@Seant that's a pretty easy choice to make. A Farage-led government might well be shambolic, but it wouldn't threaten basic liberties.
I'll ask you the question that SeanT ducked. At what point do you oppose a far right government implementing measures aimed at preventing a Muslim majority? At what point do you give up?
As an aside, it seems to have been less a genuine hypothetical and more SeanT putting together a bogus question to give him an opportunity to propound his hobbyhorse agenda of anti-Muslim measures. Which no doubt is why he doesn't want to answer when he'd give up. He has no serious interest in his own question and the ethical questions it raises. He just wants to be unpleasant to Muslims.
And you're wrong about a Farage-led government. We've already seen senior kippers demand judges be sacked for issuing judgments that they disagree with. Nothing would be allowed to get in the way of their reactionary agenda.
If the same was happening in reverse, as I tried to describe in my previous post, ie the major cities of an Islamic country becoming totally unIslamic through mass immigration (of Trump supporters in my example), there being a constant terrorist threat from those immigrants to the point where public transport is manned by armed policemen, no doubt the Muslims in those cities would be unhappy with the way things had gone, and I would be on the side of those muslims that felt their politicians had hung them out to dry.
The time to do anything about it was 40-50 odd years ago. It is impossible now without violence breaking out, so the solution is Islamic/Non Islamic marriage/kids
To a point some in the UA Emirates are feeling that way. The difference between Sharja emirate and Dubai is significantly notable given the very short distance between them. Some in Dubai consider it too westernised. Westerners have not resorted to anything more extreme though. Abu Dhabi is a little more relaxed than Sharja but again is very strict in various codes. Don't even think of westernising Qatar, Iraq and Iran as well as the most obvious already mentioned on the thread. Bahrain is an odd one neither one or the other as far as I saw
The odd thing is many of the locals when elsewhere in the world don't continue their customs to anywhere near the same degree. A good example is the clothing you observe being worn boarding an aircraft in a Damman stop over is pretty much changed entirely and very westernised by the time you leave the aircraft in London or Amsterdam.
Mr. Isam, such a law would provoke mass civil unrest.
Mr. Submarine, I do fear that such a question or choice (whether real or not) will be the prism through which many will view future elections. AfD in Germany and Wilders in the Netherlands seem prime examples.
As terrorism continually becomes more commonplace, people will become more receptive to harsher measures. I suspect/fear we'll see a rightwing backlash. I don't mean UKIP, but something emerging further to the right. Of course, that depends how the security and migration situations develop.
In Germany, the system will keep the AfD out, but it's possible that Pegida could revive (not heard much of it for a while). Just as politics now seems split on Leave/Remain (or Soft/Hard/Fruity Brexit), it may in the future be seen on identity grounds, diversity/nationalism, multi-culturalism/patriotism. Improving integration and a stronger unified national sense of self is vitally important.
That doesn't mean stripping away religions or trying to imply a choice between a religion and a country, but it does mean universal application of national law and actually defending concepts like free speech from the encroaching censors of the government, the politically correct, the religious, and the terminally over-sensitive.
My GP surgery had an online booking system until a few months ago. A few people complained because they did not (would not ?) have internet so they removed this wonderful system that had worked perfectly well and went back to phones. Many thousands of people who were quite happy previously now have to phone commencing 8.30 am in the morning and it is unlikely you will ever get an answer let alone near a doc within 48 hours. I don't blame the government for this I blame the surgery. They had a good system and then just went back to the stone age.
on a recent hospital visit accompanying my father in law we were told by that they have on average 3 "no shows" a day. Yes ...A DAY! Time to charge these people for wasting the valuable time and taking appointments others would willingly use. However that turns them into debt collectors though or refusing treatment.,it is education that's needed at an early stage not to waste appointments but how? Again on " no shows" I can't blame the government. The service was available and booked they just didn't turn up.
No amount of petitions will change these simple facts.
Not sure why they couldn't just operate the two systems side by side - it's what the vast majority of visitor attractions, restaurants, theatres etc. do.
Yes and they did as far as I could tell. The complainants apparently said they couldn't get appointments that had already been taken online? That could be the case of course.
Either way that can happen with theatres, restaurants. I just don't see theatres and restaurants going back to phones because a few people complain all the seats have already gone.
A bizarre complaint considering they face the same situation with appointments being taken already by phone - there's no difference.
I would suggest there might have been other issues with personnel and internal systems.
We agree as well. In fact we think it's made it worse for them as well as us. No idea of the logic behind it
'That doesn't mean stripping away religions or trying to imply a choice between a religion and a country, but it does mean universal application of national law and actually defending concepts like free speech from the encroaching censors of the government, the politically correct, the religious, and the terminally over-sensitive.'
Bravo. Confirming your status, in my eyes, as Most Sensible Poster of the Year!
Mr. Isam, such a law would provoke mass civil unrest.
"Gresham’s law of extremism, that the more extreme drives out the less extreme, is one of the basic rules of political mechanics which operate in this field: it is a corollary of the general principle that no political power exists without being used.
Both the general law and its Gresham’s corollary point, in contemporary circumstances, towards the resort to physical violence, in the form of firearms or high explosive, as being so probable as to be predicted with virtual certainty. The experience of the last decade and more, all round the world, shows that acts of violence, however apparently irrational or inappropriate their targets, precipitate a frenzied search on the part of the society attacked to discover and remedy more and more grievances, real or imaginary, among those from the violence is supposed to emanate or on whose behalf it is supposed to be exercised. Those commanding a position of political leverage would then be superhuman if they could refrain from pointing to the acts of terrorism and, while condemning them, declaring that further and faster concessions and grants of privilege are the only means to avoid such acts being repeated on a rising scale. We know that those who thus argue will always find a ready hearing. This is what produces the gearing effect of terrorism in the contemporary world, yielding huge results from acts of violence perpetrated by minimal numbers. It is not, I repeat again and again, that the mass of a particular population are violently or criminally disposed. Far from it; that population soon becomes itself the prisoner of the violence and machinations of an infinitely small minority among it. Just a few thugs, a few shots, a few bombs at the right place and time—and that is enough for disproportionate consequences to follow." - Enoch 1976
The whole tone of the article, however, is completely at odds with its two opening sentences. Reading between the lines, I take it that he's had a bruising family Christmas on the topic.
@Morris_Dancer I fear you are quite correct. But the counter point to @SeanT's nonsense remains. Would you rather live in a Britain where a majority of the population are Peshmerga ? Or SS ? A majority are Sadiq Khan ? Or Himmler ?
You must choose from my ludicrous false choices or else you are a ( insert as appropriate ) !!
@AlistairMeeks, one is being asked to choose between bad outcomes. I would choose the least bad. In the same way, I'd choose Mubarrak, Saddam Hussein, and Assad over fundamentalists.
Mr. Isam, consider the political and electoral impact. A measure only works if it can actually be implemented and enforced. Such a law wouldn't get through the Commons and would, probably terminally (for the next cycle of elections), damage the party/leader that proposed it.
We all know that the NHS as constituted at present is a wreck. Let's get rid of it and start again with a petter plan where people put in if they want to take out.
My parents did this before the ww2; they paid in to a private medical aid system directly and monthly and never wanted for hospital aid and could see their local panel doctor when they wanted, on the day they wanted.
BTW my parents were typical working class - trying to become middle class.
Mr. Submarine, Sadiq Khan is obviously the worst option. Bikinis would be banned everywhere.
On a more serious note, Islam tends to theocracy in countries where it's the majority. The SS was a secret police serving a single party in one country, the Peshmerga are Kurdish militia. They're servants, not masters, of the political entities within which they worked.
I'd be against Christian fundamentalism too. Although given the Church of England wants to ban the word 'family' from sermons as it's too complicated, I am not currently concerned about the outbreak and imposition of fundamentalist Christianity.
But if I had to choose between tyrannies, I'd prefer the average brutal and corrupt dictator to the religious fanatic or the one who thinks he can create a political paradise through genocide.
Sorry Keiran but no signature from me. It's populist nonsense. Not everyone needs to see a GP within 48 hrs. So creating a " right " warps medical priorities, is dangerous and means services will be designed round a single target rather than actual patient outcomes. I really can't think of a worse way to tackle the supply/demand problem in Primary Care than building in a single bizzare target that will warp all. That's before it destroys all the attempts to get people to see Nurses/Pharmacists where appropriate. It's the kind of nonsense UKIP would propose. Actually it's worse than that. It's the kind of public service reform New Labour would propose.
A rare point of agreement. 48h targets and other buzzwords hinder good healthcare. A refundable £20 deposit to deter time wasters would be enough. It irks me that I haven't been to see my GP for around 7 years, when I buggered up my knee and needed an x-ray referral I couldn't get an appointment and his advice was to turn up to A&E or wait the 12 days. We just need a system where the 5% that @matt spoke about are deterred from taking up so many resources for nothing.
@Morris_Dancer Nobody escapes the Inquisition that easierly. You must pick between my false choices. A majority Britain of Sir Mo Farahs or the KKK ! Choose now !
@Seant that's a pretty easy choice to make. A Farage-led government might well be shambolic, but it wouldn't threaten basic liberties.
I'll ask you the question that SeanT ducked. At what point do you oppose a far right government implementing measures aimed at preventing a Muslim majority? At what point do you give up?
As an aside, it seems to have been less a genuine hypothetical and more SeanT putting together a bogus question to give him an opportunity to propound his hobbyhorse agenda of anti-Muslim measures. Which no doubt is why he doesn't want to answer when he'd give up. He has no serious interest in his own question and the ethical questions it raises. He just wants to be unpleasant to Muslims.
And you're wrong about a Farage-led government. We've already seen senior kippers demand judges be sacked for issuing judgments that they disagree with. Nothing would be allowed to get in the way of their reactionary agenda.
One doesn't stop until the Muslim majority nation is prevented, even if it requires mass deportation of non-secular types. I've seen first hand what Muslim/non-Muslim violence looks like an Ahmedabad, any and all measures need to be taken to prevent that from happening here. Though I think the hypothetical is pretty far off, and I think the Tories will look at the measures proposed well before then.
@Morris_Dancer I fear you are quite correct. But the counter point to @SeanT's nonsense remains. Would you rather live in a Britain where a majority of the population are Peshmerga ? Or SS ? A majority are Sadiq Khan ? Or Himmler ?
You must choose from my ludicrous false choices or else you are a ( insert as appropriate ) !!
I wouldn't wish to live under either.
This is why our way of life here is so valuable and why our customs and our tolerance should be rigorously protected and handed over to the next generation to carry on.
There has been a lot of hyperbolic language on this site this year specifically from one or two posters. Having travelled, lived and worked worldwide for over 40 years though I still find the UK and all its people amongst, if not thee most tolerant of others, their individual lifestyle choices and their various beliefs.
I am always happy to call this home and proud to describe myself as British.
With that I will wish those that write the thread headers, maintain and run the site and not least those that comment on a daily basis , a very happy new year and successful and peaceful 2017.
They only like market forces when they are not on the receiving end!
Also when it doesn't come out of my taxes. I'm perfectly happy for market principles to apply, so let's go the whole hog full private competition within the NHS. The only provision will be that it is absolutely free at the point of use.
@Seant that's a pretty easy choice to make. A Farage-led government might well be shambolic, but it wouldn't threaten basic liberties.
I'll ask you the question that SeanT ducked. At what point do you oppose a far right government implementing measures aimed at preventing a Muslim majority? At what point do you give up?
As an aside, it seems to have been less a genuine hypothetical and more SeanT putting together a bogus question to give him an opportunity to propound his hobbyhorse agenda of anti-Muslim measures. Which no doubt is why he doesn't want to answer when he'd give up. He has no serious interest in his own question and the ethical questions it raises. He just wants to be unpleasant to Muslims.
And you're wrong about a Farage-led government. We've already seen senior kippers demand judges be sacked for issuing judgments that they disagree with. Nothing would be allowed to get in the way of their reactionary agenda.
One doesn't stop until the Muslim majority nation is prevented, even if it requires mass deportation of non-secular types. I've seen first hand what Muslim/non-Muslim violence looks like an Ahmedabad, any and all measures need to be taken to prevent that from happening here. Though I think the hypothetical is pretty far off, and I think the Tories will look at the measures proposed well before then.
Where are you going to deport them to?! These people are British and have never lived outside Britain. They have been allowed to live in a society that might as well be somewhere in the middle East or Asia, but that's not their fault.
"At what point do you oppose a far right government implementing measures aimed at preventing a Muslim majority?"
An odd question, considering that a Muslim majority would ensure a far right government. Pakistan doesn't strike me as a land rich in progressive liberals. Which Muslim majority country would you hold up as being a beacon for tolerance?
@Seant that's a pretty easy choice to make. A Farage-led government might well be shambolic, but it wouldn't threaten basic liberties.
I'll ask you the question that SeanT ducked. At what point do you oppose a far right government implementing measures aimed at preventing a Muslim majority? At what point do you give up?
As an aside, it seems to have been less a genuine hypothetical and more SeanT putting together a bogus question to give him an opportunity to propound his hobbyhorse agenda of anti-Muslim measures. Which no doubt is why he doesn't want to answer when he'd give up. He has no serious interest in his own question and the ethical questions it raises. He just wants to be unpleasant to Muslims.
And you're wrong about a Farage-led government. We've already seen senior kippers demand judges be sacked for issuing judgments that they disagree with. Nothing would be allowed to get in the way of their reactionary agenda.
One doesn't stop until the Muslim majority nation is prevented, even if it requires mass deportation of non-secular types. I've seen first hand what Muslim/non-Muslim violence looks like an Ahmedabad, any and all measures need to be taken to prevent that from happening here. Though I think the hypothetical is pretty far off, and I think the Tories will look at the measures proposed well before then.
Where are you going to deport them to?! These people are British and have never lived outside Britain. They have been allowed to live in a society that might as well be somewhere in the middle East or Asia, but that's not their fault.
Mosy would leave of their own volition or accept the new reality of secular Islam so I don't think it would get to that. Otherwise it would require money and a deal with Muslim nations to take them in, so more money.
They only like market forces when they are not on the receiving end!
Also when it doesn't come out of my taxes. I'm perfectly happy for market principles to apply, so let's go the whole hog full private competition within the NHS. The only provision will be that it is absolutely free at the point of use.
Mr. Moses, but as Popper wrote, tolerance can be an open door for the intolerant to flourish, because the tolerant majority are afraid or refuse to condemn, criticise and prevent the intolerance.
It's not always easy. Holy books frequently have passages that are openly homophobic. Ban the book? That's anti-religion and freedom of religion. Allow it? Easier, but does create a double standard of homophobia due to religious privilege.
We've got a de facto blasphemy law in this country now. When an atheist wrote the Jesus and Mo cartoon, Newsnight spent 95% of the programme criticising him. Paxman interrogated the cartoonist, demanding to know why he wasn't following Sharia on this.
Mr. Submarine, fine. I opt for a majority of Jet, from Gladiators.
They only like market forces when they are not on the receiving end!
Also when it doesn't come out of my taxes. I'm perfectly happy for market principles to apply, so let's go the whole hog full private competition within the NHS. The only provision will be that it is absolutely free at the point of use.
I thought that you were off to Switzerland so UK taxes not relavent
We all know that the NHS as constituted at present is a wreck. Let's get rid of it and start again with a petter plan where people put in if they want to take out
Err, no, I didn't appreciate the present NHS was a wreck but I have seen what happens elsewhere. Here is Malaysia we had a visitor last week who broke her knee cap and ended up in hospital. They wouldn't release her from there until the insurance company confirmed they would pay the £3,000. A few days later we had to take an aged Aunt into hospital because of leg pains. All the medicine and pain killers had to be paid for before they were issued to her, albeit at a lower cost rate as she was a 'pensioner'. Then of course there is no State pension in Malaysia so once you run out of money you have to rely on your family or beg. Once you see that in action you ought never to want to lose what we have in the UK.
They only like market forces when they are not on the receiving end!
Also when it doesn't come out of my taxes. I'm perfectly happy for market principles to apply, so let's go the whole hog full private competition within the NHS. The only provision will be that it is absolutely free at the point of use.
They only like market forces when they are not on the receiving end!
Also when it doesn't come out of my taxes. I'm perfectly happy for market principles to apply, so let's go the whole hog full private competition within the NHS. The only provision will be that it is absolutely free at the point of use.
They only like market forces when they are not on the receiving end!
Also when it doesn't come out of my taxes. I'm perfectly happy for market principles to apply, so let's go the whole hog full private competition within the NHS. The only provision will be that it is absolutely free at the point of use.
@Moses I don't think either a Muslim majority or a far right government is likely here. Voters are however pushing back against mass migration and supranationalism, which is no bad thing.
Enter man with pot and large spoon.................... How about paying GPs less so more of them work at least a 5 day week ?
Most GP practices are private partnership businesses. The partners don't earn a salary but share profits. The NHS pays the practice an amount per registered patient plus additions for various extras they perform.
If the past few decades have taught us anything. Whether it's banks, IT, defence or transport when private enterprise gets on the tit of the taxpayer they find it impossible to let go and deliver increasingly less in return.
@Moses I don't think either a Muslim majority or a far right government is likely here. Voters are however pushing back against mass migration and supranationalism, which is no bad thing.
Nationwide there wont be, but London, will be soon. When that happens there will be more and more pressure on the capital to have Islamic law woven in, and as most of London's politicians will be muslims as well by then, it will no doubt happen. Maybe Saudi Arabia will be overtly paying for it.
@Moses I don't think either a Muslim majority or a far right government is likely here. Voters are however pushing back against mass migration and supranationalism, which is no bad thing.
Nationwide there wont be, but London, will be soon. When that happens there will be more and more pressure on the capital to have Islamic law woven in, and as most of London's politicians will be muslims as well by then, it will no doubt happen. Maybe Saudi Arabia will be overtly paying for it.
@Jonathan Exactly. I'm not an NHS cultist but the one thing that can be said for it is by international standards it's cheap as a % of GDP. Nor are we throwing money at it. The % of GDP we're spending has started falling.
@Seant that's a pretty easy choice to make. A Farage-led government might well be shambolic, but it wouldn't threaten basic liberties.
I'll ask you the question that SeanT ducked. At what point do you oppose a far right government implementing measures aimed at preventing a Muslim majority? At what point do you give up?
As an aside, it seems to have been less a genuine hypothetical and more SeanT putting together a bogus question to give him an opportunity to propound his hobbyhorse agenda of anti-Muslim measures. Which no doubt is why he doesn't want to answer when he'd give up. He has no serious interest in his own question and the ethical questions it raises. He just wants to be unpleasant to Muslims.
And you're wrong about a Farage-led government. We've already seen senior kippers demand judges be sacked for issuing judgments that they disagree with. Nothing would be allowed to get in the way of their reactionary agenda.
One doesn't stop until the Muslim majority nation is prevented, even if it requires mass deportation of non-secular types. I've seen first hand what Muslim/non-Muslim violence looks like an Ahmedabad, any and all measures need to be taken to prevent that from happening here. Though I think the hypothetical is pretty far off, and I think the Tories will look at the measures proposed well before then.
4.5%. The proportion of the UK population that is Muslim. There is no prospect of a Muslim majority. Nil, none, not a smidgin.
@Moses I don't think either a Muslim majority or a far right government is likely here. Voters are however pushing back against mass migration and supranationalism, which is no bad thing.
Nationwide there wont be, but London, will be soon. When that happens there will be more and more pressure on the capital to have Islamic law woven in, and as most of London's politicians will be muslims as well by then, it will no doubt happen. Maybe Saudi Arabia will be overtly paying for it.
Don't be daft.
Why do you think not? 50 years ago people would not have believed you if you showed them London today. They would have thought it impossible. Why is the tide going to turn? Why would the proportion of muslims slow? It is increasing at 150% per decade, and with numbers comes influence. Dont be naive
They only like market forces when they are not on the receiving end!
Also when it doesn't come out of my taxes. I'm perfectly happy for market principles to apply, so let's go the whole hog full private competition within the NHS. The only provision will be that it is absolutely free at the point of use.
I thought that you were off to Switzerland so UK taxes not relavent
9 years of contributions for naught then I guess.
Still, I've paid up my insurance in Switzerland, 550 Francs per month, plus all the other taxes it's less than I pay here. For that I get one of the world's best healthcare systems, trains that run on time and a wonderful amount of bureaucracy.
How about a bit of restructuring. Scotand and parts of England (not sure about Wales) have Minor Ailment schemes where patients can visit a pharmacy and get NHS treatment under the same terms as they would do from a GP, that is free is they qualify for free emdicine. Secondly how about reorganising the repeat prescription system. For example I’m on regular hypertension medication and anti-asthma inhalers. I rarely need a consultation about any of them but currently I have to ask the surgery (electronically, admittedly) for a repeat prescription each month and someone has to actually sign the form. If the local pharmacy could supply them for say 6 months, that would save some time at the surgery. One of the negatives is that so many pharmacies are now owned by chains who profit as by far their most important driver, with public service way down th list. Consequently improper pressures are put on the actual pharmacist to increase ‘business’ at the expense of their professional duties.
@Moses I don't think either a Muslim majority or a far right government is likely here. Voters are however pushing back against mass migration and supranationalism, which is no bad thing.
Nationwide there wont be, but London, will be soon. When that happens there will be more and more pressure on the capital to have Islamic law woven in, and as most of London's politicians will be muslims as well by then, it will no doubt happen. Maybe Saudi Arabia will be overtly paying for it.
Don't be daft.
Why do you think not? 50 years ago people would not have believed you if you showed them London today. They would have thought it impossible. Why is the tide going to turn? Why would the proportion of muslims slow? It is increasing at 150% per decade, and with numbers comes influence. Dont be naive
50-100 years ago they said the same about Roman Catholics.
In answer to SeanT's question, the obvious choice would be to go for the fascists.
Fascist states recover quickly and can be perfectly good places to live, see Germany, Italy, Spain etc.
Islamic states however never recover from Islam. You're looking at a miserable future not just for yourselves, but for your children and grandchildren as well.
Ah, petitions. Can't recall one being started after Blair was astounded [or acting astounded] on Question Time (probably the 2005 election special) that some audience members had to wait weeks for an appointment.
Other way round. Blair was astounded that patients *did* want to wait weeks for an appointment (say for vaccinations, to have stitches removed or for childbirth) but his cack-handed 48-hours guarantee prevented them booking more than two days in advance.
Enter man with pot and large spoon.................... How about paying GPs less so more of them work at least a 5 day week ?
Most GP practices are private partnership businesses. The partners don't earn a salary but share profits. The NHS pays the practice an amount per registered patient plus additions for various extras they perform.
That is the old model, one increasingly replaced by companies employing salaried GPs, so called super practices such as Lakeside based in Corby, though in Brum there is an even bigger one.
Some of these are structured as partnerships, others are limited companies. Whether this is good or bad is moot, but it does mean the end of the traditional GP.
@Moses I don't think either a Muslim majority or a far right government is likely here. Voters are however pushing back against mass migration and supranationalism, which is no bad thing.
Nationwide there wont be, but London, will be soon. When that happens there will be more and more pressure on the capital to have Islamic law woven in, and as most of London's politicians will be muslims as well by then, it will no doubt happen. Maybe Saudi Arabia will be overtly paying for it.
Don't be daft.
Why do you think not? 50 years ago people would not have believed you if you showed them London today. They would have thought it impossible. Why is the tide going to turn? Why would the proportion of muslims slow? It is increasing at 150% per decade, and with numbers comes influence. Dont be naive
50-100 years ago they said the same about Roman Catholics.
So what? Have you ever looked at the data? Why should the tide cease to flow?
If you're pottering about and enjoy great interesting discussion - this intv with Deirdre is superb. All bite sized stuff between two Classical Liberals.
SeanT's hypothetical is absurd. And the correct answer is that I would emigrate and leave the two factions to fight for control of a country that I would no longer consider one that I had any affinity with. I would look to move to somewhere that still placed some weight on liberal values, probably a long way away. On the hypothetical as posed, I understand that to mean that I would let Britain become majority Muslim under sharia law.
By what mechanism in the hypothetical is Nigel Farage going to stop Britain becoming majority Muslim?
My god, an answer from Mr Meeks with which I completely agree, although for rather different reasons to his, what is the world coming to
@Seant that's a pretty easy choice to make. A Farage-led government might well be shambolic, but it wouldn't threaten basic liberties.
I'll ask you the question that SeanT ducked. At what point do you oppose a far right government implementing measures aimed at preventing a Muslim majority? At what point do you give up?
As an aside, it seems to have been less a genuine hypothetical and more SeanT putting together a bogus question to give him an opportunity to propound his hobbyhorse agenda of anti-Muslim measures. Which no doubt is why he doesn't want to answer when he'd give up. He has no serious interest in his own question and the ethical questions it raises. He just wants to be unpleasant to Muslims.
And you're wrong about a Farage-led government. We've already seen senior kippers demand judges be sacked for issuing judgments that they disagree with. Nothing would be allowed to get in the way of their reactionary agenda.
One doesn't stop until the Muslim majority nation is prevented, even if it requires mass deportation of non-secular types. I've seen first hand what Muslim/non-Muslim violence looks like an Ahmedabad, any and all measures need to be taken to prevent that from happening here. Though I think the hypothetical is pretty far off, and I think the Tories will look at the measures proposed well before then.
Where are you going to deport them to?! These people are British and have never lived outside Britain. They have been allowed to live in a society that might as well be somewhere in the middle East or Asia, but that's not their fault.
Sorry isam, it is their fault. They have do have brains, they do have eyes, and they feel and see nothing. True, they are brainwashed by their religion, but my own religion tries to brainwash me every day, but does not succeed.
My own religion, the Jews also lived in ghettos when they first came to Britain, but they burst out of their confines to meld in with the general population. Islam chooses, deliberately, not to do that, as it has a distain for everyone who is not Moslem
"Maybe because he is interesting , has interesting if sometimes divisive viewpoints rather than just whining like wimps and accusing people of being drunk as you are doing."
And sometims he's sober and he writes well. Why don't you try it?
If you have you nothing to say insinuate, the verbage of a loser.
Comments
The odd thing is many of the locals when elsewhere in the world don't continue their customs to anywhere near the same degree. A good example is the clothing you observe being worn boarding an aircraft in a Damman stop over is pretty much changed entirely and very westernised by the time you leave the aircraft in London or Amsterdam.
Mr. Submarine, I do fear that such a question or choice (whether real or not) will be the prism through which many will view future elections. AfD in Germany and Wilders in the Netherlands seem prime examples.
As terrorism continually becomes more commonplace, people will become more receptive to harsher measures. I suspect/fear we'll see a rightwing backlash. I don't mean UKIP, but something emerging further to the right. Of course, that depends how the security and migration situations develop.
In Germany, the system will keep the AfD out, but it's possible that Pegida could revive (not heard much of it for a while). Just as politics now seems split on Leave/Remain (or Soft/Hard/Fruity Brexit), it may in the future be seen on identity grounds, diversity/nationalism, multi-culturalism/patriotism. Improving integration and a stronger unified national sense of self is vitally important.
That doesn't mean stripping away religions or trying to imply a choice between a religion and a country, but it does mean universal application of national law and actually defending concepts like free speech from the encroaching censors of the government, the politically correct, the religious, and the terminally over-sensitive.
Bit of a ramble, but there we are.
'That doesn't mean stripping away religions or trying to imply a choice between a religion and a country, but it does mean universal application of national law and actually defending concepts like free speech from the encroaching censors of the government, the politically correct, the religious, and the terminally over-sensitive.'
Bravo. Confirming your status, in my eyes, as Most Sensible Poster of the Year!
I thought you were supposed to understand markets
Both the general law and its Gresham’s corollary point, in contemporary circumstances, towards the resort to physical violence, in the form of firearms or high explosive, as being so probable as to be predicted with virtual certainty. The experience of the last decade and more, all round the world, shows that acts of violence, however apparently irrational or inappropriate their targets, precipitate a frenzied search on the part of the society attacked to discover and remedy more and more grievances, real or imaginary, among those from the violence is supposed to emanate or on whose behalf it is supposed to be exercised. Those commanding a position of political leverage would then be superhuman if they could refrain from pointing to the acts of terrorism and, while condemning them, declaring that further and faster concessions and grants of privilege are the only means to avoid such acts being repeated on a rising scale. We know that those who thus argue will always find a ready hearing. This is what produces the gearing effect of terrorism in the contemporary world, yielding huge results from acts of violence perpetrated by minimal numbers. It is not, I repeat again and again, that the mass of a particular population are violently or criminally disposed. Far from it; that population soon becomes itself the prisoner of the violence and machinations of an infinitely small minority among it. Just a few thugs, a few shots, a few bombs at the right place and time—and that is enough for disproportionate consequences to follow." - Enoch 1976
https://heatst.com/life/why-2017-will-heal-divisions-over-brexit/
The whole tone of the article, however, is completely at odds with its two opening sentences. Reading between the lines, I take it that he's had a bruising family Christmas on the topic.
You must choose from my ludicrous false choices or else you are a ( insert as appropriate ) !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaQ-ZF9S3uk
Politics is the art of the possible.
We all know that the NHS as constituted at present is a wreck. Let's get rid of it and start again with a petter plan where people put in if they want to take out.
My parents did this before the ww2; they paid in to a private medical aid system directly and monthly and never wanted for hospital aid and could see their local panel doctor when they wanted, on the day they wanted.
BTW my parents were typical working class - trying to become middle class.
On a more serious note, Islam tends to theocracy in countries where it's the majority. The SS was a secret police serving a single party in one country, the Peshmerga are Kurdish militia. They're servants, not masters, of the political entities within which they worked.
I'd be against Christian fundamentalism too. Although given the Church of England wants to ban the word 'family' from sermons as it's too complicated, I am not currently concerned about the outbreak and imposition of fundamentalist Christianity.
But if I had to choose between tyrannies, I'd prefer the average brutal and corrupt dictator to the religious fanatic or the one who thinks he can create a political paradise through genocide.
This is why our way of life here is so valuable and why our customs and our tolerance should be rigorously protected and handed over to the next generation to carry on.
There has been a lot of hyperbolic language on this site this year specifically from one or two posters. Having travelled, lived and worked worldwide for over 40 years though I still find the UK and all its people amongst, if not thee most tolerant of others, their individual lifestyle choices and their various beliefs.
I am always happy to call this home and proud to describe myself as British.
With that I will wish those that write the thread headers, maintain and run the site and not least those that comment on a daily basis , a very happy new year and successful and peaceful 2017.
"At what point do you oppose a far right government implementing measures aimed at preventing a Muslim majority?"
An odd question, considering that a Muslim majority would ensure a far right government. Pakistan doesn't strike me as a land rich in progressive liberals. Which Muslim majority country would you hold up as being a beacon for tolerance?
It's not always easy. Holy books frequently have passages that are openly homophobic. Ban the book? That's anti-religion and freedom of religion. Allow it? Easier, but does create a double standard of homophobia due to religious privilege.
We've got a de facto blasphemy law in this country now. When an atheist wrote the Jesus and Mo cartoon, Newsnight spent 95% of the programme criticising him. Paxman interrogated the cartoonist, demanding to know why he wasn't following Sharia on this.
Mr. Submarine, fine. I opt for a majority of Jet, from Gladiators.
David Farrier
i paid for in-flight wifi so i could tweet this immediately https://t.co/nnwpcyYC8V
Why not just back that for the current system?
Can we get back to Brexit please?
Still, I've paid up my insurance in Switzerland, 550 Francs per month, plus all the other taxes it's less than I pay here. For that I get one of the world's best healthcare systems, trains that run on time and a wonderful amount of bureaucracy.
Secondly how about reorganising the repeat prescription system. For example I’m on regular hypertension medication and anti-asthma inhalers. I rarely need a consultation about any of them but currently I have to ask the surgery (electronically, admittedly) for a repeat prescription each month and someone has to actually sign the form. If the local pharmacy could supply them for say 6 months, that would save some time at the surgery.
One of the negatives is that so many pharmacies are now owned by chains who profit as by far their most important driver, with public service way down th list. Consequently improper pressures are put on the actual pharmacist to increase ‘business’ at the expense of their professional duties.
Doctors on the GP Register 2006 = 54,609 and in 2015 = 66,356. It has gone up every year.
But there are fewer male GPs than there used to be. Females now are 51% of the GP register..
http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/register/search_stats.asp
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2968612/Soaring-number-time-women-doctors-fuelling-crisis-GP-recruitment-government-warned.html
Demand is rising. Supply has risen. But a greater % of them do not work full time.... Mine is a 2.5 days a week female GP.
Fascist states recover quickly and can be perfectly good places to live, see Germany, Italy, Spain etc.
Islamic states however never recover from Islam. You're looking at a miserable future not just for yourselves, but for your children and grandchildren as well.
http://www.gponline.com/interview-super-practice-model-will-preserve-services-help-gps-compete-hospitals/article/1367775
Some of these are structured as partnerships, others are limited companies. Whether this is good or bad is moot, but it does mean the end of the traditional GP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UpGbvOTlBE
True, they are brainwashed by their religion, but my own religion tries to brainwash me every day, but does not succeed.
My own religion, the Jews also lived in ghettos when they first came to Britain, but they burst out of their confines to meld in with the general population. Islam chooses, deliberately, not to do that, as it has a distain for everyone who is not Moslem