Huguenot

No, you pay ?5.95. 'Nothing' was all you could eat, and you ate it.

You haven't paid for a plate of food t-e-d, you've paid for as much as you can eat. If you put more on your plate than you could eat, you're simply trying to rip off the system - so your tone of outrage is completely unreasonable, the swindler here is you not me!

If he's not going to eat it then it should not be on his plate. Putting stuff on your plate you can't eat is just willfully depriving the restaurateur of their livelihood. It's not greedy if he doesn't eat it; it's just downright insulting, morally bankrupt. Read the dog in the manger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_in_the_Manger It's 'as much as you can eat' not 'as much as you can take home'.

Since you'd only need to get as much as you immediately require at an 'as much as you can eat', the only reason for having stuff left on your plate would be 'intent'.

Haha! That would make me furious too!

Delivering logs?

The one thing people forget in this situation is that this is NOT a yes/no discussion: it IS an either/or discussion. From a waste disposal situation it's EITHER landfill OR an incinerator. In this scenario an incinerator wins by a spectacular margin. From an energy situation it's EITHER fossil/nuclear power OR an incinerator. In this scenario an incinerator wins by a spectacular margin. So comparing incinerators with family car output is completely irrelevant. All of the references made criticizing the incinerator either completely ignore this issue, or in the case of Greenpeace fail to tell you that actually they don't want any of the above. A manifesto that's downright childish in its wishful thinking. People aren't going to suddenly stop creating waste or use less electricity. Once you take those issues into account, I'm afraid the incinerator will simply boil down to a NIMBY argument. I have no respect for NIMBYISM here: it's built on poor science. The reason why incinerators are difficult to study is that their environmental impact is so small that you can't tell if they're on or off.

Well, save chopping their heads off, there probably isn't much to be done about that. It's not a very good reason for not putting them in jail?

That's not really an article, more of a politically motivated blog. We had an incinerator right in the middle of Worcester, where I grew up. Didn't even notice it. Fuss over nothing. Well, over votes I suspect.

The other conclusion being, of course, that since violence and incarceration didn't follow each other that no cause and effect system is at play. If nothing else, the US's huge imprisonment rates demonstrate that there is no cost/benefit calculation taking place in the minds of petty thugs when they commit their crime.

Interesting - does everyone have to pass through it? How does it work? Like at an airport?

Stick with it LM :) you're doing an excellent job!

Hmmm, JB, I admire your more politically combative stance in the last few weeks, but I think arguments about lead from petrol and knife crime/social mood would be marginal at best. Responses to knife crime are emotional not rational (as Rianoo has highlighted), people are disinclined to respond to evidence or logical arguments (having said that, I don't believe the lead argument is anything other than a marginal distraction, not logical). As off the wall as it may seem, I'd be more inclined to sponsor the stage at the upcoming ED fair with a community campaign for 'outstanding' neighborhoods. It would be a message to both the locality and to parents that you support their personal/private battles to discourage faint hearted teenagers from believing that carrying a knife gives them a 'quality' reputation. Give them another way to stand out - fund a local junior entrepreneur (18 or under) to launch a business with ?3000. Prove that bright kids get kudos. Encourage 'employment' between hard fought 'commercial' battles. Get them to think about their neighborhood politically and socially. Knife crime amongst teenagers, like stamping amongst pre-schoolers, is about diversion.

It seems to make no sense at all. I'm flabbergasted.

Well I agree Quids - but all of that (especially US vs EU crime rates vs liberal sentencing) proves that there are for more complex issues at work here than whether the sentences are tough enough. Tough sentencing is amateur tabloid problem solving, and there's no evidence it works. People are foolish if they ignore the fact that the criminalization of stupid children (including depriving them of a quality education as well as providing them with the completely distorted social environment of a young offenders centre) is more likely to create a lifetime's antisocial behaviour than a model citizen. But then I'm not sure that the 'hang 'em' brigade want a solution. They just want more hangings, for the sick glorious indulgence and self-justification it provides them with.

Well the first place to start is the assumption that knife crime is increasing. In 1979 there were 200 deaths by sharp instrument, and in 2012 there were 200 deaths by sharp instrument. There's the odd up and down in that figure, but it's pretty consistent. In 1995 8% of violent crime involved a sharp instrument, and in 2012 only 6%. There's a few ups and downs in that figure, but it's pretty consistent. Even if you don't like the Police or British Crime Survey figures, the numbers of admissions a to hospital for knife injuries last year was around 4,500, which is the lowest figure since 2002. There's a few ups and downs etc. but it's... consistent. So, you know, the whole argument is built on the rubbish assumption that knife crime is getting worse. Going back to whether sentencing is going to cure us of the 200 deaths or 4,500 serious injuries, then just THINK about it. That's 200/4,500 in a population of 60,000,000 60 MILLION people. That means the proportions are too small to have any relevance at all. Sentencing is going to have NO affect because these situations are all unique, and it's a pretty reasonable guess that not one of these individuals considered the sentence before they committed the crime. So all you're really going to do by increasing sentencing is persecute stupid little boys who, statistically, are just as likely to grow out of this phase as they were 30 years ago. All figures here: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/Sn04304

@Rianoo... "so the credible research has resulted in what exactly ? A softly softly approach that means more people carrying blades" I think that would be a good example of making an incorrect observation (that punishment for knife crimes has weakened), identifying an inaccurate correlation (that it has directly tracked an increase in knife carrying), and jumping to a now hopelessly off-beam causation (that weakening knife punishments has prompted more people to carry blades). It's poor analysis.

Come over here and say that ;-)

Not at all DaveR, in fact it seems that my own humble predictions about muddling through these common currency teething problems seem to be the only ones that are proving accurate. Where is the apocalypse relentlessly pursued by the isolationists? That even goes so far as predicting 6 years ago that we would see increasingly centralized fiscal control and political convergence. It is worth pointing out to financial isolationists that excluding finance, the UK economy is in great health. The problem is that the international finance industry is such a big chunk of our GDP that we're struggling to recover. Insular financial isolationism will only make this worse - so those attacking finance don't recognize that like any failing corporate I've seen tens of times before, when they going gets tough they start eating themselves alive. Europe will be fine. Europeans are intrinsically socialist. The British Anglo Saxon right just don't seem to get that.

".... issue an immediate apology before I consider how far to take this" Jeez TJ, you fancy yourself a bit don't you? Call the police maybe? Letter to the Prime Minister? TJ gets in a huff online - stop the world turning shall we? Get over yourself.

Specifically I am refuting the suggestion that somehow a political and trade union of European states is responsible for the crisis in Cyprus. It is not. Nothing that you have referenced suggests otherwise. For a Noddy summary, please see here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21817197 The Cypriot banks have overextended themselves and effectively find themselves bankrupt, this situation was not created by the EU or the Euro, but by banking (and possibly regulatory) malpractice. When this happened in the UK, the government bailed them out. Unfortunately Cyprus doesn't have enough cash in the economy and the money markets won't lend to them because the bailout requirement is such a significant multiple of GDP. That situation was not created by the EU or the Euro either. The ECB and the IMF were approached as lenders of last resort. Since the ECB's reserves are the reserves of the sovereign governments then the finance ministers of all contributors have a say in any loans it makes. The EU's committees are appropriate for this discussion. BUT as I've now pointed out 3 times, the EU and the Euro had nothing to so with creating this crisis. A condition of the loan being made was that the government must fund some of the bail out themselves. Since the Cyprus government had no funds available, and since the bailout would bring the banks into public ownership, the Cyprus government thought it appropriate that savers should have some of their savings translated into shares. They thought this would be better than the alternative, which was losing ALL their money. I agree with them in general - especially since the alternative is they lose everything (there's no way Cyprus could afford to honour savings guarantees), and citizens who do not have their money in these banks should not have to bear the burden. The EU disagreed with their approach, and have stated this publicly, but would not concede a situation where they would bail out the banks to 100% - especially when the major beneficiaries would be Russian crims. Thus, as I have tirelessly pointed out again and again, neither the EU nor the Euro created this situation, they are being turned to as a lender of last resort, and the loans are offered on the completely reasonable basis that the Cypriots would find some of the cash themselves. It is entirely up to the Cypriots how they find this cash - although I have no doubt that Germany and the UK would prefer it came from Russian crims NOT ordinary savers. The EU and the Euro have nothing to do with creating this crisis. The problem is that emotionally overcharged UK citizens have a habit of nationalistic fervor and laying the blame at foreigners doors when the going gets tough. The national press feed this desire by printing lies and half truths. It's tragic and stupid.

Haha. I'm not sure I'd take SEO recommendations from Dick given the keyword stuffing on his Google+ page.

Kind of kicks off with a trochee but then all hell does break loose

What, like Somalia?

Perhaps it was the period you searched in? Perhaps only the last year?