pap

Well, sorta. What ended up happening is many decent families moved out of the area. I still visit quite a bit. Most of the student places are now rented out to people on Housing Benefit at market rents, so not really a great deal if you compare it with people renting for reasonable rates in the late 70s. I can well believe your story though

I read this.... It helps

This week marks Bioware's entry into the MMO scene with the release of the long-awaited Star Wars : The Old Republic. This video shows all the cinematic trailers to date. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1KM3E0emjg I am very excited about this. Loved the original films, and my experience from Knights Of The Old Republic ( Bioware's single-player RPG in the same universe ) tells me that Bioware 'get' Star Wars in a way that has eluded its creator George Lucas. So, anyone else getting this?

I quite liked it. They obviously don't know their S'fampton very well if they lump Jesters in with Portswood. It's Beavwah Valley, innit? As a Flower Roads nipper, I do have some sympathy for people concerned with the changes wrought by students pitching up, but not much. Over the last 30 years I've seen the Uni encroach on the estate, with more and more places becoming part of the University. I can still remember Salisbury Road, etc. Also, another major factor around the Flower Roads was the right-to-buy scheme. Loads of people promptly bought their houses, sold them onto landlords, who then rented them out to students. Goodbye community.

Well, there were certainly a couple of MPs making the point about the EU's institutions during Cameron's Q+A session yesterday. If we do pursue this, I'd expect the end of the Coalition government and the end of our involvement in the EU.

The veto means that technically, the 26 nations in this agreement cannot use the institutions of the EU to implement and enforce the current plans. The rumblings from our EU partners is that they will seek ways to use these institutions regardless. As I said in an earlier post, it's only really a veto if Britain follows this up by preventing the 26 from using EU institutions. Otherwise, it's just a news story and a lot of bad PR for us internationally. Its biggest meaning is probably symbolic.

It's only really a veto if the UK actively seeks to prevent the 26 from using the instruments of the EU apparatus to implement the plan for the 26. Not really a position we'd want to be in; we'd be playing into French hands. That said, numbers do not make something right. A sizable majority of Germans in the 1930s gave explicit or tacit approval to the regime that was developing at the time. I'm not making this point to link the current crop of Germans with the Nazis - it's just an example of how "popular opinion" can be massively at odds with "what's right". So where do we find ourselves really? We've got a PM who has said no to a European proposal and we've got 26 countries against us. Going by the numbers alone, we seem to be completely in the wrong. 26 vs 1. No argument to be had in the numbers, if you're just prepared to treat them that way. Thing is, you look a little deeper and you ask a couple of questions. Would it be possible that some of the other 26 countries may have their own motives? How many of those 26 countries have real power, real influence? When it comes down to it, it amounts to about two. Previously, we might have been able to point out the likes of Spain and Italy as potential European powerhouses. No longer. Democracy has already been suspended in Italy so that it can settle its debts. Spain is not far behind. Who else? Germany and France, and that's about it. So really, our disagreement is with France and Germany. The Germans have to back the French if they want to keep the Euro. The French have their own reasons for wanting Britain out of the trading game ( Sarkozy has been petitioning for this since 2009). I have absolutely no love for Cameron or the Conservatives. They need to make some major policy adjustments to ever be capable of attracting my vote. Regardless, this was a sh*tty deal, a sh*tty plan and honestly, there was no way we were coming out of this with a win. Our options? Sign a bad deal or walk away from it. While I accept that Cameron could have potentially come away from the situation with a better result, we just don't know what the respective positions of the major players are, absent some sort of evidence. Right now, the case against the UK consists of France, Germany and 24 other countries sh*t-scared of "what happens next" telling the whole world we're wrong. On the other hand, we have David Cameron telling us that he has acted in Britain's interests. My view is that there is a lot of bs from not just the UK and our European partners, but also the people in Washington. Washington, Beijing et all just want it sorted. They don't want to hear anything about democratic problems or individual nation state concerns. They don't have our interests at heart and they've little interest in helping us where it won't help them. Let's not get hooked up on "precious influence and standing", because really, it's just self-interest from countries who haven't quite got what they want.

Absolutely loved the film, and was saying to the missus that we'll need to hit the TV series. I'm right in thinking that they've retained much of the cast, right, Turkish?

Which band? The real one? Or the one who were the "evil" band in Jem?

I lol'ed when I saw her learned friends visibly disagree with her. Labour do need to get their heads out of their arses on this one. Hoey is right - a lot of Labour voters do support Cameron's actions.

Bump! Series 3 of this is about to finish next week. What can I say? The best British show I have seen for a very long time, and definitely the best British sci-fi/fantasy series I've ever seen. Questions were asked following the departure of a major cast member, but really, nothing to worry about. Goes from strength to strength.

I don't think so. All of the cases I made for failure are directly related to the single currency. Greece and Ireland were bailed out because of the fear of contagion to the rest of the Eurozone. The Euro would have been the means through which contagion was submitted. Similarly, the technocratic governments that are in place in Italy and Greece are there to save the Euro, not the EU. Their job is to enforce austerity measures that the EU felt the previous incumbents would be unable to implement. I suppose the question to ask is "would we be in the same mess if the EU didn't have the single currency?". The answer is probably not. Sure, individual countries might have gone bust, but we wouldn't be worried about everyone going down because the Greeks and Irish were overzealous with their countries' credit cards.

It's failed in the sense that we currently have 26 countries trying to mop up the mess right now. It's failed because two countries have already been bailed out just to keep the thing running. It has failed because it has sacrificed democracy for stability. It has failed because it's going to need help from the IMF to survive. It has failed because the EU failed to prevent its own members breaking the rules. Appreciate the exchange rate comparison, but is it really that surprising that it has held some parity with sterling? First, sterling's future is partially bound up in the Euro. Second, through quantitive easing, successive governments have been creating extra money from essentially nothing. So really, you can't say that one failing currency is okay because it's retaining parity with another dodgy currency. So far, the EU has spent tens of billions bailing out member states, while the EFSF looks set to build a reserve of 1 Trillion Euros to cover future liabilities. Does this sound like the sort of precaution you'd need to make with a successful currency?

The Euro has already failed. We're just waiting for events to catch up. I agree that it'll probably exist in one form or another (pretty much onboard with the idea of it being a Northern European currency) but I doubt that it'll remain the currency of every country in the Eurozone.

My view is that Cameron did the right thing for the wrong reasons. We seriously need to re-examine what the EU stands for. Right now, it seems that paying back debt is a higher priority than democracy. If you need any evidence of that, look at the technocratic governments installed in Italy and Greece. If Cameron had signed up to a new treaty, he'd effectively be validating the EU's course of action. Right now, it doesn't seem like we've won anything apart from the condemnation of our neighbours. However, that conclusion assumes that the EU's master plan to sort it all out is actually going to work. We may look like pariahs at the moment, but we could end up looking pretty astute if the EU's plans go t*ts-up.

Watching last night's Newsnight on iPlayer. I have to say, I'm not actually impressed with the EU's plan. Part of what they agreed yesterday is that it'll be illegal for them to spend themselves out of recession. That being the case, where is the growth going to come from? Another result of yesterday's discussion is that each Parliament will need to submit its budget for review to the EU, who can suggest changes if they think a country is going to blow its budget. It is supposed to be protection, but in reality, it'll never work. Countries won't fully account for their outgoings and sh*t happens. Countries will inevitably break the rules and have various arms of the EU apparatus bearing down on them. Any country that breaks the rules can lose voting rights, leaving only the solvent countries with a full voice. It is a bad plan for recovery, and a bad deal for any country that finds itself strapped for cash. I'm not surprised that we didn't sign up for it. I'm actually amazed that 26 others did. I'm starting to agree with VFTT's view that this will inevitably lead to a referendum, which will inevitably lead to exit from the EU.

I've been to France and worked with Germans. The French eat some weird stuff. They seem to lack any kind of squeamish gene. I'm not just riffing on the traditional snail and frog cocktail - I remember walking through a French supermarket and seeing shrink-wrapped rabbits in the freezer looking something akin to Hellraiser. That said, most French people I met were very cool, even if they all did p*ss themselves laughing when my dad introduced me all to them as 'ma fille' (my daughter) I have a German neighbour, and know a few Germans through work. Nothing but positive impressions, really. I've got a lot of admiration for the way they picked themselves up from the war, a lot of respect for the political will to reunite East and West (despite the resistance from a section the general public) and a lot of respect for their industry. Like ourselves, Germany bore lasting scars as a result of the Second World War, but they faced greater challenges (half of our country didn't end up belonging to the Communist bloc, for example). In the time following VE day, not only have they have faced and overcome partition, but they have also emerged as the EU's strongest economy. The country has a reputation for quality engineering, decent work ethic coupled with a similar drinking culture to our own. From a British perspective, it's hard not to find common ground with our Teutonic cousins. Of course, the really interesting thing about this debate is that, in truth, both countries have had immense influence on Britain, and we share characteristics with both the French and the Germans, which the comments on this thread would seem to support.

You should send that to the French tourist board. They can put it on posters

During the recent turmoil with the European Union, our attitudes about our closest neighbours have come front and centre. The Telegraph has a blog online, The British are not anti-German: they're just ignorant of German culture. Amongst its claims, it cites:- the English are far more positive about the Germans than they are about the French. A majority of Britons – 61 per cent – view Germany as a friendly country, compared to just 40 per cent who see France in the same way This YouGov poll is where they pulled the data. Which country does SaintsWeb prefer? My starter for ten: Ze Germans

As you might imagine, I've got a lot of Bluenose mates on account of living in Liverpool. Kenwright does retain some support amongst the fans, but not much. I don't think anyone is accusing him of not being a decent chap, but questions have been asked about the amount of effort expended either attracting investment or finding a new buyer for the club. The fans look at the profile of the club, the profile of the city and the fact that they're in the Premiership and assume that there would be no shortage of takers. I've got a lot of sympathy with that view, and can understand why they are asking the question. But then, not every cloud has a silver lining - just look at the chicken-inspired fiasco going on up at Blackburn. I do understand their frustration. I've argued that it has been better to be a Saints fan than an Everton fan in recent years, despite the fact that we got relegated a couple of times. Everton have effectively been treading water. Too good to get relegated, not good enough to challenge and no real prospect for change without major investment.

Totally, but as I said, people work around the system, not within it. I suppose the question is why, and I suspect the answers are myriad. Problem is, as soon as one school does this and gains an advantage, others will see the practice as fair game. Ultimately, it's self-defeating - the whole point of GCSEs is that our kids get a general education, and not specific knowledge on a couple of things they were told to revise.

Cameron played the only card he could. He can't sign up to a full treaty change without attracting massive criticism from his own ranks and the financial services sector. He can't dismiss Europe entirely, as neither big business nor his coalition partners would be on-board. He has done the only thing he is brave enough to do, and deserves about as much praise as someone who makes the decision to jump out of the way of oncoming traffic. On a related note, do we need to reconsider the defence deal we made with the French? Haven't seen Anglo-French relations this frosty for some time.

It matters because we really don't want to see David Cameron get plaudits for essentially protecting the institutions that fecked us all up in the first place. When the British people asked for a referendum on Europe, we were roundly rebuffed. When big business asks for financial services to be protected, Dave whips the veto out. That should tell you all you need to know.

As someone who develops software systems, here's a nugget of truth. People will attempt to subvert any system you put in place. This is a direct result of the targets system.