Gentle Giant

At least there is some consistency in the sentencing. It is not so long ago that two property developers were given suspended sentences for a multi-million pound property fraud involving mortgages. The judge said that as they were deeply ashamed and their reputations ruined, they had "suffered enough". Proportionality should be maintained. A £64K benefit fraud is a crime, but so is avoiding £10m in tax, yet both appear to be valued similarly by the justice system. The lesson: if you are going to defraud the system, make it worthwhile, because the sentence is likely to be the same.

Please note the use of the word "also" meaning in addition to. Additional testing would improve over all driving standards and, one hopes, the pride people take in their work. The council is at fault for licensing far more vehicles than are needed for a city the size of Hereford which leads to ranks overflowing and vehicles obstructing existing parking or parking restrictions. Unfortunately, the law demands that anyone presenting a vehicle suitable for disabled access must be given a licence, or at least it used to before I sold my interests in the trade. U turns, if carried out safely and legally, are acceptable – yes, I know they aren't always, which is why I advocate *additional* testing to raise driver awareness and standards. The cost of sufficient Enforcement Officers to police driver conduct would raise the cost of a license to ludicrous levels, compromising the operators' ability to earn a living and therefore vehicle safety and condition.

I have always felt that compulsory retesting for all drivers every five years would do much to improve driving standards in this country. Post age 60 I would recommend retesting every three years, post 75 every year. I also advocate regular and stricter retests for licensed Hackney Carriage and Private Hire drivers. I have been one and employed several, so I do know what I'm suggesting. Observation and appropriate reaction in advance does much to avoid accidents. Driving ain't a competition, it's more about self-preservation.

You have highlighted why I have both front and rear facing cameras in my car. As basic car cameras can now be bought for less than £10, there is no excuse. OK, so at that price they don't have GPS and all the bells and whistles, but even cameras with all the features are available for less than £100. Car cameras are an investment which will pay their own way, as soon as one finds oneself in the position described above. Insurances companies will tend to prefer a "knock for knock" arrangement and will increase your premium. Incidentally, as a bonus I have some wonderful footage of a stag trotting along the road in front of me, not far from the village of Blakemere and of a top hatted man playing and driving a motorised piano (yes, really) in Pembridge, among other niceties.

On the contrary, Osmosis: this equine is still very much alive and kicking and his opinions, although strongly held, are not beyond modification. That said, I have a feeling that were we to have this discussion face to face with a large bottle of something strong and expensive and two glasses in the equation, it might result in one helluva hangover. Anyway, on to the Custard Pies at Ten Paces, with this little gem: Your description of how the Commission is constituted is close, but is it close enough? From the EU's own website comes: A new team of 28 Commissioners (one from each EU Member State) is appointed every five years. The candidate for President of the Commission is proposed to the European Parliament by the European Council that decides by qualified majority and taking into account the elections to the European Parliament. The Commission President is then elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members (which corresponds to at least 376 out of 751 votes). Following this election, the President-elect selects the 27 other members of the Commission, on the basis of the suggestions made by Member States. The final list of Commissioners-designate has then to be agreed between the President-elect and the Council. The Commission as a whole needs the Parliament's consent. Prior to this, Commissioners-designate are assessed by the European Parliament committees. When we elect our lot in the UK, we choose a local MP and, by default, get the bloke his party chose as leader to be PM, in a sort of BOGOF arrangement. Not perfect, but at least we are not electing a bloke who only has a bit of a say in choosing the bloke who is chosen by a bunch of other blokes who may have been chosen by us and who will then choose his own blokes who will be half-heartedly vetted by a committee of some of the blokes we chose in the first place until they agree to appoint the blokes who were chosen by the bloke who was elected by some of the people who might have been chosen by the people we voted for . . . I think. You think British democracy isn't up to much? I agree that an elected second chamber would be preferable to the HoL, even though the latter has proven itself surprisingly useful on occasion. Of course, we have no say in choosing heads of major government departments, but we have no say in choosing the heads of EU departments either. The UK is, however, making a huge step towards a greater degree of democracy by bringing in elected mayors for major cities. Let's hope that trend works its way down to smaller local authorities. Potentially another discussion altogether is our electoral system. I believe true PR is the way to go, but Brits loathe change, so let's not push our luck on that just yet. I don't recall ever using the Norway and Iceland arguments, because I don't believe them to be relevant. Both are much smaller economies and any comparison is, therefore, less than valid. Switzerland is another ball game, due to its banking sector. It may be a small country with a small population but, as Bankers by Appointment to Warmongers of the World, it handles a whole stack of money, which bears some comparison to the financial services sector of the UK. When it comes to negotiating our own trade arrangements with the EU (until it collapses, anyway) the UK is essential to the EU as an export market, being the second largest economy in Europe and, as such, is in a much more powerful negotiating position than any of the countries so fondly quoted by most exiteers. The EU wants TTIP and, with corporations in control, the modern equivalent of serfdom is inevitable – refined over the mediaeval model, I grant you, but not by much. The CAP will continue to keep prices artificially inflated and will continue to mess up the ecology of Europe in the name of something or other, but not in the best interests of the people of the EU. Osmosis, I fully understand how, with your view of the EU and its systems, you feel continued membership to be the way to go. That's the wonderful things about our system: you still have the democratic right to be wrong! ;-) I grant you that, in principle, the EU was and possibly still could be, a decent idea. Unfortunately, it has to be run and operated by people, which is where the whole thing falls foul of the human instinct for self preservation and gain. It is all rather like trying to maintain a crumbling stately home. Once upon a time, it was mighty and grand and served a great practical purpose, building, growing and sustaining entire communities. Then it became tatty about the edges, then began to crumble. Sooner or later it will catch fire and be reduced to a shell, a shadow of its former self. Eventually, one day, the bulldozers will come . . .

That's one thing we certainly agree on. You and I are much closer to accord than you realise. We differ primarily in the way each might seek to tackle the issues. I believe that it is easier to achieve change if we, as a country, actually have a say in our future as opposed to a 1/28th vote in a committee in which we are likely to be ignored and whose decisions can and will be overridden by the Commission, if that is what suits them. When the people are persuaded to arise from their fat apathetic arses – usually because someone is hurting their pockets (poll tax riots) – they can and do achieve great things. Governments that can be voted out, even with pathetically low turn-outs, still pay attention as opposed to unelected appointees who are ultimately answerable to no-one. A century ago the likes of radium and asbestos were viewed as being of great benefit to mankind. The truth of the science which showed the dangers was concealed, but ultimately the people arose to put an end to the abuses. Half a century ago the same happened with DDT. Commercial pressures will eventually be overcome in the case of more recent substances. Man just has a nasty habit of needing to reinvent the wheel with each new generation. We could debate details until the genetically modified dairy production units return to their approved and regulated accommodation but the fundamental questions remain: Do you believe that democracy has had its day? Would you prefer to live under a dictatorship? Do you want your children to have to pay for their own healthcare? Do you want corporations to be more powerful than democratically elected governments? Do you want a say in your and your children's future or would you prefer serfdom? To remain in the EU is to agree to serfdom, whether we like it or not. I have said before that all major empires eventually collapse under the weight of their own administration, regulation and taxation. I believe it is better to get out of the EU now and be ready to help pick up the pieces, rather than stay in and be buried under the rubble.

I am not so naive as to believe that our government wouldn't continue to work with corporations, however, as long as we have the option to boot them out at election time, I have more faith in our future outside of the EU than within it. The EU Commission is unelected and we have no power to remove its members. That alone is reason enough to not want to be part of it. Totalitarian regimes always fall in the end; why wait? Yes, there would be a ban on the likes of neonicotinoids without an EU. People power works well within individuals countries - sorry, member states - but is easier to ignore when viewed as fragmented idealism in a totalitarian superstate. How long do you think it will be before the EU is sued, post-TTIP, of course, to force all member countries to use these poisons? TTIP will be forced through in some form, whether we like it or not, because we have no means to stop it - democracy for sale to the highest bidder. I am disinclined to agree with you in your anticipation of potential "winners" post break up of the EU. The bankers have the most to gain by crashing the Euro at some point. Think of all those wonderful gains from FX fees, differing interest rates in different countries, bail-outs galore and much more. Cynical, yes; realistic? Remember how they manipulated the ERM? As for your panic mongering - if I may call it that - part of the list you included in your above post is only relevant if we were to remain within the EU. Cross border co-operation on environmental and humanitarian issues does not need to cease merely because an unelected bureaucratic megalith has ceased to exist. Yes, I take your point that co-operation can achieve great things, but when that co-operation comes at the cost of democracy and basic freedoms, the price is too high. All major empires collapse under their own weight sooner or later, as history proves repeatedly. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

Let's simplify the question for those who believe that the UK will descend into third world poverty without EU membership: Do you believe in democracy? – The EU is, in effect, a dictatorship. MEPs have no power to initiate, revise or veto legislation. If you don't like the EU "government" there's not a damned thing you can do about it. Do you believe in free trade? – We can and will arrange to trade with the EU without full membership. They sell us lots more than we sell them. They need access to the UK market. We will then also be free to access markets the EU denies to us. Do you believe that corporations should be prevented from running the world? – The EU is about to hand over power to corporations by means of TTIP. Any law a corporation dislikes it can overturn by means of secret settlements in which we have no say, no influence and won't learn about until it's too late. Do you want cheaper food? – The EU keeps food prices artificially inflated by means of, among other things, the Common Agricultural Policy. Prices are kept high to protect the farmers in certain member countries from the reality of market forces. Do you want more industry in the UK? – The EU wants to move manufacturing industries to the new, poorer, member countries in order to level out differences between respective economies. Do you believe in flood prevention? – The EU pays farmers, courtesy of the CAP, to remove "unproductive vegetation", i.e. trees and hedges, in order to provide grazing for sheep etc.. As a result, headwaters are deprived of proper drainage, floodplains are inundated, hence much of the recent flooding. Do you want the UK to have an effective voice in the world? – the EU has taken the UK's place on many international bodies, reducing our voice to 1/28th of what it once was. Do you believe that the UK should make UK law for UK people? – The vast majority of the legislation passed by the EU is merely "nodded through" by our legislators. EU law overrides UK law. Do you want you and your children to be citizens of the UK rather than of the United States of Europe? – The EU, as set out in the Treaty of Lisbon, is committed to ever closer union, economically, fiscally and politically. England, Scotland and Wales will merely be versions of Michigan, Oregon and Kentucky in a USE. Do you want the UK to decide on its own defence, in co-operation with others only when required? – The EU wants an EU army and air force, to be deployed where and when they decree, without reference to the member state. Do you prefer to retain the £ rather than join the Euro? – The EU has stated a commitment to the Euro as the universal currency of the EU by 2020. If you have answered "Yes" to more than half of the above questions, then you must vote to Leave the EU. There are more reasons to leave than the above and I have deliberately not included emotive reasons in order to avoid the usual hysteria associated with them. I am open to logical arguments, backed by facts, as to why I might be wrong. Please, do tell me what I have missed if you are one of those who believe that it is imperative the UK remain in the EU.

Why? Two people say stay in with no logical explanation - actually no reasoning at all. The trade argument has been disproved so many times, it barely makes sense to talk about it any more. We will gain trade by leaving, because the EU depends on the UK more than the other way around. It's not a big scary world out there without the EU; it's exciting and full of possibilities. EU = Dictatorship Out = Democracy

That makes you an EU Pushmepullyou. Either stay in and become a kind of Michigan of the United States of Europe or get the hell out and be able to do what you say you hope for the future. You can't have both.

How? They send us far more than we send them. Then the EU had the nerve to fine us £3bn for doing too well. The EU, as has every other major empire throughout history, will collapse under the weight of its own administration, legislation, regulation and taxation. Our choice is whether to get out and be ready to help clear up the mess, or stay in an be buried under the rubble.

In that case, Mick, you should be voting to leave. The UK provides more trade to the rest of the EU than the EU brings in to the UK. Are you aware that the EU fined the UK for doing too well? Yes, because we produced "excessive growth", this country had to pay a fine of, I think it was, £3bn to the EU. In the EU we are one of 28 countries, with zero democracy for the people (MEPs have no power to initiate, revise or veto EU legislation). That leaves about 160 countries for us to make our own trade arrangements with when we leave the EU, in addition to the EU itself, which is not going to turn its back on the second largest market in Europe (the continent, not just the aberration that is the EU).

How great does the difference have to be for a house to be "dark" rather than "well shaded" The sideways on shot does make things look bad, but if the trees are well spaced it may well be quite bright, while remaining well shaded. On the other hand, it is more or less North West facing, so shade isn't really an issue. To those who are " . . . sick of hearing about the Edgar Street trees . . .", I guess you don't actually live there or use the road all that much at peak times. Yes, it can become tiresome, hearing the same old story over and over, but no more so than pulling up in peak time traffic and seeing the "desperately needed" lane largely empty and ignored. To make matters worse, its layout favours traffic movement towards the A49 north, rather than the intended A438. As sick as you my be of hearing about it, I am equally sick of the waste of resources which could have been better spent and feel that the more those responsible are reminded of how the people really did know best, the less likely they will be to make similar mistakes in the future. I am not naive enough to believe that no mistakes will be made, but every highlighted reminder will serve to reduce the possibility.

Ah, yes, the "Why Use One Word When Thirty Five Will Do" school of job titles. This technique is usually employed within corporate set-ups to make people feel more important than they really are, so that they can be paid a lot less than they are worth. It doesn't always work. Gentle Giant Chief Assistant Deputy Commissioning Head of Opinion Expression and Communication (Local Affairs) Belmont Branch.

It's a shame that people only remember what the LibDems failed to achieve with the tuition fees but forget that they held their ground over the massive increase in personal allowances, taking countless earners and incapacity benefit claimants out of the tax bands. They had to relent on the former to get the latter. Whilst on long term incapacity benefit I had to pay £600+ per year in tax, because of a small private health income policy I had taken out many years ago. Thanks to the LibDems, that tax bill eventually became zero. Those complaining about the tuition fee compromise should thank them for the fact they they will pay many thousands of pounds less tax when they start work, which more than covers the cost of tuition fees. I am no LibDem fan, as I cannot support the inexorable progress towards a federal United States of Europe. The local candidate did not inspire confidence either. She did not strike me as MP material. After the fiasco of Sarah Carr's (?) television appearance from the Courtyard in the last election, I would have expected a much stronger candidate to be fielded in Hereford. If only Jesse weren't a Tory. Oh well, perhaps counselling might help.

I examined the picture as closely as I could and found a lot of what I believe the police refer to as IC1 males and females. I didn't find any people whose origins might have been. . . African Afro-Caribbean Arabic Jewish Japanese Chinese South East Asian Indian Bangladeshi South American Mediterranian Middle Eastern . . . . . . all of which are part of our national "Rainbow of Ethnicity" Whichever meeting you attended, it sure as heck wasn't the one in the picture. Jesse Norman is a tremendous constituency MP with, for me, just one insurmountable personality defect: he's a Conservative. Yes, I have told him that to his face, too. He laughed and told me I was not the first to say so.

Message for Bobby 47: I was at the recent hustings at Play when a man came up to me, shook me vigorously by the hand and said: "I've been wanting to meet you, Bobby 47". He looked crestfallen when I told him I was not you. I have no idea who you are, Bobby 47, but you've got a fan club out there!