month, I have access to the DT article. And it's a corker.
Basically the last Labour government introduced a rule allowing planning to roll-over if it is not used before the end of the three-year planning period. The coalition are removing that rule.
So all the coalition is doing is taking the planning laws back to where they were five years ago.
Yet Tim thinks this is the same as compulsory purchasing land!
Priceless. Especially as Labour have been complaining about the lack of build starts, and yet altered the law to make it possible for developers to delay build starts! So they are complaining about something they helped create.
Of course it was only the representatives of the British state that were armed. Surely all good libertarians would propose that the deceased RAers should have had guns to defend themselves against the oppressive attentions of tyrannous Albion?
I don't recall the details of the case - although they were found with keys to a Semtex-laden car, IIRC. Doesn't justify shooting rather than arresting though.
To be honest, I was absolutely delighted that the SAS shot them down.
Who said the couple shouldn't drink it, I'm talking about the 50 bottles at a big wedding that gets swilled as people arrive, replace that one with top Prosecco and put a better red on the table when people actually notice what they are drinking
Good plan, Prosecco for the hoi polloi so you can sneak in Krug for the happy couple, and still save money.
So you would like American homicide rates over British ones? Or are you just talking about wealthy landowners protecting themselves from burglars, you don't mind if inner city kids shoot each other?
I think I would be content with Norwegian homicide rates per capita which are half those of the UK in spite of gun ownership rates per capita being 5 times higher. Same applies to Switzerland which has gun ownership rates 7 times higher than the UK and homicide rates almost as low as Norway. Or Sweden, or France which has 5 times the rates of gun ownership and very similar homicide rates to the UK.
The problem in America has nothing to do with guns. I am not sure what the hell the problem is in America but it is not gun ownership.
Of course it was only the representatives of the British state that were armed. Surely all good libertarians would propose that the deceased RAers should have had guns to defend themselves against the oppressive attentions of tyrannous Albion?
I don't recall the details of the case - although they were found with keys to a Semtex-laden car, IIRC. Doesn't justify shooting rather than arresting though.
To be honest, I was absolutely delighted that the SAS shot them down.
But personal feelings aside it's better for us all when the authorities operate by the rule of law. The outcome of today's court martial shows the UK has come a long way since then.
The thinkers in all parties are now looking at new towns, thankfully, at last. Planning time limits will come from that, we are going to re learn what the people who built in the thirties and fifties did, there's no alternative other than each generation screws their kids over property prices
Planning time limits already exist.
I'm with you re not screwing over our children on housing but the state confiscating land from developers is not the way to achieve that.
The thinkers in all parties are now looking at new towns, thankfully, at last. Planning time limits will come from that, we are going to re learn what the people who built in the thirties and fifties did, there's no alternative other than each generation screws their kids over property prices
Planning time limits already exist.
I'm with you re not screwing over our children on housing but the state confiscating land from developers is not the way to achieve that.
Compulsory purchase orders have existed for years, and are necessary as otherwise we would never be able to build major infrastructure. What's the difference, really?
The problem in America has nothing to do with guns. I am not sure what the hell the problem is in America but it is not gun ownership.
Not gun ownership - gun culture. They're obsessed with them.
Not sure what you mean by that. Okay, not quite true and I get what you are trying to say but how do you define and deal with that. Norway has a 'gun culture'. Guns are seen as an integral part of life anda tool. Same goes for the other countries I mentioned. Simply banning guns as Bobajob was suggesting yesterday will do nothing to solve that problem.
Now Neil that's not fair! And would you really want to lose to me.
The Tory housing policy is a good idea but shows just how stupid uttering the word marxist is. They should also stop all the union bashing. The public doesn't care and 6 million trade unionist think that the Tories are dead against them.
Planning permissions already expire after 3 years.
That's the point of the article: Labour altered the law so that planning permission could roll-over. Hence delaying build starts.
And then they complain about the lack of build starts...
As I recall it is only 48 hours or so since I was being told very emphatically by some people on here (and no I am not referring to you Josias) that this was not a problem and that the in depth experience I had had of this situation was my own creation. Funny how now suddenly it is a problem and the Government are absolutely right to be doing something about it.
Not sure what you mean by that. Okay, not quite true and I get what you are trying to say but how do you define and deal with that. Norway has a 'gun culture'. Guns are seen as an integral part of life anda tool. Same goes for the other countries I mentioned. Simply banning guns as Bobajob was suggesting yesterday will do nothing to solve that problem.
Well, the US ain't gonna ban guns, so it's a hopeless cause. They are in love with them, despite the fact that on accidental deaths alone no sane society would put up with what the US puts up with.
It's utterly bonkers, but it's not going to change.
The thinkers in all parties are now looking at new towns, thankfully, at last. Planning time limits will come from that, we are going to re learn what the people who built in the thirties and fifties did, there's no alternative other than each generation screws their kids over property prices
Planning time limits already exist.
I'm with you re not screwing over our children on housing but the state confiscating land from developers is not the way to achieve that.
Compulsory purchase orders have existed for years, and are necessary as otherwise we would never be able to build major infrastructure. What's the difference, really?
Because compulsory purchase orders are blooming difficult to get, because it has to be proved to be for public betterment, usually for a specific project such as the Westfield development or HS2. This allows the worthiness of the specific project to be weighed up against what was already there. It would push the definition of 'public betterment' to ridiculous extremes.
We went into all the follies and pitfalls of Labour's proposed laws a few weeks ago. A biggie being that you can apply for planning permission for land you do not own...
Note: IANAE on planning laws, but that's the way I see it.
The most important article of this year was by matthew d'ancona when he pointed out that Red Ed, Marxist, Union Member and Left Wing are all useless attack lines.
The public has moved on. The Tory attack dogs need to as well.
I think he's right about that, although I understand the frustration many Tories have in that Labour attack lines still seem pretty effective in many areas, and while some may indeed be warranted, I don't think their level of effectiveness is entirely proportionate to the level they are true. Personally I find it hard to believe attacks on supposed marxism are really that effective in any case - if someone is the sort of person who would be put off by that and not already planning to vote against Labour in some form, they'd just compare Labour to proper or purportedly marxist societies and make a judgement on how accurate that is.
Regardless, I'm not sure what attack lines the Tories could use instead, especially as Ed M has finally found some decent lines on energy and cost of living and so forth even if as 2 says he is losing on some issues (I don't think they need to promise to be tougher than the Tories, just not reckless) , and so they revert to the usual lines which shores up support, but which is not enough given bleedage to UKIP and Labour needing very little improvement to gain a majority. A difficult time for them.
Of course it was only the representatives of the British state that were armed. Surely all good libertarians would propose that the deceased RAers should have had guns to defend themselves against the oppressive attentions of tyrannous Albion?
I don't recall the details of the case - although they were found with keys to a Semtex-laden car, IIRC. Doesn't justify shooting rather than arresting though.
To be honest, I was absolutely delighted that the SAS shot them down.
But personal feelings aside it's better for us all when the authorities operate by the rule of law. The outcome of today's court martial shows the UK has come a long way since then.
It shows the UK has become a good deal more ineffectual. I adhere to the weird old-fashioned belief that we hire soldiers to kill our enemies. I'm not sure what modern jurists see as being the point of having armed forces. Singing Kum by Yah, perhaps?
Now Neil that's not fair! And would you really want to lose to me.
The Tory housing policy is a good idea but shows just how stupid uttering the word marxist is. They should also stop all the union bashing. The public doesn't care and 6 million trade unionist think that the Tories are dead against them.
The public does care and I would say around half of that three million are only in a union because they are obliged to, my wife is a good example.
The problem in America has nothing to do with guns. I am not sure what the hell the problem is in America but it is not gun ownership.
Not gun ownership - gun culture. They're obsessed with them.
It's both. Ownership and culture. Banning the effing things immediately is the only option.
Except the stats show that you are wrong. There are many countries with very high gun ownership and lower homicide rates than the UK which has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. It is a simplistic and utterly wrong response.
You would inspire me to campaigning heights that I havent achieved in many years. Failing that I'd fake a video of you on crack cocaine so you'd have to pull out. I'll try and make sure I'm a paper candidate in your ward so you can vote for me
Not sure what you mean by that. Okay, not quite true and I get what you are trying to say but how do you define and deal with that. Norway has a 'gun culture'. Guns are seen as an integral part of life anda tool. Same goes for the other countries I mentioned. Simply banning guns as Bobajob was suggesting yesterday will do nothing to solve that problem.
Well, the US ain't gonna ban guns, so it's a hopeless cause. They are in love with them, despite the fact that on accidental deaths alone no sane society would put up with what the US puts up with.
It's utterly bonkers, but it's not going to change.
I fear you are right Richard. At one stage I thought Obama would go for it (I know, I know Right to Bear Arms etc etc) but now I feel the slight window of opportunity after the horror of Aurora has passed, and maybe Obama doesn't have the will.
"Iain Duncan Smith’s second epiphany: from compassion to brutality"
Good article by Polly. "Compassionate Conservatism" . Anyone remember it? That must raise a smile on the Easterhouse Estate. A bit like "Vote Blue Go Green". Dishonest slogans that only political parties can get away with.
If it was a real ad for a paying client they'd want repeat business so they'd have to make sure the slogan was accurate. Political parties can say anything. By the time the slogan is revealed to be hokum they're in!!
The most important article of this year was by matthew d'ancona when he pointed out that Red Ed, Marxist, Union Member and Left Wing are all useless attack lines.
The public has moved on. The Tory attack dogs need to as well.
I think he's right about that, although I understand the frustration many Tories have in that Labour attack lines still seem pretty effective in many areas, and while some may indeed be warranted, I don't think their level of effectiveness is entirely proportionate to the level they are true. Personally I find it hard to believe attacks on supposed marxism are really that effective in any case - if someone is the sort of person who would be put off by that and not already planning to vote against Labour in some form, they'd just compare Labour to proper or purportedly marxist societies and make a judgement on how accurate that is.
Regardless, I'm not sure what attack lines the Tories could use instead, especially as Ed M has finally found some decent lines on energy and cost of living and so forth even if as 2 says he is losing on some issues (I don't think they need to promise to be tougher than the Tories, just not reckless) , and so they revert to the usual lines which shores up support, but which is not enough given bleedage to UKIP and Labour needing very little improvement to gain a majority. A difficult time for them.
18 is a classic.
The obvious attack line is to say that Labour policies would be ineffective and suffer - as most ill-thought through proposals do - from the law of unintended consequences.
I'd like to draw attention to number 13, and something which jumped out of the page at me:
Come 2014 when the government marks the beginning of the first world war with quotes from Rupert Brooke, Rudyard Kipling and other great jingoists from our past empire
I know this is the Guardian, so we shouldn't expect high standards, but, even so. Has this guy actually read any of Kipling's writings from the period?
This is a good place to start correcting the ignorance:
The thinkers in all parties are now looking at new towns, thankfully, at last. Planning time limits will come from that, we are going to re learn what the people who built in the thirties and fifties did, there's no alternative other than each generation screws their kids over property prices
Planning time limits already exist.
I'm with you re not screwing over our children on housing but the state confiscating land from developers is not the way to achieve that.
There has to be sanctions, the Olympic Park, new towns, you cannot allow one cog to fail and put the rest at risk. I think people are missing how big this stuff is, there's a realisation that messing around with expanding little towns with fifty houses is a waste of everyone's time coming.
Build a new town of 100,000 every year, and ram it through - its the motorways of the sixties on repeat
But we are not talking about new towns here - they would be covered under traditional CP's. Although often CPs will not be necessary - Cambourne was built on land already owned by the developers, as will the new Waterbeach development or Northstowe.
This will mostly be about much smaller developments.
Labour attacked the wrong problem. The problem is not planning, it is land banking. And especially the anti-competitive land banking the supermarkets partake in. Buy land in a city centre, not to develop, but to stop rivals from developing. That is much harder for housing developers to do. Attack that problem, and lots of nice city-centre sites will become available. Add it in to relaxed change-of-use planning to convert shops to residential properties, and you'll be on to a winner!
How annoyed you must be that Labour policy led to the very problem you've been droning on about for months!
"Iain Duncan Smith’s second epiphany: from compassion to brutality"
Good article by Polly. "Compassionate Conservatism" . Anyone remember it? That must raise a smile. A bit like "Vote Blue Go Green". One of those dishonest slogans that only political parties can get away with.
If it was a real ad for a paying client they'd want repeat business so they'd have to make sure the slogan was accurate. Political parties can say anything. By the time the slogan is revealed to be hokum they're in!!
The problem in America has nothing to do with guns. I am not sure what the hell the problem is in America but it is not gun ownership.
Not gun ownership - gun culture. They're obsessed with them.
Not sure what you mean by that. Okay, not quite true and I get what you are trying to say but how do you define and deal with that. Norway has a 'gun culture'. Guns are seen as an integral part of life anda tool. Same goes for the other countries I mentioned. Simply banning guns as Bobajob was suggesting yesterday will do nothing to solve that problem.
But Norway has a culture of "rules and regulations" which the US lacks. If you want a gun licence in Norway you have to pass a test of knowing which species you can legally shoot, and which ones are protected. You can't just buy a gun at a gas station.
The problem in America has nothing to do with guns. I am not sure what the hell the problem is in America but it is not gun ownership.
Not gun ownership - gun culture. They're obsessed with them.
Not sure what you mean by that. Okay, not quite true and I get what you are trying to say but how do you define and deal with that. Norway has a 'gun culture'. Guns are seen as an integral part of life anda tool. Same goes for the other countries I mentioned. Simply banning guns as Bobajob was suggesting yesterday will do nothing to solve that problem.
But Norway has a culture of "rules and regulations" which the US lacks. If you want a gun licence in Norway you have to pass a test of knowing which species you can legally shoot, and which ones are protected. You can't just buy a gun at a gas station.
Oh I agree. I think that States gun laws need a lot of tightening with regard to mental and criminal checks and delays between ordering and receiving weapons.
What I was pointing out is that it is not gun ownership per se that is the problem in the US. And certainly banning them would not solve any problems.
Now Neil that's not fair! And would you really want to lose to me.
The Tory housing policy is a good idea but shows just how stupid uttering the word marxist is. They should also stop all the union bashing. The public doesn't care and 6 million trade unionist think that the Tories are dead against them.
The public does care and I would say around half of that three million are only in a union because they are obliged to, my wife is a good example.
Well, the US ain't gonna ban guns, so it's a hopeless cause. They are in love with them, despite the fact that on accidental deaths alone no sane society would put up with what the US puts up with.
It's utterly bonkers, but it's not going to change.
It's not utterly bonkers. The vast majority of gun owners in the United States use firearms lawfully and responsibly. A general prohibition on firearms is nothing less than punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty.
"House-builders will no longer be able to easily “roll over” planning permission on plots of land without starting building projects, the planning minister announced yesterday. It is designed to stop “land banking” developers hoarding plots for years and waiting for house prices to rise before starting to build homes. The policy will be interpreted as a panicked response to Ed Miliband’s September party conference speech, in which he said that developers would have their land seized if they fail to use it. Mr Miliband’s pledge was at the time described by critics as a “Stalinist land grab”."
Miliband driving the govt agenda goes into another month
Yes. The politics is that Labour has been whinging endlessly about the lack of house build starts, when they changed the law specifically to reduce the amount of house build starts.
If it is as reported, then all the coalition is doing is reversing that law. None of the stupid land confiscation nonsense. Surely you can see the difference?
Oh, and you still have not understood: we need to be building communities, not houses.
The public doesn't give a shit. Look at how many people politic stories register with.
Bugger all.
And it's 6 million. Not 3.
Sorry, typing on an iPad and Aspells Cider don't mix, I meant half of 6 million therefore 3 million, a typo and I thought you would have realised.
And the public do care when it affects them, such as the pampered teachers striking for a day thus forcing the hard working parents that Ed alludes to having to take a days leave or making other child care arrangements. Or the tube drivers going on strike and people can't get to work, though strangely enough I have time for Bob Crow.
If you think the public don't care about unions you are deluded, you should remember back to 1979.
And by the way my Dad was a steward in the TGWU under Jack Jones.
Cyclefree: The obvious attack line is to say that Labour policies would be ineffective and suffer - as most ill-thought through proposals do - from the law of unintended consequences.
That's a good start, but it's generic - if the marxist attack worked, it's a good label that can only apply to one side of the political spectrum (no danger of Labour, if they were marxist, claiming the Tories were even more marxist), whereas attacks that Tories, specifically them, hate the poor or whatever, seem to have stuck to them pretty well, but attacking Labour's policies as ineffective and illthought out could apply to anyone ('They say our policy is ineffective, but their is even worse!')
Unless there is an ideological reason given that we the public should be expected to believe all policies emanating from a particular party source should be mistrusted ('They're marxist, trade union loving spendocrats' 'They're working class hating, banker backing, heartless cut crusaders driving a dagger into the sick and needy'), then the attack line will not be as massively effective I feel. The Tories seem to suffer because a lot more people simply don't trust them and view anything they suggest with suspicion than is the case for Labour, and as that instinctive reaction is irrational (people lean to a particular side, and then deevlop concrete reasons why, not the other way around I suspect), a reasoned attack line, however well crafted, will never be as effective as an emotional if suspect attack line.
Hence the frantic wish of many for the marxist line to be effective. Union bashing might be slightly better, simply because union leaders can be quite extreme and tories can play up the idea Labour alone is kowtowing to them, even if ideologically people don't have an aversion to the sort of leftism being peddled, or at least not the extreme reaction many torieswould like.
I'd like to draw attention to number 13, and something which jumped out of the page at me:
Come 2014 when the government marks the beginning of the first world war with quotes from Rupert Brooke, Rudyard Kipling and other great jingoists from our past empire
I know this is the Guardian, so we shouldn't expect high standards, but, even so. Has this guy actually read any of Kipling's writings from the period?
This is a good place to start correcting the ignorance:
Now Neil that's not fair! And would you really want to lose to me.
The Tory housing policy is a good idea but shows just how stupid uttering the word marxist is. They should also stop all the union bashing. The public doesn't care and 6 million trade unionist think that the Tories are dead against them.
The public does care and I would say around half of that three million are only in a union because they are obliged to, my wife is a good example.
Nobody is obliged to be in a trade union.
Don't say that, she'll realise that marriage is voluntary
It's not utterly bonkers. The vast majority of gun owners in the United States use firearms lawfully and responsibly. A general prohibition on firearms is nothing less than punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty.
By that reasoning, cyanide, strychnine, Semtex, uranium and morphine should all be available without restriction, and there should be no driving licences, speed limits, or seat-belt laws.
It's a view, and, to be fair, you are consistent in it.
However, most of us think that, on balance, a smidgen of what you call 'punishment' - which is a ridiculous term, no-one is 'punished' by gun-control laws - is a price worth paying to avoid tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.
Now Neil that's not fair! And would you really want to lose to me.
The Tory housing policy is a good idea but shows just how stupid uttering the word marxist is. They should also stop all the union bashing. The public doesn't care and 6 million trade unionist think that the Tories are dead against them.
The public does care and I would say around half of that three million are only in a union because they are obliged to, my wife is a good example.
I'd like to draw attention to number 13, and something which jumped out of the page at me:
Come 2014 when the government marks the beginning of the first world war with quotes from Rupert Brooke, Rudyard Kipling and other great jingoists from our past empire
I know this is the Guardian, so we shouldn't expect high standards, but, even so. Has this guy actually read any of Kipling's writings from the period?
This is a good place to start correcting the ignorance:
It's not utterly bonkers. The vast majority of gun owners in the United States use firearms lawfully and responsibly. A general prohibition on firearms is nothing less than punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty.
By that reasoning, cyanide, strychnine, Semtex, uranium and morphine should all be available without restriction, and there should be no driving licences, speed limits, or seat-belt laws.
It's a view, and, to be fair, you are consistent in it.
However, most of us think that, on balance, a smidgen of what you call 'punishment' - which is a ridiculous term, no-one is 'punished' by gun-control laws - is a price worth paying to avoid tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.
Indeed, well put. Would you advocate gun legalisation here Life In A Market Town?
"If any question why we died Tell them, because our fathers lied"
My Boy Jack is a brilliantly sad poem as well.
Kipling is one of the greats. It's utterly baffling that he is not more highly regarded, but the quality, subtlety and range are such that it's only a matter of time before he's back in his rightful place.
However, most of us think that, on balance, a smidgen of what you call 'punishment' - which is a ridiculous term, no-one is 'punished' by gun-control laws - is a price worth paying to avoid tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.
It's not a ridiculous term. As a result of the activities of a tiny minority of malefactors, if I acquire a prohibited firearm in this jurisdiction, I will be sent to prison for at least five years.
"House-builders will no longer be able to easily “roll over” planning permission on plots of land without starting building projects, the planning minister announced yesterday. It is designed to stop “land banking” developers hoarding plots for years and waiting for house prices to rise before starting to build homes. The policy will be interpreted as a panicked response to Ed Miliband’s September party conference speech, in which he said that developers would have their land seized if they fail to use it. Mr Miliband’s pledge was at the time described by critics as a “Stalinist land grab”."
Miliband driving the govt agenda goes into another month
Yes. The politics is that Labour has been whinging endlessly about the lack of house build starts, when they changed the law specifically to reduce the amount of house build starts.
If it is as reported, then all the coalition is doing is reversing that law. None of the stupid land confiscation nonsense. Surely you can see the difference?
Oh, and you still have not understood: we need to be building communities, not houses.
I'll tell you the politics, you can tell me how the mechanics of the railway crossing in the new town works, deal?
No deal, because yet again you've proved your knowledge of infrastructure is laughably poor. You have absolutely no clue.
So tell me: how did Labour allowing developers to roll over planning permission help increase new build starts?
Answer: it did not. Yet they have been complaining about the lack of new starts. They are complaining about a situation they helped cause.
Edit: And also no deal, because few governments seem to want new towns to be rail connected ... ;-)
Now Neil that's not fair! And would you really want to lose to me.
The Tory housing policy is a good idea but shows just how stupid uttering the word marxist is. They should also stop all the union bashing. The public doesn't care and 6 million trade unionist think that the Tories are dead against them.
The public does care and I would say around half of that three million are only in a union because they are obliged to, my wife is a good example.
There are no closed shops.
I guarantee you that a lot of members are in the union because everyone else is, supermarket workers are in USDAW, how many check out staff and shelf stackers do you think take a principled stand and decide not to join the union? Very few I would say.
Indeed, well put. Would you advocate gun legalisation here Life In A Market Town?
It depends what you mean by legalisation. Certainly, I would advocate a substantial weakening of the Firearms Act 1968, as amended.
LIAMT: a question, if I may. I remember reading a story a few years ago that you could get arrested for picking a bullet off the ground and taking it into a police station. Legally, you were safer to leave it on the ground where a child could pick it up.(*)
Is this true?
(*) Not that a bullet without a gun is an immediate threat, unless the child strikes it with a hammer or throws it in a fire. Which, when I think of it, is distinctly possible ...
The public doesn't give a shit. Look at how many people politic stories register with.
Bugger all.
And it's 6 million. Not 3.
Sorry, typing on an iPad and Aspells Cider don't mix, I meant half of 6 million therefore 3 million, a typo and I thought you would have realised.
And the public do care when it affects them, such as the pampered teachers striking for a day thus forcing the hard working parents that Ed alludes to having to take a days leave or making other child care arrangements. Or the tube drivers going on strike and people can't get to work, though strangely enough I have time for Bob Crow.
If you think the public don't care about unions you are deluded, you should remember back to 1979.
And by the way my Dad was a steward in the TGWU under Jack Jones.
In 1979 the public saw the unions as over-mighty, arrogant and unaccountable institutions which operated against the public interest and they saw the Callaghan government as too defensive and afraid to point out these obvious truths.
But now the over-mighty, arrogant and unaccountable institutions which operate against the public interest are the utility companies and banks and the government which is defensive and afraid is the coalition.
However, most of us think that, on balance, a smidgen of what you call 'punishment' - which is a ridiculous term, no-one is 'punished' by gun-control laws - is a price worth paying to avoid tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.
It's not a ridiculous term. As a result of the activities of a tiny minority of malefactors, if I acquire a prohibited firearm in this jurisdiction, I will be sent to prison for at least five years.
No, Sir.
As the result of the activities of some malefactors, and also the danger of regrettable accidents and suicides (in the US,accounting for over half of gun-related deaths), parliament has decided to introduce laws governing the possession of firearms.
If you flout these laws, duly enacted by parliament, then, yes, you will go to prison. Quite right too.
But it's not as a result of the activities of a tiny minority of malefactors; it's as the result of one or more Acts of Parliament. It's known in the trade as the 'Rule of Law'.
The mistake the Tories have made is attacking policies as Marxist which their own voters support. But as we learned from the Omnishambles perception of competence is more important in the long run, and the govt following Milibands agenda since Dave foolishly looked for a headline over Syria and recalled parliament overruling Hague and listening to Osborne is where this started
I seem to recall that you said you supported Cameron over Syria
By that reasoning, cyanide, strychnine, Semtex, uranium and morphine should all be available without restriction, and there should be no driving licences, speed limits, or seat-belt laws.
It's a view, and, to be fair, you are consistent in it.
However, most of us think that, on balance, a smidgen of what you call 'punishment' - which is a ridiculous term, no-one is 'punished' by gun-control laws - is a price worth paying to avoid tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.
There is a balance to be struck and certainly in the UK it has gone way too far towards the authoritarian and banning side of the ledger. Try buying something simple like hydrochloric acid these days (something that I use in my business and in a 'pastime' capacity) and the hassle you have compared to thirty years ago is huge - and unnecessary.
Now Neil that's not fair! And would you really want to lose to me.
The Tory housing policy is a good idea but shows just how stupid uttering the word marxist is. They should also stop all the union bashing. The public doesn't care and 6 million trade unionist think that the Tories are dead against them.
The public does care and I would say around half of that three million are only in a union because they are obliged to, my wife is a good example.
There are no closed shops.
I guarantee you that a lot of members are in the union because everyone else is, supermarket workers are in USDAW, how many check out staff and shelf stackers do you think take a principled stand and decide not to join the union? Very few I would say.
Now Neil that's not fair! And would you really want to lose to me.
The Tory housing policy is a good idea but shows just how stupid uttering the word marxist is. They should also stop all the union bashing. The public doesn't care and 6 million trade unionist think that the Tories are dead against them.
The public does care and I would say around half of that three million are only in a union because they are obliged to, my wife is a good example.
There are no closed shops.
I guarantee you that a lot of members are in the union because everyone else is, supermarket workers are in USDAW, how many check out staff and shelf stackers do you think take a principled stand and decide not to join the union? Very few I would say.
Sweet Lord above.
Tesco alone probably employs more people in the UK than there are members of USDAW in total.
Now Neil that's not fair! And would you really want to lose to me.
The Tory housing policy is a good idea but shows just how stupid uttering the word marxist is. They should also stop all the union bashing. The public doesn't care and 6 million trade unionist think that the Tories are dead against them.
The public does care and I would say around half of that three million are only in a union because they are obliged to, my wife is a good example.
There are no closed shops.
I guarantee you that a lot of members are in the union because everyone else is, supermarket workers are in USDAW, how many check out staff and shelf stackers do you think take a principled stand and decide not to join the union? Very few I would say.
That your wife chooses to join the union because "everyone else is" is not the same as being forced to join it.
However, most of us think that, on balance, a smidgen of what you call 'punishment' - which is a ridiculous term, no-one is 'punished' by gun-control laws - is a price worth paying to avoid tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.
It's not a ridiculous term. As a result of the activities of a tiny minority of malefactors, if I acquire a prohibited firearm in this jurisdiction, I will be sent to prison for at least five years.
No, Sir.
As the result of the activities of some malefactors, and also the danger of regrettable accidents and suicides (in the US,accounting for over half of gun-related deaths), parliament has decided to introduce laws governing the possession of firearms.
If you flout these laws, duly enacted by parliament, then, yes, you will go to prison. Quite right too.
But it's not as a result of the activities of a tiny minority of malefactors; it's as the result of one or more Acts of Parliament. It's known in the trade as the 'Rule of Law'.
Actually more accurately it is the result of an action known as the jerk of the knee. And that is why it is so poorly considered.
There is a balance to be struck and certainly in the UK it has gone way too far towards the authoritarian and banning side of the ledger. Try buying something simple like hydrochloric acid these days (something that I use in my business and in a 'pastime' capacity) and the hassle you have compared to thirty years ago is huge - and unnecessary.
I have some sympathy with that view, but not as regards firearms. Rifles for sporting and hunting purposes are obtainable with sensible checks and safeguards, and shotgun licences not hard to get. Handguns and semi-automatic weapons have no traditional, agricultural or estate-management justification; their only function is to kill people.
"Kipling is one of the greats. It's utterly baffling that he is not more highly regarded, but the quality, subtlety and range are such that it's only a matter of time before he's back in his rightful place."
Very unlikely. He was writing about the glory of war from his front room in the Home Counties when Owen and Sassoon were writing what was really happening at the front. In a time of Empire he was entertaining for those who didn't know the realities but he could never be considered a great war poet because he wasn't.
However, most of us think that, on balance, a smidgen of what you call 'punishment' - which is a ridiculous term, no-one is 'punished' by gun-control laws - is a price worth paying to avoid tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.
It's not a ridiculous term. As a result of the activities of a tiny minority of malefactors, if I acquire a prohibited firearm in this jurisdiction, I will be sent to prison for at least five years.
No, Sir.
As the result of the activities of some malefactors, and also the danger of regrettable accidents and suicides (in the US,accounting for over half of gun-related deaths), parliament has decided to introduce laws governing the possession of firearms.
If you flout these laws, duly enacted by parliament, then, yes, you will go to prison. Quite right too.
But it's not as a result of the activities of a tiny minority of malefactors; it's as the result of one or more Acts of Parliament. It's known in the trade as the 'Rule of Law'.
Actually more accurately it is the result of an action known as the jerk of the knee. And that is why it is so poorly considered.
Lots of people managed to drive sloshed without killing anyone. Presumably Richard you and LiaMT would advocate the repeal of the drink driving laws?
LIAMT: a question, if I may. I remember reading a story a few years ago that you could get arrested for picking a bullet off the ground and taking it into a police station. Legally, you were safer to leave it on the ground where a child could pick it up.(*)
Is this true?
(*) Not that a bullet without a gun is an immediate threat, unless the child strikes it with a hammer or throws it in a fire. Which, when I think of it, is distinctly possible ...
Have a read of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Lord Judge CJ, Owen & Walker JJ) in R v Gregory[2011] EWCA Crim 1712 at [10] to [12]. The possession of unlicensed firearms and ammunition is a strict liability offence, and so the intention of the possessor is irrelevant to guilt. The court hinted that a defence of duress of circumstance might be available in extreme cases, but did not rule on the matter.
The public doesn't give a shit. Look at how many people politic stories register with.
Bugger all.
And it's 6 million. Not 3.
Sorry, typing on an iPad and Aspells Cider don't mix, I meant half of 6 million therefore 3 million, a typo and I thought you would have realised.
And the public do care when it affects them, such as the pampered teachers striking for a day thus forcing the hard working parents that Ed alludes to having to take a days leave or making other child care arrangements. Or the tube drivers going on strike and people can't get to work, though strangely enough I have time for Bob Crow.
If you think the public don't care about unions you are deluded, you should remember back to 1979.
And by the way my Dad was a steward in the TGWU under Jack Jones.
In 1979 the public saw the unions as over-mighty, arrogant and unaccountable institutions which operated against the public interest and they saw the Callaghan government as too defensive and afraid to point out these obvious truths.
But now the over-mighty, arrogant and unaccountable institutions which operate against the public interest are the utility companies and banks and the government which is defensive and afraid is the coalition.
I agree with that to an extent, I'm interested to know how old you were in 1979 and if you voted.
As you say the arrogance of the big institutions is appalling though I wouldn't necessarily lay the blame just with the coalition. Labour had thirteen years to change the examples you mentioned but didn't, quite the opposite they encouraged the banks in particular.
However the state institutions are as arrogant as any you mentioned, witness the likes of Thomson and Byford at the BBC and Nicholson at the NHS. I know I'm like a stuck record but Common Purpose have a lot to answer for.
Very unlikely. He was writing about the glory of war from his front room in the Home Counties when Owen and Sassoon were writing what was really happening at the front. In a time of Empire he was entertaining for those who didn't know the realities but he could never be considered a great war poet because he wasn't.
You are showing your complete ignorance.
I recommend some homework. The short stories Kipling wrote in the period leading up to, during, and after the Great War are a good place to start.
Here's a hint: you won't find anything about the 'glory of war'. And the tone - already sombre - becomes even more so after the death of his son.
However, most of us think that, on balance, a smidgen of what you call 'punishment' - which is a ridiculous term, no-one is 'punished' by gun-control laws - is a price worth paying to avoid tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.
It's not a ridiculous term. As a result of the activities of a tiny minority of malefactors, if I acquire a prohibited firearm in this jurisdiction, I will be sent to prison for at least five years.
No, Sir.
As the result of the activities of some malefactors, and also the danger of regrettable accidents and suicides (in the US,accounting for over half of gun-related deaths), parliament has decided to introduce laws governing the possession of firearms.
If you flout these laws, duly enacted by parliament, then, yes, you will go to prison. Quite right too.
But it's not as a result of the activities of a tiny minority of malefactors; it's as the result of one or more Acts of Parliament. It's known in the trade as the 'Rule of Law'.
Actually more accurately it is the result of an action known as the jerk of the knee. And that is why it is so poorly considered.
Parliament is addicted to the belief that there is a correct bureaucratic solution to every perceived social ill.
Hence, we end up with people getting sent to prison for making rude comments on social media, or having their lives ruined for looking at "violent" pornography.
Indeed, well put. Would you advocate gun legalisation here Life In A Market Town?
It depends what you mean by legalisation. Certainly, I would advocate a substantial weakening of the Firearms Act 1968, as amended.
LIAMT: a question, if I may. I remember reading a story a few years ago that you could get arrested for picking a bullet off the ground and taking it into a police station. Legally, you were safer to leave it on the ground where a child could pick it up.(*)
Is this true?
(*) Not that a bullet without a gun is an immediate threat, unless the child strikes it with a hammer or throws it in a fire. Which, when I think of it, is distinctly possible ...
"Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.
Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added."
In fact he was then given a suspended sentence rather than the statutory 5 years because he had apparently been sleeping with a Female PC
But the law as it stood - and still stands is correct in that he was guilty for being in possession even though he only 'possessed' the weapon to give it to the police.
Only four (and a half) right-of-centre links out of 20, TSE?
That's the sort of "balance" we expect from Question Time panels.
That would explain why the BBC have spent most of this year trying to recruit me.
But look on the bright side, where else would you get all the latest political stories, including one featuring Mutant Super-Rats and the music of Mr Ronan Keating and Boyzone?
Totally exclusive? Would UEFA allow it to go off free-to-air?
Yes, totally exclusive, there's plans for BT to launch a free to air channel with some champs league coverage
Edit: Though this needs to be confirmed
The rumours earlier on this year was for Sky to get exclusive champs league coverage, and then sub-let some to ITV, I think BT Sport may go for that approach.
Now Neil that's not fair! And would you really want to lose to me.
The Tory housing policy is a good idea but shows just how stupid uttering the word marxist is. They should also stop all the union bashing. The public doesn't care and 6 million trade unionist think that the Tories are dead against them.
The public does care and I would say around half of that three million are only in a union because they are obliged to, my wife is a good example.
There are no closed shops.
I guarantee you that a lot of members are in the union because everyone else is, supermarket workers are in USDAW, how many check out staff and shelf stackers do you think take a principled stand and decide not to join the union? Very few I would say.
Now Neil that's not fair! And would you really want to lose to me.
The Tory housing policy is a good idea but shows just how stupid uttering the word marxist is. They should also stop all the union bashing. The public doesn't care and 6 million trade unionist think that the Tories are dead against them.
The public does care and I would say around half of that three million are only in a union because they are obliged to, my wife is a good example.
There are no closed shops.
I guarantee you that a lot of members are in the union because everyone else is, supermarket workers are in USDAW, how many check out staff and shelf stackers do you think take a principled stand and decide not to join the union? Very few I would say.
Sweet Lord above.
Tesco alone probably employs more people in the UK than there are members of USDAW in total.
Do some figures then, I am sure you are right but take into account the casual staff such as uni students
The public doesn't give a shit. Look at how many people politic stories register with.
Bugger all.
And it's 6 million. Not 3.
Sorry, typing on an iPad and Aspells Cider don't mix, I meant half of 6 million therefore 3 million, a typo and I thought you would have realised.
And the public do care when it affects them, such as the pampered teachers striking for a day thus forcing the hard working parents that Ed alludes to having to take a days leave or making other child care arrangements. Or the tube drivers going on strike and people can't get to work, though strangely enough I have time for Bob Crow.
If you think the public don't care about unions you are deluded, you should remember back to 1979.
And by the way my Dad was a steward in the TGWU under Jack Jones.
In 1979 the public saw the unions as over-mighty, arrogant and unaccountable institutions which operated against the public interest and they saw the Callaghan government as too defensive and afraid to point out these obvious truths.
But now the over-mighty, arrogant and unaccountable institutions which operate against the public interest are the utility companies and banks and the government which is defensive and afraid is the coalition.
I agree with that to an extent, I'm interested to know how old you were in 1979 and if you voted.
As you say the arrogance of the big institutions is appalling though I wouldn't necessarily lay the blame just with the coalition. Labour had thirteen years to change the examples you mentioned but didn't, quite the opposite they encouraged the banks in particular.
However the state institutions are as arrogant as any you mentioned, witness the likes of Thomson and Byford at the BBC and Nicholson at the NHS. I know I'm like a stuck record but Common Purpose have a lot to answer for.
Yes I was 21 in 1979 - I remember it well, and the idea that the Tories can use the unions as bogeymen in the same way that they could then is entirely misconceived. The unions are a shadow of their former selves - and few people under 45 would remember the power that they once had.
However, most of us think that, on balance, a smidgen of what you call 'punishment' - which is a ridiculous term, no-one is 'punished' by gun-control laws - is a price worth paying to avoid tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.
It's not a ridiculous term. As a result of the activities of a tiny minority of malefactors, if I acquire a prohibited firearm in this jurisdiction, I will be sent to prison for at least five years.
I confess I don't quite follow your last sentence - if you break the law you will go to prison, but because you personally don't like that law that makes it an unreasonable punishment? Aren't almost all laws prohibiting people from doing things because of the wrongdoings of a small minority? Your comment would seem to suggest that what right has a government to punish anyone by prohibiting things because someone else did something bad; I've not done anything wrong, so why can't I have my gun/not wear a seatbelt/issue of choice, just because someone else messed up?
Seems like anarchy.
Ultimately it hardly matters anyway - they banned alcohol once, and then brought it back:if further gun control proposals ever gathered enough support to become law (which seems unlikely) and didn't work, they could always be repealed. It might seem unlikely that once restricted firearms would be allowed to become less restricted again, but history is not a steady march in one direction, and if the restriction didn't achieve its aims, and people still desired firearms for other purposes, it would happen eventually. The very fact some people do want a restriction in this country demonstrates there remains the (faint) possibility of it happening one day, if not anytime soon.
Now if we could only reduce restrictions on smokers - I've never smoked and they seem like they are being unduly punished to me.
However, most of us think that, on balance, a smidgen of what you call 'punishment' - which is a ridiculous term, no-one is 'punished' by gun-control laws - is a price worth paying to avoid tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.
It's not a ridiculous term. As a result of the activities of a tiny minority of malefactors, if I acquire a prohibited firearm in this jurisdiction, I will be sent to prison for at least five years.
No, Sir.
As the result of the activities of some malefactors, and also the danger of regrettable accidents and suicides (in the US,accounting for over half of gun-related deaths), parliament has decided to introduce laws governing the possession of firearms.
If you flout these laws, duly enacted by parliament, then, yes, you will go to prison. Quite right too.
But it's not as a result of the activities of a tiny minority of malefactors; it's as the result of one or more Acts of Parliament. It's known in the trade as the 'Rule of Law'.
Actually more accurately it is the result of an action known as the jerk of the knee. And that is why it is so poorly considered.
Lots of people managed to drive sloshed without killing anyone. Presumably Richard you and LiaMT would advocate the repeal of the drink driving laws?
To be fair LIAMT is a proper Libertarian, Richard Tyndall is too worried about people moving between countries to work to be one.
Wow, yet another outright lie from Tim. Which given that I have spent my whole life moving between countries to work and even posted earlier this evening that I was in favour of immigration as long it was balanced by emigration is a thoroughly stupid thing for you to say Tim.
Go on, do your normal trick of trying to pretend you meant something different, or that you hadn't seen what I posted, or that you were driven mad by too many cat pictures.
Alternatively we can just accept that as usual you are lying and hoping not to get picked up on it.
However, most of us think that, on balance, a smidgen of what you call 'punishment' - which is a ridiculous term, no-one is 'punished' by gun-control laws - is a price worth paying to avoid tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.
It's not a ridiculous term. As a result of the activities of a tiny minority of malefactors, if I acquire a prohibited firearm in this jurisdiction, I will be sent to prison for at least five years.
No, Sir.
As the result of the activities of some malefactors, and also the danger of regrettable accidents and suicides (in the US,accounting for over half of gun-related deaths), parliament has decided to introduce laws governing the possession of firearms.
If you flout these laws, duly enacted by parliament, then, yes, you will go to prison. Quite right too.
But it's not as a result of the activities of a tiny minority of malefactors; it's as the result of one or more Acts of Parliament. It's known in the trade as the 'Rule of Law'.
Actually more accurately it is the result of an action known as the jerk of the knee. And that is why it is so poorly considered.
Parliament is addicted to the belief that there is a correct bureaucratic solution to every perceived social ill.
Hence, we end up with people getting sent to prison for making rude comments on social media, or having their lives ruined for looking at "violent" pornography.
Yet you want a govt which tells businesses where they can recruit their workers from.
Indeed. We should not assume that non-citizens are entitled to the same consideration as British citizens.
I have some sympathy with that view, but not as regards firearms. Rifles for sporting and hunting purposes are obtainable with sensible checks and safeguards, and shotgun licences not hard to get. Handguns and semi-automatic weapons have no traditional, agricultural or estate-management justification; their only function is to kill people.
Are not lawful self-defence and reasonable force to prevent crime legitimate reasons for possessing and using semi-automatic firearms? If you disagree, then you must consider that the use of firearms by the police should be unlawful. After all, the law does not distinguish between whether it is a police officer or an ordinary citizen who uses a firearm.
However, most of us think that, on balance, a smidgen of what you call 'punishment' - which is a ridiculous term, no-one is 'punished' by gun-control laws - is a price worth paying to avoid tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.
It's not a ridiculous term. As a result of the activities of a tiny minority of malefactors, if I acquire a prohibited firearm in this jurisdiction, I will be sent to prison for at least five years.
No, Sir.
As the result of the activities of some malefactors, and also the danger of regrettable accidents and suicides (in the US,accounting for over half of gun-related deaths), parliament has decided to introduce laws governing the possession of firearms.
If you flout these laws, duly enacted by parliament, then, yes, you will go to prison. Quite right too.
But it's not as a result of the activities of a tiny minority of malefactors; it's as the result of one or more Acts of Parliament. It's known in the trade as the 'Rule of Law'.
Actually more accurately it is the result of an action known as the jerk of the knee. And that is why it is so poorly considered.
Lots of people managed to drive sloshed without killing anyone. Presumably Richard you and LiaMT would advocate the repeal of the drink driving laws?
I know it is not a popular position to take but personally I would get rid of the drink drive laws as they stand but replace them with an attempted murder charge or murder charge if anyone is injured or killed as a result of drink driving.
As I say I know it is not something that most people would accept but it is just my personal view. Funnily enough right now I feel that the penalty for killing or injuring someone using a car (drunk or not) is too lenient
Parliament is addicted to the belief that there is a correct bureaucratic solution to every perceived social ill.
Hence, we end up with people getting sent to prison for making rude comments on social media, or having their lives ruined for looking at "violent" pornography.
Yeah, that is pretty much bullcrap ETA:(the addiction of parliament that you describe, not your comments about it that is)
Although isn't the trend now to 'nudge' people to correct social ills rather than just legislate? Purportedly at any rate.
Comments
The public has moved on. The Tory attack dogs need to as well.
It's hard to know what the government's proposal is from just a headline, but at a guess, they are saying councils can force developers' hands by saying planning will lapse immediately if they do not start development. But that is just a guess, and there will be more information in the text.
Which in itself could be a slight nonsense, given that (AFAICR) development officially starts when the ground is broken.
Neither 'solution' fixes the real problems in the housing market.
Are you taking the plunge and standing anywhere next year?
Already England has the highest population density in Europe outside of a few islands and city states. I suspect that if it was put to people in those stark terms they would not choose to see that density increase.
Now I would accept one point which has been mentioned in the past which is that if we could get a million or so of our own population to emigrate then I would not have a problem with replacing them with half a million or so immigrants. But I am firmly of the belief that we already have too many people here so would be very happy to see the population drop and certainly would not want to see it increase. Beyond that I am not as concerned as some by exactly where the population was born as long as they abide by our laws.
Ha no sadly not. Although no doubt I could count on your support.
If you had done I would have tracked down the ward and stood against you!
If you can't drink Champagne on your wedding day, what hope is there?
The problem with reapplying for planning is:
1) It costs an arm and a leg, especially on big developments.
2) It takes time, especially on big developments.
3) It is risky. In the meantime, other objectors to the planning permission may arise, or the council may want more stringent (i.e. expensive) conditions, for instance on S106. You may not get planning again, yet alone on the same terms ...
So there are a fair few risks there.
That is very different from confiscation of land, which is what Labour are proposing, as far as one can tell.
Build homes or lose planning permissions, Nick Boles tells developers http://tgr.ph/1hrJLHi
Basically the last Labour government introduced a rule allowing planning to roll-over if it is not used before the end of the three-year planning period. The coalition are removing that rule.
So all the coalition is doing is taking the planning laws back to where they were five years ago.
Yet Tim thinks this is the same as compulsory purchasing land!
Priceless. Especially as Labour have been complaining about the lack of build starts, and yet altered the law to make it possible for developers to delay build starts! So they are complaining about something they helped create.
Yet again.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/10437114/Build-homes-or-lose-planning-permissions-Nick-Boles-tells-developers.html#disqus_thread
And then they complain about the lack of build starts...
Why didn't I think of that at my wedding?
"Roger not a fan of 3D, but apparently it's the only way to watch Gravity, would you agree?"
No not really. I saw it without 3D. i imagine it works well in 3d but certainly not necessary;
The problem in America has nothing to do with guns. I am not sure what the hell the problem is in America but it is not gun ownership.
I'm with you re not screwing over our children on housing but the state confiscating land from developers is not the way to achieve that.
The Tory housing policy is a good idea but shows just how stupid uttering the word marxist is. They should also stop all the union bashing. The public doesn't care and 6 million trade unionist think that the Tories are dead against them.
It's utterly bonkers, but it's not going to change.
We went into all the follies and pitfalls of Labour's proposed laws a few weeks ago. A biggie being that you can apply for planning permission for land you do not own...
Note: IANAE on planning laws, but that's the way I see it.
Regardless, I'm not sure what attack lines the Tories could use instead, especially as Ed M has finally found some decent lines on energy and cost of living and so forth even if as 2 says he is losing on some issues (I don't think they need to promise to be tougher than the Tories, just not reckless) , and so they revert to the usual lines which shores up support, but which is not enough given bleedage to UKIP and Labour needing very little improvement to gain a majority. A difficult time for them.
18 is a classic.
You would inspire me to campaigning heights that I havent achieved in many years. Failing that I'd fake a video of you on crack cocaine so you'd have to pull out. I'll try and make sure I'm a paper candidate in your ward so you can vote for me
Good article by Polly. "Compassionate Conservatism" . Anyone remember it? That must raise a smile on the Easterhouse Estate. A bit like "Vote Blue Go Green". Dishonest slogans that only political parties can get away with.
If it was a real ad for a paying client they'd want repeat business so they'd have to make sure the slogan was accurate. Political parties can say anything. By the time the slogan is revealed to be hokum they're in!!
I'd like to draw attention to number 13, and something which jumped out of the page at me:
Come 2014 when the government marks the beginning of the first world war with quotes from Rupert Brooke, Rudyard Kipling and other great jingoists from our past empire
I know this is the Guardian, so we shouldn't expect high standards, but, even so. Has this guy actually read any of Kipling's writings from the period?
This is a good place to start correcting the ignorance:
http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_gardener1.htm
This will mostly be about much smaller developments.
Labour attacked the wrong problem. The problem is not planning, it is land banking. And especially the anti-competitive land banking the supermarkets partake in. Buy land in a city centre, not to develop, but to stop rivals from developing. That is much harder for housing developers to do. Attack that problem, and lots of nice city-centre sites will become available. Add it in to relaxed change-of-use planning to convert shops to residential properties, and you'll be on to a winner!
How annoyed you must be that Labour policy led to the very problem you've been droning on about for months!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2007/10/land_battles.html
The public doesn't give a shit. Look at how many people politic stories register with.
Bugger all.
And it's 6 million. Not 3.
What I was pointing out is that it is not gun ownership per se that is the problem in the US. And certainly banning them would not solve any problems.
http://www.populus.co.uk/item/Portrait-of-Political-Britain/
(Cosmopolitan Critic)
If it is as reported, then all the coalition is doing is reversing that law. None of the stupid land confiscation nonsense. Surely you can see the difference?
Oh, and you still have not understood: we need to be building communities, not houses.
And the public do care when it affects them, such as the pampered teachers striking for a day thus forcing the hard working parents that Ed alludes to having to take a days leave or making other child care arrangements. Or the tube drivers going on strike and people can't get to work, though strangely enough I have time for Bob Crow.
If you think the public don't care about unions you are deluded, you should remember back to 1979.
And by the way my Dad was a steward in the TGWU under Jack Jones.
Unless there is an ideological reason given that we the public should be expected to believe all policies emanating from a particular party source should be mistrusted ('They're marxist, trade union loving spendocrats' 'They're working class hating, banker backing, heartless cut crusaders driving a dagger into the sick and needy'), then the attack line will not be as massively effective I feel. The Tories seem to suffer because a lot more people simply don't trust them and view anything they suggest with suspicion than is the case for Labour, and as that instinctive reaction is irrational (people lean to a particular side, and then deevlop concrete reasons why, not the other way around I suspect), a reasoned attack line, however well crafted, will never be as effective as an emotional if suspect attack line.
Hence the frantic wish of many for the marxist line to be effective. Union bashing might be slightly better, simply because union leaders can be quite extreme and tories can play up the idea Labour alone is kowtowing to them, even if ideologically people don't have an aversion to the sort of leftism being peddled, or at least not the extreme reaction many torieswould like.
Tell them, because our fathers lied"
My Boy Jack is a brilliantly sad poem as well.
It's a view, and, to be fair, you are consistent in it.
However, most of us think that, on balance, a smidgen of what you call 'punishment' - which is a ridiculous term, no-one is 'punished' by gun-control laws - is a price worth paying to avoid tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.
So tell me: how did Labour allowing developers to roll over planning permission help increase new build starts?
Answer: it did not. Yet they have been complaining about the lack of new starts. They are complaining about a situation they helped cause.
Edit: And also no deal, because few governments seem to want new towns to be rail connected ... ;-)
The whole point of the Mathew DAconna article was that no one really thinks back to 1979.
Those days are gone. I mean it was 34 years ago. That is half a life time.
Is this true?
(*) Not that a bullet without a gun is an immediate threat, unless the child strikes it with a hammer or throws it in a fire. Which, when I think of it, is distinctly possible ...
http://www.therepublic.com/view/local_story/Boy-fires-bullet-by-hitting-it_1339685709
But now the over-mighty, arrogant and unaccountable institutions which operate against the public interest are the utility companies and banks and the government which is defensive and afraid is the coalition.
As the result of the activities of some malefactors, and also the danger of regrettable accidents and suicides (in the US,accounting for over half of gun-related deaths), parliament has decided to introduce laws governing the possession of firearms.
If you flout these laws, duly enacted by parliament, then, yes, you will go to prison. Quite right too.
But it's not as a result of the activities of a tiny minority of malefactors; it's as the result of one or more Acts of Parliament. It's known in the trade as the 'Rule of Law'.
Tesco alone probably employs more people in the UK than there are members of USDAW in total.
"Kipling is one of the greats. It's utterly baffling that he is not more highly regarded, but the quality, subtlety and range are such that it's only a matter of time before he's back in his rightful place."
Very unlikely. He was writing about the glory of war from his front room in the Home Counties when Owen and Sassoon were writing what was really happening at the front. In a time of Empire he was entertaining for those who didn't know the realities but he could never be considered a great war poet because he wasn't.
As you say the arrogance of the big institutions is appalling though I wouldn't necessarily lay the blame just with the coalition. Labour had thirteen years to change the examples you mentioned but didn't, quite the opposite they encouraged the banks in particular.
However the state institutions are as arrogant as any you mentioned, witness the likes of Thomson and Byford at the BBC and Nicholson at the NHS. I know I'm like a stuck record but Common Purpose have a lot to answer for.
I recommend some homework. The short stories Kipling wrote in the period leading up to, during, and after the Great War are a good place to start.
Here's a hint: you won't find anything about the 'glory of war'. And the tone - already sombre - becomes even more so after the death of his son.
Hence, we end up with people getting sent to prison for making rude comments on social media, or having their lives ruined for looking at "violent" pornography.
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/story-12659234-detail/story.html#axzz2k6JCwQgT
"Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.
Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added."
In fact he was then given a suspended sentence rather than the statutory 5 years because he had apparently been sleeping with a Female PC
But the law as it stood - and still stands is correct in that he was guilty for being in possession even though he only 'possessed' the weapon to give it to the police.
But look on the bright side, where else would you get all the latest political stories, including one featuring Mutant Super-Rats and the music of Mr Ronan Keating and Boyzone?
Totally exclusive? Would UEFA allow it to go off free-to-air?
Edit: Though this needs to be confirmed
The rumours earlier on this year was for Sky to get exclusive champs league coverage, and then sub-let some to ITV, I think BT Sport may go for that approach.
Seems like anarchy.
Ultimately it hardly matters anyway - they banned alcohol once, and then brought it back:if further gun control proposals ever gathered enough support to become law (which seems unlikely) and didn't work, they could always be repealed. It might seem unlikely that once restricted firearms would be allowed to become less restricted again, but history is not a steady march in one direction, and if the restriction didn't achieve its aims, and people still desired firearms for other purposes, it would happen eventually. The very fact some people do want a restriction in this country demonstrates there remains the (faint) possibility of it happening one day, if not anytime soon.
Now if we could only reduce restrictions on smokers - I've never smoked and they seem like they are being unduly punished to me.
Go on, do your normal trick of trying to pretend you meant something different, or that you hadn't seen what I posted, or that you were driven mad by too many cat pictures.
Alternatively we can just accept that as usual you are lying and hoping not to get picked up on it.
Mike found the picture earlier on this year, after spending 15 years trying to find it.
IIRC it was when Mike worked for The University of Cambridge, and Stephen Hawking is an alumni
It was taken around the time the Lewinsky scandal first emerged.
As I pointed out to Mike, in the picture, there's a woman on her knees....
As I say I know it is not something that most people would accept but it is just my personal view. Funnily enough right now I feel that the penalty for killing or injuring someone using a car (drunk or not) is too lenient
Hence, we end up with people getting sent to prison for making rude comments on social media, or having their lives ruined for looking at "violent" pornography.
Yeah, that is pretty much bullcrap ETA:(the addiction of parliament that you describe, not your comments about it that is)
Although isn't the trend now to 'nudge' people to correct social ills rather than just legislate? Purportedly at any rate.
Good night all.