Marine Le Pen clearly says some very unpleasant things, but criminal prosecution for speech that isn't encouraging anyone to do anything violent is outrageous. Where does this end? Would comparing Muslims praying in the street to the Taliban also result in racism charges? What about saying a particular black guy looks like Robert Mugabe?
This sort of stuff just shows what a crock of shit the European project is. It's whole justification is supposed to be to stand up for democratic values, yet they're quite happy to trample all over free speech, one of democracy's most fundamental values. It's such a screwed up thing that Britain's former colonies in America still hold up the great Whig principles developed here, while the UK is sacrificing her constitution to an institution that doesn't give a damn about them. John Locke must be turning over in his grave.
It sounds like a dumb (potential) prosecution judging by the BBC write-up, but what's it got to do with the European project, whatever that is? All the EU Parliament is doing is lifting parliamentary immunity from prosecution. A lot of countries don't even _have_ parliamentary immunity from prosecution. (Rightly IMHO, unless they have very politicized judiciaries.)
Socrates would take the opposite view if it were a Muslim MEP being granted legally immunity from French Law, you can be 100% certain of that
How does that square with the fact that I've criticised a prosecution against a Muslim saying hateful things about British troops on Twitter?
I know your entire world view is shaped by hatred of people from certain backgrounds, so you project that on to others, but mine is shaped by liberal, democratic principles. Your inability to understand this clearly shows how alien the concept of principles is to you.
Your position seems to be that EU MPs should be legally immune, I thought you were opposed the the EU project, why are you arguing the MEPs should not be subject to French law?
Marine Le Pen clearly says some very unpleasant things, but criminal prosecution for speech that isn't encouraging anyone to do anything violent is outrageous. Where does this end? Would comparing Muslims praying in the street to the Taliban also result in racism charges? What about saying a particular black guy looks like Robert Mugabe?
This sort of stuff just shows what a crock of shit the European project is. It's whole justification is supposed to be to stand up for democratic values, yet they're quite happy to trample all over free speech, one of democracy's most fundamental values. It's such a screwed up thing that Britain's former colonies in America still hold up the great Whig principles developed here, while the UK is sacrificing her constitution to an institution that doesn't give a damn about them. John Locke must be turning over in his grave.
What have the charges to do with the EU?
Your position seems to be that EU MPs should be legally immune, I thought you were opposed the the EU project, why are you arguing the MEPs should not be subject to French law?
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in European courts set up to protect human rights that will intervene to make sure we have to give marriage visas to 18 year olds just sit on their hands when free speech is trampled upon. I'm sure it's entirely unrelated to the fact that Marine is anti-EU.
And we all know that a Muslim MEP claiming legal immunity for say holocaust denial would garner exactly the opposite response from you. You're so transparent its very funny
I'll repeat it again, for those too thick too understand the first time: I have stood up for Muslims to say hateful things before, and I would do whether or not they were an MEP. It's not a matter of immunity, it's whether these anti-free speech laws should ever have been allowed in the first place. Muslims, like anyone else, should be free to advocate holocaust denial, stoning for adultery, or marriage to nine year olds. They're repugnant views, but they have the right to express them.
Marine Le Pen clearly says some very unpleasant things, but criminal prosecution for speech that isn't encouraging anyone to do anything violent is outrageous. Where does this end? Would comparing Muslims praying in the street to the Taliban also result in racism charges? What about saying a particular black guy looks like Robert Mugabe?
This sort of stuff just shows what a crock of shit the European project is. It's whole justification is supposed to be to stand up for democratic values, yet they're quite happy to trample all over free speech, one of democracy's most fundamental values. It's such a screwed up thing that Britain's former colonies in America still hold up the great Whig principles developed here, while the UK is sacrificing her constitution to an institution that doesn't give a damn about them. John Locke must be turning over in his grave.
What have the charges to do with the EU?
Your position seems to be that EU MPs should be legally immune, I thought you were opposed the the EU project, why are you arguing the MEPs should not be subject to French law?
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in European courts set up to protect human rights that will intervene to make sure we have to give marriage visas to 18 year olds just sit on their hands when free speech is trampled upon. I'm sure it's entirely unrelated to the fact that Marine is anti-EU.
This case is nothing to do with European courts, it's a French prosecution. Maybe she'd have a case in the ECHR if the French go ahead and prosecute, but since there hasn't been a prosecution and she hasn't taken it to them, there's not much they can do except sit on their hands. What do you expect them to do, rule on a case that nobody has actually brought on a prosecution that hasn't happened yet?
Marine Le Pen clearly says some very unpleasant things, but criminal prosecution for speech that isn't encouraging anyone to do anything violent is outrageous. Where does this end? Would comparing Muslims praying in the street to the Taliban also result in racism charges? What about saying a particular black guy looks like Robert Mugabe?
This sort of stuff just shows what a crock of shit the European project is. It's whole justification is supposed to be to stand up for democratic values, yet they're quite happy to trample all over free speech, one of democracy's most fundamental values. It's such a screwed up thing that Britain's former colonies in America still hold up the great Whig principles developed here, while the UK is sacrificing her constitution to an institution that doesn't give a damn about them. John Locke must be turning over in his grave.
It sounds like a dumb (potential) prosecution judging by the BBC write-up, but what's it got to do with the European project, whatever that is? All the EU Parliament is doing is lifting parliamentary immunity from prosecution. A lot of countries don't even _have_ parliamentary immunity from prosecution. (Rightly IMHO, unless they have very politicized judiciaries.)
Socrates would take the opposite view if it were a Muslim MEP being granted legally immunity from French Law, you can be 100% certain of that
How does that square with the fact that I've criticised a prosecution against a Muslim saying hateful things about British troops on Twitter?
I know your entire world view is shaped by hatred of people from certain backgrounds, so you project that on to others, but mine is shaped by liberal, democratic principles. Your inability to understand this clearly shows how alien the concept of principles is to you.
So you think Muslim MEPs should be granted legal immunity for breaking national laws on incitement do you? Because they are part of the European Project?
I thought you may have learned from the intellectual battering Richard Tyndall gave you last Saturday, obviously not
No and no. For the final time, it's not about whether someone's an MEP or not, it's whether anti-free speech laws should have been allowed to begin with. As you don't seem to be bright enough to understand this, I'm going to give up discussing now.
And it's amusing that you think someone misunderstanding a poll before repeating the word "bigot" over and over again counts as an intellectual battering. I was entirely correct: the average of the poll respondents in that Pew survey, weighted for national population, showed that a slim majority of Muslims supported stoning people for adultery.
Marine Le Pen clearly says some very unpleasant things, but criminal prosecution for speech that isn't encouraging anyone to do anything violent is outrageous. Where does this end? Would comparing Muslims praying in the street to the Taliban also result in racism charges? What about saying a particular black guy looks like Robert Mugabe?
This sort of stuff just shows what a crock of shit the European project is. It's whole justification is supposed to be to stand up for democratic values, yet they're quite happy to trample all over free speech, one of democracy's most fundamental values. It's such a screwed up thing that Britain's former colonies in America still hold up the great Whig principles developed here, while the UK is sacrificing her constitution to an institution that doesn't give a damn about them. John Locke must be turning over in his grave.
What have the charges to do with the EU?
Your position seems to be that EU MPs should be legally immune, I thought you were opposed the the EU project, why are you arguing the MEPs should not be subject to French law?
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in European courts set up to protect human rights that will intervene to make sure we have to give marriage visas to 18 year olds just sit on their hands when free speech is trampled upon. I'm sure it's entirely unrelated to the fact that Marine is anti-EU.
This case is nothing to do with European courts, it's a French prosecution. Maybe she'd have a case in the ECHR if the French go ahead and prosecute, but since there hasn't been a prosecution and she hasn't taken it to them, there's not much they can do except sit on their hands. What do you expect them to do, rule on a case that nobody has actually brought on a prosecution that hasn't happened yet?
I struggle to believe that no one in France has ever brought a case against these anti-speech laws. I also note the European Commission has never launched infringement procedures against any government for anti-speech laws. That's because they sit safe in the knowledge that such laws are only used against views they dislike.
Marine Le Pen clearly says some very unpleasant things, but criminal prosecution for speech that isn't encouraging anyone to do anything violent is outrageous. Where does this end? Would comparing Muslims praying in the street to the Taliban also result in racism charges? What about saying a particular black guy looks like Robert Mugabe?
This sort of stuff just shows what a crock of shit the European project is. It's whole justification is supposed to be to stand up for democratic values, yet they're quite happy to trample all over free speech, one of democracy's most fundamental values. It's such a screwed up thing that Britain's former colonies in America still hold up the great Whig principles developed here, while the UK is sacrificing her constitution to an institution that doesn't give a damn about them. John Locke must be turning over in his grave.
What have the charges to do with the EU?
Your position seems to be that EU MPs should be legally immune, I thought you were opposed the the EU project, why are you arguing the MEPs should not be subject to French law?
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in European courts set up to protect human rights that will intervene to make sure we have to give marriage visas to 18 year olds just sit on their hands when free speech is trampled upon. I'm sure it's entirely unrelated to the fact that Marine is anti-EU.
This case is nothing to do with European courts, it's a French prosecution. Maybe she'd have a case in the ECHR if the French go ahead and prosecute, but since there hasn't been a prosecution and she hasn't taken it to them, there's not much they can do except sit on their hands. What do you expect them to do, rule on a case that nobody has actually brought on a prosecution that hasn't happened yet?
I have an intriguing little tale about Marine LePen.
A good friend was at a social function in the south of France when she was suddenly and unexpectedly introduced to the infamous daughter of the infamous parent. In astonishment my friend exclaimed 'Mais je suis Juif' [But I'm Jewish.] MLP respond instantly 'Tant pis.' [Too bad.]
I wouldn't want her prosecuted for a snide remark, but I think I'd have been tempted to pour my drink over her head.
Marine Le Pen clearly says some very unpleasant things, but criminal prosecution for speech that isn't encouraging anyone to do anything violent is outrageous. Where does this end? Would comparing Muslims praying in the street to the Taliban also result in racism charges? What about saying a particular black guy looks like Robert Mugabe?
This sort of stuff just shows what a crock of shit the European project is. It's whole justification is supposed to be to stand up for democratic values, yet they're quite happy to trample all over free speech, one of democracy's most fundamental values. It's such a screwed up thing that Britain's former colonies in America still hold up the great Whig principles developed here, while the UK is sacrificing her constitution to an institution that doesn't give a damn about them. John Locke must be turning over in his grave.
What have the charges to do with the EU?
Your position seems to be that EU MPs should be legally immune, I thought you were opposed the the EU project, why are you arguing the MEPs should not be subject to French law?
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in European courts set up to protect human rights that will intervene to make sure we have to give marriage visas to 18 year olds just sit on their hands when free speech is trampled upon. I'm sure it's entirely unrelated to the fact that Marine is anti-EU.
And we all know that a Muslim MEP claiming legal immunity for say holocaust denial would garner exactly the opposite response from you. You're so transparent its very funny
I'll repeat it again, for those too thick too understand the first time: I have stood up for Muslims to say hateful things before, and I would do whether or not they were an MEP. It's not a matter of immunity, it's whether these anti-free speech laws should ever have been allowed in the first place. Muslims, like anyone else, should be free to advocate holocaust denial, stoning for adultery, or marriage to nine year olds. They're repugnant views, but they have the right to express them.
I dont think it's your place to decide what laws the French make is it? If they have incitement laws why should members of the European Project be immune. And it's sod all to do with European courts either while your case is falling apart.
Yes, I was arguing that I, Socrates, should decide what laws the French make. Gordon Bennett, it's like arguing with a blancmange.
EDIT: Sorry, frustration got the better of me. I'll take that back. I didn't mean to be so insulting to the intellects of blancmanges.
Thanks, foxinsoxuk. It's "interesting" and indeed extremely concerning that as a consquence of the changes there is a shortage of British trained doctors, although I'm not aware of any difficulty in recruitment at undergraduate level.
There also appears to be a shortage of British qualified nurses, held as I understand it, to be a consequence of the Project 2000. I'm not sure of the situation in dentistry, but since it's similar to medicine I would imagine the situation is similar.
Conversley, in pharmacy, although the course was lengthened to five years from four about 15 years ago, there has been a considerable increase in the number of undergraduate places available. However, there hasn't been a similar increase in the number of practical training places, yet multiple firms are advertising in Europe, with the result being a depression of wages. Simultaneously pharmacists are being encouraged to become prescribers, with the object of taking some of the load off doctors, in particular GP's
Marine Le Pen clearly says some very unpleasant things, but criminal prosecution for speech that isn't encouraging anyone to do anything violent is outrageous. Where does this end? Would comparing Muslims praying in the street to the Taliban also result in racism charges? What about saying a particular black guy looks like Robert Mugabe?
This sort of stuff just shows what a crock of shit the European project is. It's whole justification is supposed to be to stand up for democratic values, yet they're quite happy to trample all over free speech, one of democracy's most fundamental values. It's such a screwed up thing that Britain's former colonies in America still hold up the great Whig principles developed here, while the UK is sacrificing her constitution to an institution that doesn't give a damn about them. John Locke must be turning over in his grave.
It sounds like a dumb (potential) prosecution judging by the BBC write-up, but what's it got to do with the European project, whatever that is? All the EU Parliament is doing is lifting parliamentary immunity from prosecution. A lot of countries don't even _have_ parliamentary immunity from prosecution. (Rightly IMHO, unless they have very politicized judiciaries.)
Socrates would take the opposite view if it were a Muslim MEP being granted legally immunity from French Law, you can be 100% certain of that
How does that square with the fact that I've criticised a prosecution against a Muslim saying hateful things about British troops on Twitter?
I know your entire world view is shaped by hatred of people from certain backgrounds, so you project that on to others, but mine is shaped by liberal, democratic principles. Your inability to understand this clearly shows how alien the concept of principles is to you.
So you think Muslim MEPs should be granted legal immunity for breaking national laws on incitement do you? Because they are part of the European Project?
I thought you may have learned from the intellectual battering Richard Tyndall gave you last Saturday, obviously not
No and no. For the final time, it's not about whether someone's an MEP or not, it's whether anti-free speech laws should have been allowed to begin with. As you don't seem to be bright enough to understand this, I'm going to give up discussing now.
And it's amusing that you think someone misunderstanding a poll before repeating the word "bigot" over and over again counts as an intellectual battering. I was entirely correct: the average of the poll respondents in that Pew survey, weighted for national population, showed that a slim majority of Muslims supported stoning people for adultery.
The whole thing is about whether someone is an MEPS and should have immunity.
You just saw "EU, Muslim and Le Pen" and jumped in above your head. Again
Ok, I get it. If someone has an argument outside the framing you already have it in, it doesn't count.
It's like when this happens:
Socrates: "Crime may have fallen, but it's still at extremely high levels historically." tim: "PB Tories too thick to realise crime has fallen dramatically" Socrates: "I appreciate crime has fallen, but it's still very high and the rate of decline is slowing." tim: "The fop David, 'as a father', Cameron and his chumocracy are stopping pb Tories from realising crime has fallen." Socrates: bangs head against wall
Marine Le Pen clearly says some very unpleasant things, but criminal prosecution for speech that isn't encouraging anyone to do anything violent is outrageous. Where does this end? Would comparing Muslims praying in the street to the Taliban also result in racism charges? What about saying a particular black guy looks like Robert Mugabe?
This sort of stuff just shows what a crock of shit the European project is. It's whole justification is supposed to be to stand up for democratic values, yet they're quite happy to trample all over free speech, one of democracy's most fundamental values. It's such a screwed up thing that Britain's former colonies in America still hold up the great Whig principles developed here, while the UK is sacrificing her constitution to an institution that doesn't give a damn about them. John Locke must be turning over in his grave.
It sounds like a dumb (potential) prosecution judging by the BBC write-up, but what's it got to do with the European project, whatever that is? All the EU Parliament is doing is lifting parliamentary immunity from prosecution. A lot of countries don't even _have_ parliamentary immunity from prosecution. (Rightly IMHO, unless they have very politicized judiciaries.)
Socrates would take the opposite view if it were a Muslim MEP being granted legally immunity from French Law, you can be 100% certain of that
How does that square with the fact that I've criticised a prosecution against a Muslim saying hateful things about British troops on Twitter?
I know your entire world view is shaped by hatred of people from certain backgrounds, so you project that on to others, but mine is shaped by liberal, democratic principles. Your inability to understand this clearly shows how alien the concept of principles is to you.
So you think Muslim MEPs should be granted legal immunity for breaking national laws on incitement do you? Because they are part of the European Project?
I thought you may have learned from the intellectual battering Richard Tyndall gave you last Saturday, obviously not
No and no. For the final time, it's not about whether someone's an MEP or not, it's whether anti-free speech laws should have been allowed to begin with. As you don't seem to be bright enough to understand this, I'm going to give up discussing now.
And it's amusing that you think someone misunderstanding a poll before repeating the word "bigot" over and over again counts as an intellectual battering. I was entirely correct: the average of the poll respondents in that Pew survey, weighted for national population, showed that a slim majority of Muslims supported stoning people for adultery.
The whole thing is about whether someone is an MEPS and should have immunity.
You just saw "EU, Muslim and Le Pen" and jumped in above your head. Again
Ok, I get it. If someone has an argument outside the framing you already have it in, it doesn't count.
It's like when this happens:
Socrates: "Crime may have fallen, but it's still at extremely high levels historically." tim: "PB Tories too thick to realise crime has fallen dramatically" Socrates: "I appreciate crime has fallen, but it's still very high and the rate of decline is slowing." tim: "The fop David, 'as a father', Cameron and his chumocracy are stopping pb Tories from realising crime has fallen." Socrates: bangs head against wall
Lots of British trained doctors and nurses move abroad to work, and people from abroad move here, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
Lots of British trained doctors are from overseas and return home, true, and we have recruited from "there", but certainly we are recruiting more overseas nurses.
Marine Le Pen clearly says some very unpleasant things, but criminal prosecution for speech that isn't encouraging anyone to do anything violent is outrageous. Where does this end? Would comparing Muslims praying in the street to the Taliban also result in racism charges? What about saying a particular black guy looks like Robert Mugabe?
This sort of stuff just shows what a crock of shit the European project is. It's whole justification is supposed to be to stand up for democratic values, yet they're quite happy to trample all over free speech, one of democracy's most fundamental values. It's such a screwed up thing that Britain's former colonies in America still hold up the great Whig principles developed here, while the UK is sacrificing her constitution to an institution that doesn't give a damn about them. John Locke must be turning over in his grave.
I don't agree with a lot that Marine Le Pen does or says, but trust Hollande and the EU to do things in secret. If that not like the Nazis, Fascists and Communists, what is? Next there will be Treason Trials, and people pulled out of their beds at night.
Marine Le Pen clearly says some very unpleasant things, but criminal prosecution for speech that isn't encouraging anyone to do anything violent is outrageous. Where does this end? Would comparing Muslims praying in the street to the Taliban also result in racism charges? What about saying a particular black guy looks like Robert Mugabe?
This sort of stuff just shows what a crock of shit the European project is. It's whole justification is supposed to be to stand up for democratic values, yet they're quite happy to trample all over free speech, one of democracy's most fundamental values. It's such a screwed up thing that Britain's former colonies in America still hold up the great Whig principles developed here, while the UK is sacrificing her constitution to an institution that doesn't give a damn about them. John Locke must be turning over in his grave.
Next there will be Treason Trials, and people pulled out of their beds at night.
As Matthew Parris observed yesterday "The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid."
I struggle to believe that no one in France has ever brought a case against these anti-speech laws.
Looking this up the ECHR has generally upheld the right of states to make laws against incitement to violence and racial hatred, which seems like a no-brainer if you read the convention they're working from. But they've also ruled in favour of people whose views they (presumably) dislike. They've overturned a Danish prosecution of a journalist for spreading racist remarks, and a French prosecution for holocaust denial.
I also note the European Commission has never launched infringement procedures against any government for anti-speech laws. That's because they sit safe in the knowledge that such laws are only used against views they dislike.
That wouldn't explain why they're being so crap about restrictions on freedom of the press by the authoritarian populist government in Bulgaria. I doubt it's because the Commission really like authoritarian populism. I don't know exactly why they're so active on VAT harmonization and not so interested in human rights issues, but I'd guess it's because: a) They work for the member states, who aren't that bothered who other member states prosecute, as long as it's not their nationals. b) The ECHR is able to deal with that stuff.
Marine Le Pen clearly says some very unpleasant things, but criminal prosecution for speech that isn't encouraging anyone to do anything violent is outrageous. Where does this end? Would comparing Muslims praying in the street to the Taliban also result in racism charges? What about saying a particular black guy looks like Robert Mugabe?
This sort of stuff just shows what a crock of shit the European project is. It's whole justification is supposed to be to stand up for democratic values, yet they're quite happy to trample all over free speech, one of democracy's most fundamental values. It's such a screwed up thing that Britain's former colonies in America still hold up the great Whig principles developed here, while the UK is sacrificing her constitution to an institution that doesn't give a damn about them. John Locke must be turning over in his grave.
Next there will be Treason Trials, and people pulled out of their beds at night.
As Matthew Parris observed yesterday "The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid."
Tell that to the people of Eastern Europe and the DDR who have lived through the horrors of a knock on the door at 4am. The original idea of the EU was to stop this kind of thing; not aid and abet it.
Good morning all. I mentioned the Turkey protests in Istanbul in my final post, last night. However the situation has now worsened. Trust a government to make things worse by violent crackdown. Many secular Turks are getting fed up with their muslimist government. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22739423
"Tell that to the people of Eastern Europe and the DDR who have lived through the horrors of a knock on the door at 4am. The original idea of the EU was to stop this kind of thing; not aid and abet it."
To quote Parris a bit further -
"The other bugbear is, of course, the EU. But it is the terms in which that irritating, smug and silly organisation is described, that startle me. ‘Tyranny’ is a favourite word among my Ukip (and right-wing Tory) assailants. Read the posts. These people really have been persuaded that they are living under a tyranny in the full sense of that word. They describe the EU as though its methods, its despotism and its oppression of them and their daily lives were barely distinguishable from those of the Soviet Union. They believe this."
Considering Le Pen père was convicted and fined for stating that the Nazi occupation was not “particularly inhumane”, it'd be amusing to see his wee girl done for likening the sight of Muslims praying in the streets to the Nazi occupation. Perhaps she's been misunderstood and is saying street-praying Muslims isn't particulary awful, or perhaps she's an incoherent, fascist loon who trots out rabble-rousing rhetoric to suit whatever her current prejudices happen to be.
"The reaction of the europhile establishment? They banned the party. That's right. They didn't try to beat them in elections, they just prohibited and abolished them. Forcing them to regroup."
They shouldn't have been banned (technically they weren't, incidentally), but the action was taken because they were racist, not because they were anti-EU.
SeanT, didn't the Vlaams Blok deliberately lose the case .... put up a weak defence, a defector is alleged to have said ..... to claim "victim" status?
"Tell that to the people of Eastern Europe and the DDR who have lived through the horrors of a knock on the door at 4am. The original idea of the EU was to stop this kind of thing; not aid and abet it."
To quote Parris a bit further -
"The other bugbear is, of course, the EU. But it is the terms in which that irritating, smug and silly organisation is described, that startle me. ‘Tyranny’ is a favourite word among my Ukip (and right-wing Tory) assailants. Read the posts. These people really have been persuaded that they are living under a tyranny in the full sense of that word. They describe the EU as though its methods, its despotism and its oppression of them and their daily lives were barely distinguishable from those of the Soviet Union. They believe this."
You do seem to be ably proving his point, Mike.
And you are typical of the blind leading the blind.
It looks like Erdogan has finally taken one step to far for the secular majority in Turkey. Dropping tear gas on demonstrators, by helicopters shows that soon he will not hesitate to call in the army and if that happens all hell will break loose.
Considering Le Pen père was convicted and fined for stating that the Nazi occupation was not “particularly inhumane”, it'd be amusing to see his wee girl done for likening the sight of Muslims praying in the streets to the Nazi occupation. Perhaps she's been misunderstood and is saying street-praying Muslims isn't particulary awful, or perhaps she's an incoherent, fascist loon who trots out rabble-rousing rhetoric to suit whatever her current prejudices happen to be.
Once upon a time in the SNP ;
In " a 1992 interview with Mr Le Pen. Margo MacDonald, then a television journalist, said when she tackled him about his attitude to people who had emigrated, legally and illegally, to France from all over Africa, "his logic was difficult to fault". "
Once upon a time in the SNP ; In " a 1992 interview with Mr Le Pen. Margo MacDonald, then a television journalist, said when she tackled him about his attitude to people who had emigrated, legally and illegally, to France from all over Africa, "his logic was difficult to fault". "
Tut, Monica, if you're going to be convincing in your 'SNP are fascists' sniping, get your history right. Margo left the SNP between 1988-1998, and of course has been an Independent MSP since 2003.
What's your opinion on the politics of the Le Pens?
Thanks, foxinsoxuk. It's "interesting" and indeed extremely concerning that as a consquence of the changes there is a shortage of British trained doctors, although I'm not aware of any difficulty in recruitment at undergraduate level.
There also appears to be a shortage of British qualified nurses, held as I understand it, to be a consequence of the Project 2000. I'm not sure of the situation in dentistry, but since it's similar to medicine I would imagine the situation is similar.
Conversley, in pharmacy, although the course was lengthened to five years from four about 15 years ago, there has been a considerable increase in the number of undergraduate places available. However, there hasn't been a similar increase in the number of practical training places, yet multiple firms are advertising in Europe, with the result being a depression of wages. Simultaneously pharmacists are being encouraged to become prescribers, with the object of taking some of the load off doctors, in particular GP's
What a mess.
The problem is at Postgraduate level. there are plenty of domestic UK undergraduates. Increasingly medicine is complex and subspecialised so Graduates need a minimum of five postgraduate years, and in some specialities nine years before practicing independently. The other part of the problem is the 2006 ban on medical migration from non EU countries.
The reforms to training have worked out poorly for all concerned, especially employers and trainees. As a result there are strings of locums in A/E departments.
To make an analogy: we needed to appoint a trained plumber for specialist work, part supervised. In 2006 the government halved the number of UK apprentice plumbers appointed, and the half that were appointed were really better suited to hairdressing. As such we could not find a British plumber so recruited our Romanian. Unemployed Brits look on jealously.
In medicine we are really just paralleling what has happened in other artisan trades. Our politicians are to blame, and I see why more people are flocking to any alternative, even the chimera that is UKIP.
All parties are Chimaeras. Yes they lied. they said there'd be about 15,000 Poles, then, all of a sudden there were 1.5million. In the meantime, we've had Brown's economic genius, and the expenses outrage, etc... You are seriously trying to imply that the WWC are somehow foolish for turning to UKIP after the treatment they've had from the supposed party of the workers?!
I was one of those wannabe WWC plumbers, I looked them in the eyes, I know what it meant to them. The emasculation of these people, who can't realistically aspire to university and all it brings in terms of wealth and access to housing that is not of the "Coronation Street" or "Shameless" type have been not only betrayed, but humiliated, by the party that was supposed to be for them... they are maligned as being too fussy to take a job, whilst the beloved immigrant is lauded for supplanting them in their own land. You wonder why the BNP "blip" happened in GE2010 - contempt. The contempt Labour showed to its own - the "bigots", reflected back. I refer you to the wisdom of John Zims:
Ed must be praying that if the debates go ahead Farage won't be participating.
'Such concerns are wrapped in a serious loss of trust. In 2012, trust among the "white working class" in government stood at 23%, equalling the worst figures under New Labour. But when working-class voters were asked who would make the best prime minister, only 22% said Ed Miliband, while 42% said they did not know. This means that for every one (white) working-class voter who supports Miliband's bid for the premiership, there are two who reject all three mainstream leaders. Some may link this to ignorance, but the figures have worsened since 2010, as Miliband has become more widely known.
There are some inside Labour who see the Ukip army assembling on the hills. The MP John Mann argues that Labour must "wake up and get real on immigration", while Blue Labour types hope to translate intellectual debate into genuine connections with workers. But recognising a problem is always easier than solving it. The resentments fuelling Ukip run deep, and have built up over two decades of marginalisation and neglect. Apologies are a start. But there will be no quick fix.'
I'll be blunt with you. The first party that manages to find a way of saying that they will effectively put indigenous British people first, a way that is considered acceptable by the left-wing media - the BBC, the Guardian, New Statesmen, and the comedians who act as their mouthpieces, will be the party that gets the WWC vote. At the moment, UKIP is the only party coming close to that. Withdrawal from the EU is directly connected to the economic issues that afflict the country - housing, jobs, free-trade (lower tax and less bureaucracy for small businesses - the main employers in the country).
Nobody's listening to the tedious rubbish about "celebrating diversity", what a contribution immigrants have made, and the big lie that the NHS would collapse without them. People want jobs, social mobility, hope.
(...and a bit of freedom with the state taking its boot of the neck of free speech wouldn't hurt either).
Comments
I know your entire world view is shaped by hatred of people from certain backgrounds, so you project that on to others, but mine is shaped by liberal, democratic principles. Your inability to understand this clearly shows how alien the concept of principles is to you.
Absolutely.
And it's amusing that you think someone misunderstanding a poll before repeating the word "bigot" over and over again counts as an intellectual battering. I was entirely correct: the average of the poll respondents in that Pew survey, weighted for national population, showed that a slim majority of Muslims supported stoning people for adultery.
I have an intriguing little tale about Marine LePen.
A good friend was at a social function in the south of France when she was suddenly and unexpectedly introduced to the infamous daughter of the infamous parent. In astonishment my friend exclaimed 'Mais je suis Juif' [But I'm Jewish.] MLP respond instantly 'Tant pis.' [Too bad.]
I wouldn't want her prosecuted for a snide remark, but I think I'd have been tempted to pour my drink over her head.
EDIT: Sorry, frustration got the better of me. I'll take that back. I didn't mean to be so insulting to the intellects of blancmanges.
There also appears to be a shortage of British qualified nurses, held as I understand it, to be a consequence of the Project 2000. I'm not sure of the situation in dentistry, but since it's similar to medicine I would imagine the situation is similar.
Conversley, in pharmacy, although the course was lengthened to five years from four about 15 years ago, there has been a considerable increase in the number of undergraduate places available. However, there hasn't been a similar increase in the number of practical training places, yet multiple firms are advertising in Europe, with the result being a depression of wages. Simultaneously pharmacists are being encouraged to become prescribers, with the object of taking some of the load off doctors, in particular GP's
What a mess.
It's like when this happens:
Socrates: "Crime may have fallen, but it's still at extremely high levels historically."
tim: "PB Tories too thick to realise crime has fallen dramatically"
Socrates: "I appreciate crime has fallen, but it's still very high and the rate of decline is slowing."
tim: "The fop David, 'as a father', Cameron and his chumocracy are stopping pb Tories from realising crime has fallen."
Socrates: bangs head against wall
Posting cat videos on a political betting forum?
a) They work for the member states, who aren't that bothered who other member states prosecute, as long as it's not their nationals.
b) The ECHR is able to deal with that stuff.
"Tell that to the people of Eastern Europe and the DDR who have lived through the horrors of a knock on the door at 4am. The original idea of the EU was to stop this kind of thing; not aid and abet it."
To quote Parris a bit further -
"The other bugbear is, of course, the EU. But it is the terms in which that irritating, smug and silly organisation is described, that startle me. ‘Tyranny’ is a favourite word among my Ukip (and right-wing Tory) assailants. Read the posts. These people really have been persuaded that they are living under a tyranny in the full sense of that word. They describe the EU as though its methods, its despotism and its oppression of them and their daily lives were barely distinguishable from those of the Soviet Union. They believe this."
You do seem to be ably proving his point, Mike.
They shouldn't have been banned (technically they weren't, incidentally), but the action was taken because they were racist, not because they were anti-EU.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22740282
New Labour's legacy courtesy of warmonger Blair.
In " a 1992 interview with Mr Le Pen. Margo MacDonald, then a television journalist, said when she tackled him about his attitude to people who had emigrated, legally and illegally, to France from all over Africa, "his logic was difficult to fault". "
What's your opinion on the politics of the Le Pens?
The reforms to training have worked out poorly for all concerned, especially employers and trainees. As a result there are strings of locums in A/E departments.
Yes they lied. they said there'd be about 15,000 Poles, then, all of a sudden there were 1.5million.
In the meantime, we've had Brown's economic genius, and the expenses outrage, etc...
You are seriously trying to imply that the WWC are somehow foolish for turning to UKIP after the treatment they've had from the supposed party of the workers?!
I was one of those wannabe WWC plumbers, I looked them in the eyes, I know what it meant to them. The emasculation of these people, who can't realistically aspire to university and all it brings in terms of wealth and access to housing that is not of the "Coronation Street" or "Shameless" type have been not only betrayed, but humiliated, by the party that was supposed to be for them... they are maligned as being too fussy to take a job, whilst the beloved immigrant is lauded for supplanting them in their own land. You wonder why the BNP "blip" happened in GE2010 - contempt. The contempt Labour showed to its own - the "bigots", reflected back.
I refer you to the wisdom of John Zims: I'll be blunt with you. The first party that manages to find a way of saying that they will effectively put indigenous British people first, a way that is considered acceptable by the left-wing media - the BBC, the Guardian, New Statesmen, and the comedians who act as their mouthpieces, will be the party that gets the WWC vote. At the moment, UKIP is the only party coming close to that. Withdrawal from the EU is directly connected to the economic issues that afflict the country - housing, jobs, free-trade (lower tax and less bureaucracy for small businesses - the main employers in the country).
Nobody's listening to the tedious rubbish about "celebrating diversity", what a contribution immigrants have made, and the big lie that the NHS would collapse without them. People want jobs, social mobility, hope.
(...and a bit of freedom with the state taking its boot of the neck of free speech wouldn't hurt either).