Huguenot

I think you've lapsed into TV caricatures there brain_opera? There may well be people as you describe in both ED and the forum, but they aren't on this thread. Amingst those rejecting the proposal on this thread there's a couple of chaps that I'll loosely describe as traditional conservatives who believe in individual responsibility and social discipline. Their chief motivation will be in protecting their community against encroaching moral relativism and the collapse of society. Then there's one or two people who are genuinely anxious about the safety aspects of having strangers in poorly lit residential areas late at night. I can't see any middle class snobs matching your description.

This is a duplicate post Martha, which is somewhat abusing the readers!

LMGTFY. Sounds like this one. http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/budget-lidl-whisky-getting-booze-experts-drunk-with-delight/

Ah sure - I just haven't usually heard them described as 'reader feeds'. I don't typically use them on a PC, as I don't tend to read long form on a desktop or laptop. My favorite content aggregator is Flipboard on my iPad. It gives me a satisfying mix of content selected and edited by my own preferences, and content selected and edited by mates through Facebook and Twitter posts. Most importantly, the iPad is good for long form reading. The thing I'm concerned about is that by repackaging content they ride slipshod over the needs of the content creator to monetize the content through advertising or other commercial opportunities. If we don't bear that in mind, we'll lose good content, and will gain content that's written as a commercial end in itself (oral hygiene advice from Colgate...)

I always resent the impact they had on Viking Burger. Worcester was never the same after their demise.

*effluent, although affluent also works well in a satirical way :)

The census doesn't claim to be a one to one count of every household in the UK, and it doesn't need to be in order to be sufficiently accurate for anything but extremely local (street level) accuracy. It only claims to sample 80% of households (so every 5th house can fail to return). However, by taking local snapshots using other methods it can estimate 'missing' data with a great deal of accuracy. A sample of 20 million households in a universe of 25 million is extremely high. The current peer reviewed statistical population estimate is quoted as a 0.15% error margin with a confidence of 95%. Sounds good to me!

Aha that's it - you were looking for an opportunity for a personal attack on me because of a personality clash! Now I understand ;-) You weren't actually trying to add value to the conversation, clarity to the debate or guidance to the issue (because you didn't actually disagree with my core point), you were just 'having a go'. Your vehicle for this was the highly volatile interpretations that make up common law. You will of course find many terms used in judgements that refer to libel over the last 200 years that use different words, so well done you! Well, I'm glad we cleared that up!

Here is the section that would defend the EDF should an irritable restarauter attempt to sue it for the comments made by a user: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2012-2013/0075/lbill_2012-20130075_en_2.htm#pb2-l1g5 It's pretty clear the EDF would be required to identify the user in question. It's also clear that having moderators does not defeat the defense the EDF may make. However other action the EDF should take (like removing the post in question) is not stated - it is instead referred to as complying with 'regulations' that can be made by the Secretary of State. I await with baited breath to discover what these may be. It would be odd if simply the act of complaining were sufficient for a post to be removed - there would have to be some greater test than that.

Aha! To help us all out, the new defamation bill is due to pass shortly, it's at the final stages in the House of Lords. Should be complete in the next couple of months: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/defamation.html Then we shall be able to refer to statute. Lucky us.

Sure thing DaveR, a useful summary of recent judgements, interpretations that would no doubt be referenced in future cases - albeit not on the statute book. I suspect that you're simply missing the point, which was to clarify jprfinch's assertion that you could say what you want and it wouldn't be libel unless the plaintiff could prove you were lying (which he asserted was impossible). I'm sure you agree with me that this is not the case? Since I assume you do, I'm confused as to what your motivation might be to try and pick a rather pointless and arcane fight? Is there some other issue you'd like to explore? Is this discussion perhaps a medium to pursue some other niggle?

That sounds like a judgement in a particular case DaveR - it doesn't seem to cite the law but the opinion of the court. Happy to check your references - what was it? I notice from this article that the Court of Appeal said that fair comment SHOULD be changed to honest comment, but not that it actually is? That is a step to amending the law, but not a change in the law itself: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/dec/01/supreme-court-fair-comment-libel-defence-change If the law has changed since 2010 then my observations were indeed incorrect.

Well, the DLR and Jubilee line extensions don't need bits of paper, it's about 300m high and made out of glass and steel. The Northern Line to Battersea has already been shared on here.

Is this particularly the Google Reader product r-c or something else?

That's a peculiar attack Bouncy, I saw no thread hijacking by LondonMix on the thread you linked to - just a mild disagreement with your position. Likewise, I've seen nothing from LondonMix which is dogmatically repeating a position that ignores evidence. What you have in the Save Lewisham Hospital campaign is one view on the situation from a local perspective, and in the working group report a slightly different perspective given the regional requirements and budgets. Threads are not reserved for people who agree with you.

jrpfinch, that's simply not right. UK law does not operate in that way. This isn't a debate between you and me, it's simply the law. Feel free to look it up. It is different to US law, which is why US companies sue for libel in British courts. There is no such test as an 'honest person' only that of a reasonable person. Your polar bear vomit would not be considered reasonable criticism as it would be considered to be so extreme as to be motivated by malice. However, you'd be unlikely to see court as such an inappropriate metaphor would likely be considered satirical. Penguin68, your interpretation is valid but in practice it is the individual that is sued, not the site. The EDF's moderation team does make it marginally more likely to be sued successfully, but the reality is that it doesn't happen.

It's East Dulwich ward, near as dammit. But OMG, there are 600 (six hundred) more women in ED than men.

Is that for Juliette or Rich? ;-)

Don't judge him, he's not a book you know.

It seems eminently sensible to set up working groups of healthcare professionals to design a health service for South London that meets community requirements and balances distribution of services appropriately. I would expect this to be done bearing in mind the budget available, and that despite society's demand to have a hospital on every corner 'just in case' that this budget would reflect economic realities (and yes, that means there's a price tag on everyone's life). It's also predictable that there would be a massive backlash against those working groups by people not in them, and that people would think they could design a better health system based on 'places I've been to and liked'! I haven't got a clue what Saffron's on about in terms of using my noodle. Assuming that she means 'think about it', I have, and it seems self-evident that the selections of healthcare professionals and clinicians facing this task from an informed perspective are likely to deliver better results than layperson sentimentalists.

First time I encountered the word 'eggcorn'...

Does the same post work in different sections? Try it on this thread? If it won't it's probably because you inadvertently have a banned word in - things like special ist does for example;)

Just referring back to jrpfinch's comments about libel and restaurants - he's quite wrong on all counts. In UK libel law, the burden of proof is on the defendant. If sued, the defendant has to prove that either they told the truth, or that it was 'fair comment' (which means a view a reasonable person might have). The plaintiff (the person complaining) does NOT have to prove the defendant is stating untruths. Since saying that McDonald's fries taste like polar bear vomit is NOT a view a reasonable person might have, if jrpfinch were to say that he would lose a libel case. Simple as that. In social media, however, there is a third argument the EDF could use: that as a carrier they do not elicit or condone the views expressed. This is the same argument that is used when somebody bitches about you on TV - you sue the individual not Sony for making the TV. For this reason, any restaurant suing the EDF is likely to lose. However, I suspect that Admin has got better things to do then spend his day dealing with vexatious litigants.

Having said that, everything Quids says means we're better off in Europe than outside ;)

I agree with most of the points being made from DaveR and Quids, however, I conversely believe that land tax should be implemented. Land tax is essentially a downward pressure on economic rent. Economic rent is exploitation of resource control. david_carnell is right to recognize this as a damaging influence on labour commitment and consequently economies, and a misappropriation of productivity. Real estate property rights were never intended as a 'property flip' monkey's paradise, but as an opportunity for agricultural economies to benefit from best practice. We need to find a way in which real estate contributes directly to economic uplift, instead of 'I'm waiting until I can flip it for more'.