shipbuilder

http://www.propertynews.com/4gcss Offers around £750K Rateable value £1.45M

Perhaps you may have made a better case for yourself by referring to these sources in the first place, rather than attacking another poster and the BBC? On the other hand - The second link claims that dangers of low levels of radiation are understated. The third link claims that levels of radiation are much higher than normal. The fourth link claims that high levels of radiation were released and have caused health issues. The fifth link reports that soldiers are claiming health effects, although the author links to sources that claim low levels of radiation and quotes a scientist who says that health effects would take longer to develop. So not exactly a consistent picture. I would say that the BBC largely takes the New Scientist line. All you have shown here is that the media in general do not report stories in huge detail, tend to use 'official' data to report and that further research into any topic will reveal other points of view. Not really very surprising?

Apparently the BBC weren't taking about it. Then it's squirrelled away....yet I found all of these stories in less than a minute. The tone is the same as any other mainstream news report on the subject. A direct link to the Tuna study is there if you want to take issue with it with the authors. The plant chief apparently had cancer at the time of the accident - if you dispute the claim that cancer takes a number of years to develop, then I guess you'll have done your research and have research that backs up your view? Personally I have no idea and would be interested to find out what you have found. Edit to add - please post a link to your 'real news media' source (including the graphic in your post), then we can do a fair comparison with the BBC. Sound fair?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23251102 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22974316 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22793353 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22770095 Yawn.

I think the popular view is that, like with the banks, the government is entirely responsible for regulation and therefore entirely to blame - the job of a business is to make money.

The developing countries highlighted aren't benefitting as much from tree trade as they should, because of the issue of land and resource ownership. This is being misinterpreted on one side of the argument as a failure of free trade and ignored on the other side of the argument as a valid concern.

So much time wasted on this thread and others while the simple truths laid out in that link are ignored. Every debate about freedom, ideologies, equality or political parties without reference to land and resources (i.e. most on here) are simply a waste of time.

Private vs public sector is a myth most successfully perpetuated in the UK. There need be no difference in the structure or motivation (which should always be customer service) of a private or public company - the only difference is where the profits go. As has been pointed out, the problems are when opportunities for more rentierism are created - a private monopoly. This works for the benefit of no-one apart from the owner of the monopoly and their friends who enabled it.

Indeed, the root problem in all these type of debates isn't stuff getting cheaper or wages decreasing, it is rentierism pushing up the cost of living. If it weren't for monopolisation of land and resources, improvements in production, cheaper goods and corresponding redundancy of labour would all be seen as good. We could all work less and have more, if that's what we wanted. There are valid points being made about people needing jobs in order to consume etc, or people needing protection for what they have produced, but as always they are missing the point. The author quoted in the original post, as has been pointed out, is complaining because they are being impacted because barriers to entry to their profession have been lowered. Unfortunately that's just tough - it's happened to millions already and will happen to plenty more who think they're immune - to all of us eventually. But it isn't a problem as long as others aren't using the state to protect their own wealth and rentierism. Even so, the 'experts' who are claiming this is a new era of free product or a change in consumer mindset are simply wrong - people will always be willing to pay for a good product.

Check out staff performance is irrelevant, unless you've looked at the big picture e.g. Value stream mapping It doesn't sound as if they have, which surprises me.

How do you measure whether the law has 'worked'? If the rule of law is simply to prevent crimes being committed, then there needs to be general agreement on what crimes are. If there isn't agreement, you effectively have either a dictatorship, or laws are ignored.

I suppose we can say that the smallholder view of land ownership is fine when there is enough land to give to everyone and everyone holds a relatively small amount, but thousands of years down the line you end up with the situation the same as South America in your example, in other words impeding economic progress.

I'm not singling out anyone, it just happens to be that Ferguson's take on things is being discussed. I guess you could call the view that land is like any other property 'establishment'.

I wasn't really voicing a personal opinion there - I still think that there is a fundamental difference between any land ownership and any other ownership of property, however when asked if most people support this view, I think most people have a slightly different take on it, when it comes to their own land. Which is fair enough, as when it comes to what individuals can actually use, the distinction between land and other property is moot It's funny you bring up the example of South vs North America - Niall Ferguson seems to express that aspect of history in a slightly different way - that the idea of private land ownership by individuals was responsible for the success of the US - no distinction made regarding the amount of land owned. Perhaps I'm wrong about that and have misinterpreted Ferguson's opinion. Regarding your other example, I think to gain a clear picture, you might also have to find out how much Mexican immigrants consider themselves to be American and whether they consider environmental issues in Mexico to be any more important. In answer to your second point, given that the point of the state is to act as a proxy for the nation, then it's reasonable for people to expect the state to represent them in their interests and that when the state owns something, it is the same as collective ownership. However the state does not really work in this way - it works for itself and the interests of groups that hold power within it. Hence we have the situation where the state actually entrenches inequality with regard to land ownership. For want of a better word, hundreds of years of 'propaganda' have reinforced the image of the state and the reality (and therefore the land situation) as the same thing in people's minds and therefore as unchangeable and inevitable. When people see the state doing wrong, they tend to blame it on whatever political party is in power at the time.

I haven't actually said that land is not property, just that it cannot be treated or seen as property in the same way as, for example, a car. The existence of commons, the concept of land taxes that exist in many parts of the world, including red states in the US, widespread support of public ownership of natural resources such as water and forests, public rights of way and so on, would tend to lend support to my view. For sure it's not a simple issue, but I think most folks, while very much wedded to the idea that they exclusively own their own house, garden or farm, still have a problem the idea of an individual 'owning' thousands of acres of countryside. I think there is a clear difference in people's minds between having only possession of what you can personally use and owning an excess while denying access for the purpose of extracting rent. It's not an issue that is often publicly debated or questioned, but then neither is the role of the state - the status quo of both have been embedded in the minds of the public as 'the way things are'. Do you believe there is widespread support for rolling back the size of the state?