silverfox

The Guardian article was interesting in this sense: Marriage can currently be described as the union of a man and a woman under the law We can change this definition to the union of two people under the law, which allows for hetro and gay unions At what stage will it be seen to be illiberal not to further change this definition to two or more people, thus allowing multiple-union which could include hetro, gay and bi within the same group union?

It would certainly keep the lawyers in work. Imagine the complications over divorce, inheritance etc Where parental consent would be required, Would all 17 people in the marriage be required to consent, including the non biological parents? Great fun

Interesting article in The Guardian yesterday. Why shouldn't three people get married? As three Brazilians are legally joined as a 'thruple' it starts to look illiberal to insist that marriage must be between two people... ...If three, or four, or 17 people want to marry each other simultaneously and equally, why should they not be granted the same status as two people who want to become a legal family? Good question. Once you start messing with the concept of marriage where will it lead? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/30/three-people-get-married-thruple

Posted by Cedges Today, 12:32PM I was in Helsinki earlier this year and we went to a nice outdoor bar in a square where the bouncers brought us over massive blankets because it was a bit nippy - we thought it was a really cool idea... Are you sure you didn't wander into an old peoples care home at by mistake? Easy mistake to make with language and cultural differences

Posted by RosieH Today, 02:46PM ...Perhaps not, but it should. Heating up the outside rather than putting a coat on is indefensible, whichever way you look at it... Doesn't our star, the sun, heat up the outside? Can't see what harm a few heaters will do given the power of the sun. That's one way to look at it.

A very sad case that raises very serious questions about where we, as a society, wish to go. He lost his High Court battle to allow doctors to end his life without risk of prosecution - rightly in my opinion. Why rightly? Because there was nothing stopping him and his family going to Switzerland if he felt the time was right. It would appear Tony committed suicide, dying from pneumonia at home with his family on August 22, after refusing food, fluid and antibiotics (although the timing of his demise after the court's decision rather undermined his case in my opinion). The film 'Soylent Green' featured suicide on demand by the individual. Tony's case also has relatives who urged a change in the law for his release, for merciful reasons. What troubles me is the proposal that relatives should be involved, as any lawyer who deals with wills and estates of the deceased could tell you.

Posted by dulwichgirl2 Yesterday, 06:06PM ...Any item of confectionery is about 70p... And the size has often been decreased with less squares to your chocolate bar or a decrease in weight

Yearn to be drinking until 2am in the Great Exhibition when you're snowed in and have had no electricity for a week 10 miles from the nearest amenities

Whittle wood outside the village shop

Penguin68 good point. Also, Ridgley, having thought about it, I think you have a general point in the sense that a number of people will happily go from, say, the deli, to pick up cheap items from Iceland - and let's face it there's nothing wrong with that. But surely the real issue here after 26 pages of 'not-in-my-back-yard' v 'progressives' is if Iceland thought it had a real customer base here in East Dulwich that would contribute to the overall success of the company it would fight tool and nail to stay here and produce counter-development plans that may satisfy the nimbys. Iceland is not a poor company and is more than capable of taking on M&S. However, perhaps it's more Penge than ED these days.

Did it have a saddle on?

You can Complain about: The village church ringing its bells every Sunday for the past 300 years Cockrels crowing at un-Godly hours of the morning and pongs coming from animals in the fields The village community centre doesn't hold esoteric yoga classes There are no pavements for double-deckker bugaloos Horse poo on the country lanes makes the range rover dirty Oh, and the foxes are not as big or cheerful as those in East Dulwich

...then walked cheefully down Somerton Road... Just as well it was in a good mood then

Big mistake, in my opinion, of including the charge of illegally accessing the voicemail of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler against Rebecca Brooks and Andy Coulson. There's enough evidence to convict them of wrong doing without this charge, that, given it's emotive nature and the Guardian's incorrect facts, may see them get off. It would be ironic if the Guardian's misrepresentation regarding deleting of emails allowed two Murdoch kingpins to walk away Scot free.

If you have a real job expect a 7 hour journey leaving London around 7pm. if you don't have a real job leave on Thursday.

I see Kofi's done a runner. will he repay his salary for his futile effort?

I'm sure you're correct right-clicking and having paid your dues over the years you're entitled to receive some help to tide you over until you get back on your feet. My main concern is that landlords can line their pockets at the government's, and your, expense. I wish you luck and as Loz said, try James Barber who may be able to help on what is probably an increasingly familiar problem.

I'm genuinely sorry to read of your circumstances but question whether this is a Cameron law problem. Your landlord has asked for an increase of ?150 per month - ?1,800 a year - on top of what is already paid. Why is this the government's responsibility to pay this, even if the landlord is being greedy? Isn't it a case of moving to somewhere cheaper, as inconvenient as that will be?

I'm having trouble finding figures for the number of school children in the UK. I've found the following from August 2007 but don't know how authoritative it is: UK school population: Approx 9.5 million children. England: 8,200,000 Wales: 494,181 Scotland: 743,561 http://pippaking.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/how-many-children.html So if there were 9.5 million in 2007 it's probably a reasonable guess they'll be about 12 million in 2014 at least, especially including 2 to 4 year olds. So again, how does this make sense financially? Unless there's a different motive for the mass vaccination campaign.

MM said: "...I do tend to place a high degree of confidence in the medical research behind the Chief Medical officer's flu vaccine plan as do physicians I work with..." There's nothing wrong with that MM and generally I would agree with that. (I personally accepted the assurances on MMR)However, sometimes the real purpose is on a 'need to know' basis. This vaccination proposal is extraordinary. We have a nasty form of TB sweeping this country and the world and there's no mention of a mass vaccination programme. Within living memory TB carries were locked away for the safety of the general population in what were quasi-prisons. This is not a case of the Chief Medical officer recommending that people have a flu jab because there is a nasty new form of Spanish flu around. The proposal will see all 2-year-old children embark on a 16-year annual flu vaccination programme from 2014. Why? (Correction: the strain of Seal flu referred to above should be H3N8. Sorry for the typo)

Yes but... If there were 24,605 schools in January 2010 (figures are for England only) and they have, say, 250 pupils each (6,151,250) plus add Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish school children plus government projections for an increase in pupils by 2014 plus number of children aged 2 to 4 then you must be looking at at least 8+ million children aged 2 to 17 eligible for flu vaccines in 2014. That strikes me as a lot of vaccines, a lot of needles/sprayers, Heath service personnel to administer the nasal spray, transport, refrigerated storage etc etc. Where's the potential savings? The only justification for such a mass programme would be to minimise the risk of a pandemic to the general population and the H3N3 strain of Seal flu would be one of these potential threats. The question is then, will the nation's children be oinking, slapping their arms together and balancing balls on their noses after the vaccinations? http://education.gov.uk/popularquestions/schools/buildings/a005553/how-many-schools-are-there-in-england

Good point. That could be the reason

You could argue about the pros and cons of the opening ceremony until the cows come home. Overall it was very enjoyable spectacle. There's no doubt though that as an exercise in politcal correctness it ticked all the boxes.

You're correct in the sense that a general flu vaccine would be ineffective against a specifically mutated strain - hence the fear of a pandemic. Which again begs the question why? Why is the government proposing a mass vaccination programme? Millions of people have been exposed to the Avian influenza strain H5N1 in Asia and suffer no ill effects so it would only make sense if elements of this strain was included in the vaccine.

You misunderstand vaccination El Pibe. It exposes you to very mild strains of the very thing it aims to prevent.