On Tue, 26 May 2015 17:28:01 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

ISTM that there's no reason for a trade agreement to include free
movement of peoples.

And if the UK leaves the EU, EEA and EFTA, we would be free to negotiate
such a deal with the EU.

And they would be free to tell us to go **** ourselves, of course.

On 26/05/15 17:54, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Do keep up - the whole reason we couldn't deport e.g. Abu Hamza was on
account of years of legal wrangling at a European level, despite the
fact he was not a European immigrant.

Ah. Right. So you're showing your true colours. Not only wanting to
stop immigration but to deport those already here.

Not me, no. That was your democratically elected government.

That will be why you referred to it as 'we'?

Which is still trying to get out from under the ECHR according to te
guardian

You mustn't let your prejudice bigotry and hatred if everyone who is
better than you blind you to the fact that they are probably right..

You consider yourself better than me too? Is there any limit to your ego?

Once again you mustm't let your bigotry show darling

I never said that. I merely remarked that other people than me were keen
to see the ECHR at least nuzzled, and that was a view that had popular
traction well beyond myself.

If you consider that you are in fact better than all those people, well
that's your karma. It has but little to do with me, I merely show that
that is what you seem to claim.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 26/05/15 18:05, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 17:28:01 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

ISTM that there's no reason for a trade agreement to include free
movement of peoples.

And if the UK leaves the EU, EEA and EFTA, we would be free to negotiate
such a deal with the EU.

And they would be free to tell us to go **** ourselves, of course.

No, they wouldn't be. Isolationisms doesnt work for anyone - even North
Korea...


Britain can't physically leave Europe. Its just the terms on which we
engage with other nations there are not optimal - certainly not for
Britain and arguably not for the rest of the Unions nations either.


There comes a point where even the most loyal and fervent Eurosocialist
starts wondering whether in fact the EU is, overall, good for Europe, or
just good for a narrow political elite who comprise it, and their
corporate and financial paymasters who derive the most benefit from it.

In other countries its the hard left protesting against the EU, not the
moderate libertarian centrism of e.g. UKIP.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 26/05/15 18:03, Adrian wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Do keep up - the whole reason we couldn't deport e.g. Abu Hamza was
on account of years of legal wrangling at a European level, despite
the fact he was not a European immigrant.

Except, of course, it wasn't.

It was because the UK government couldn't be arsed to ACTUALLY
PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.

"He was later charged by British authorities with sixteen offences for
inciting violence and racial hatred.[4] In 2006, a British court found
him guilty of inciting violence, and sentenced him to seven years'
imprisonment."

So says wiki

How us that not producing any evidence against him?

Or are you saying that our legal system is so corrupt that he can be
tried convicted and sentenced without any evidence being produced?

At this point I have to say you really start to amaze me, if that is the
sort of bare faced Big Lie, you are going to tell to defend The ECHR..



The US did produce evidence, and
gave him in the free and fair trial we refused to give him. He was
later charged by British authorities with sixteen offences for
inciting violence and racial hatred.[4] In 2006, a British court
found him guilty of inciting violence, and sentenced him to seven
years' imprisonment. Oh, and the whole point of Human Rights is to
protect _HUMANS_ from Governments doing bad things to them. All
Humans. No matter their nationality.


I am amazed at this point. You have reversed the order of this and
utterly contradicted yourself: Abu hamza was wanted by the US, already
conivicted on evidence by the UK, and was to be extradited to the US to
face further trials. At that point it was up to the US to provide the
evidence, and for the ECHR to accept it. These were not crimes to which
the British system and evidential access: they took place elsewhere.


I think that's why some people get so exercised about the whole
concept - not because they don't think that Governments should be
stopped from doing bad things, but because they don't think that
EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING deserves to be treated equally and fairly by
the law.


Except that in this case the ECHR was invoked to ensure that every human
being did NOT get equal and fair treatment. Certainly not compared with
his victims. He got a very long, very expensive and very biased set of
delaying tactics applied on his behalf to ensure he would NOT get a fair
hearing in the US against whom the crimes were comnmitted.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The main one which UKIP and all the other racists hate. Free movement
of people between countries.

I think most sensible people would think free movement of peolpe between
countries would be problematic.

Really? You want to stop Brits retiring to Spain, etc?


Leting the jimmy savilles, Gary Glitters of the world go anywhere they
wish doing whatever they wish.

Now that's convoluted thinking even for you...

I wouldn;t weant IS's to set up here in the UK and I don't care how un
PC that makes me, and it doesn't make me a racist either a cultraslist
perhaps but that's to complex for most people to understand.

If what you mean is the idea of an Islamic state in the UK, it's
laughable.

It's what's happening in certain UK cities.
You know, the ones where muslims feel free to go around raping white
non-muslim children

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Streater wrote

And those countries who do get some of the rights without joining also
have to share the responsibilities too. Without the same voting rights.

Which responsibilities are you talking about?

The main one which UKIP and all the other racists
hate. Free movement of people between countries.

Being part of that is entirely optional.

Britain isn't even part of Schengen right now.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The main one which UKIP and all the other racists hate. Free movement
of
people between countries.

Ok, so that means the world is full of racists. America. Australia,
Afghanistan. All do not permit free movement of peoples noy citizens of
those countries

And that's just those beginning with A...

Your bigotry is showing again Dave...

Perhaps it has escaped you, again, but this is referring to the pros and
cons of being an EU member as opposed to just trading with them.

Pity you ****ed that up completely, again. Schengen is an entirely
separate issue to being an EU member and is entirely optional.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The main one which UKIP and all the other racists hate. Free movement
of people between countries.

I think most sensible people would think free movement of peolpe between
countries would be problematic.

Really? You want to stop Brits retiring to Spain, etc?


Leting the jimmy savilles, Gary Glitters of the world go anywhere they
wish doing whatever they wish.

Now that's convoluted thinking even for you...

I wouldn;t weant IS's to set up here in the UK and I don't care how un
PC that makes me, and it doesn't make me a racist either a cultraslist
perhaps but that's to complex for most people to understand.

If what you mean is the idea of an Islamic state in the UK,

No, he is clearly talking about being able to deny
entry by those the country decides are part of IS.

Which Britain can't currently do if they are EU citizens.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Well so it was until you made the blanket statement that anyone who had
or wanted restricted immigration was ipso facto a racist.

I was referring to political parties whose prime
objective is to stop immigration. At any cost.

Not true of UKIP.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 May 2015 15:30:41 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Irrelevant. If we left te EU, neither would we be part of it, ergo if
we left,. and wanted to halt unrestricted immigration, like Australia,
and that would make us racist, that also applies to Australia and the
United states doesn't it?

Have you looked at the most recent immigration figures?

Less than half came from the EU.

Indeed.

For 2014...
641,000 immigrated total comprising
83,000 returning UK "expats"
268,000 other EU nationals
290,000 non-EU nationals

323,000 emigrated

Net migration 313,000 - lower than 2005's 320,000

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migrat...ics-quarterly-
report/may-2015/stb-msqr-may-2015.html

So the majority of immigration to the UK has precisely zero to do with
free movement of citizens within the EU.

Oh, if only the UK had control of non-EU migration - probably via an
Australian-style points-based system...

Oops. We do.

No argument with any of the above.

If only we were more like Norway and Switzerland, who have no control
over their non-EU migration at all...

Both do have quite a bit of control over non EU migrants
who do crime in their country and Norway has kicked quite
a few of them out of their country.

On Tue, 26 May 2015 14:49:49 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 26/05/15 14:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The main one which UKIP and all the other racists hate. Free movement
of people between countries.

Ok, so that means the world is full of racists. America. Australia,
Afghanistan. All do not permit free movement of peoples noy citizens
of those countries

And that's just those beginning with A...

Your bigotry is showing again Dave...

Perhaps it has escaped you, again, but this is referring to the pros
and cons of being an EU member as opposed to just trading with them.


Well so it was until you made the blanket statement that anyone who had
or wanted restricted immigration was ipso facto a racist.


And although Oz was in the recent Eurovision Song Contest, I don't
think it's likely to become part of the EU...


Irrelevant. If we left te EU, neither would we be part of it, ergo if we
left,. and wanted to halt unrestricted immigration, like Australia, and
that would make us racist, that also applies to Australia and the United
states doesn't it?

Shouting "racist" is just a ruse to shut up the opposition when you don't
have any rational arguments to refute what they say. It's wearing
seriously thin these days, though, as more and more people wake up to
these little tricks.

On Wed, 27 May 2015 05:01:21 +1000, Simon263 wrote:

If only we were more like Norway and Switzerland, who have no control
over their non-EU migration at all...

Both do have quite a bit of control over non EU migrants who do crime in
their country and Norway has kicked quite a few of them out of their
country.

Just as the UK (or, indeed, any EU country) can do with people from other
EU countries.

But neither Switzerland nor Norway have any control at all over migration
before that point. Somebody from somewhere cannot apply for a Swiss or a
Norwegian visa. They apply for a Schengen visa.

On Wed, 27 May 2015 05:01:21 +1000, Simon263 wrote:

If only we were more like Norway and Switzerland, who have no control
over their non-EU migration at all...

Both do have quite a bit of control over non EU migrants who do crime in
their country and Norway has kicked quite a few of them out of their
country.

Just as the UK (or, indeed, any EU country) can do with people from other
EU countries.

But neither Switzerland nor Norway have any control at all over migration
before that point. Somebody from somewhere cannot apply for a Swiss or a
Norwegian visa. They apply for a Schengen visa.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 May 2015 05:01:21 +1000, Simon263 wrote:

If only we were more like Norway and Switzerland, who have no control
over their non-EU migration at all...

Both do have quite a bit of control over non EU migrants who do crime in
their country and Norway has kicked quite a few of them out of their
country.

Just as the UK (or, indeed, any EU country) can do with people from other
EU countries.

So your original 'have no control over their non-EU migration at all...'
is wrong.

But neither Switzerland nor Norway have any control at all over migration
before that point. Somebody from somewhere cannot apply for a Swiss or a
Norwegian visa. They apply for a Schengen visa.

They still have control over people who end up in their country who do
engage
in criminal activity or who lied in their application for a Schengen visa.

On 26/05/2015 16:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/15 16:29, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 26/05/2015 15:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
Now you can split hairs and say the European court of human rights is
not the same as the EU, but they are both European institutions we
'signed up to'

The ECHR is something we actively promoted and helped found, rather than
simply signed up to.

and indeed there is now discussion as to whether we
should revoke that.
...

Who is discussing leaving the Council of Europe?



http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...man-rights-act


I think I'll file that under I'll believe it if I see it. Lots of coulds
and maybes and, of course, a government with a small majority can avoid
having to try to totally overhaul our, admittedly unwritten,
constitution by ensuring that the Bill of Rights is something that
Strasbourg can agree to.

--
Colin Bignell

On Wed, 27 May 2015 08:06:58 +1000, Simon263 wrote:

If only we were more like Norway and Switzerland, who have no control
over their non-EU migration at all...

Both do have quite a bit of control over non EU migrants who do crime
in their country and Norway has kicked quite a few of them out of
their country.

Just as the UK (or, indeed, any EU country) can do with people from
other EU countries.

So your original 'have no control over their non-EU migration at all...'
is wrong.

shrug
OK, so when the 'kippers say that the UK has no control over EU
migration, they're also wrong...

But neither Switzerland nor Norway have any control at all over
migration before that point. Somebody from somewhere cannot apply for a
Swiss or a Norwegian visa. They apply for a Schengen visa.

They still have control over people who end up in their country who do
engage in criminal activity or who lied in their application for a
Schengen visa.

If somebody lies on their Schengen visa application, the visa would be
withdrawn centrally - so, again, that's not Switzerland or Norway having
any control.

An Albanian (say) can live and work in Switzerland or Norway for 90 days
out of every 180 without any visa at all, and the government of those
countries can do nothing to stop him unless and until he's convicted of a
crime serious enough to warrant deportation. But he can't even visit the
UK as a tourist for a weekend without a mountain of prohibitive
bureaucracy.

On Tue, 26 May 2015 23:21:32 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

Who is discussing leaving the Council of Europe?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...chael-gove-to-
proceed-with-tories-plans-to-scrap-human-rights-act

I think I'll file that under I'll believe it if I see it. Lots of coulds
and maybes and, of course, a government with a small majority can avoid
having to try to totally overhaul our, admittedly unwritten,
constitution by ensuring that the Bill of Rights is something that
Strasbourg can agree to.

Even if the Gov't do manage to win a vote on repealing the HRA, it
doesn't mean we're not still bound by the ECHR. It would require
repealing the HRA, leaving the EU (which requires all members to be
signatories to and bound by the ECHR), leaving the Council of Europe
(which we were a founder member of) AND repealing our original signature
to the convention we were primarily responsible for founding and writing.

Nah. Ain't. Going. To. Happen.

The really bizarre thing is that the HRA just allows UK judges in UK
courts to enforce breaches of the convention - the same UK judges in UK
courts who, presumably, would be enforcing breaches of this new bill of
rights...?

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 26/05/2015 16:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/15 16:29, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 26/05/2015 15:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
Now you can split hairs and say the European court of human rights is
not the same as the EU, but they are both European institutions we
'signed up to'

The ECHR is something we actively promoted and helped found, rather than
simply signed up to.

and indeed there is now discussion as to whether we
should revoke that.
...

Who is discussing leaving the Council of Europe?



http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...man-rights-act


I think I'll file that under I'll believe it if I see it. Lots of coulds
and maybes and, of course, a government with a small majority can avoid
having to try to totally overhaul our, admittedly unwritten, constitution
by ensuring that the Bill of Rights is something that Strasbourg can agree
to.

Why should Britain give a damn what Strasbourg can agree to ?

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 May 2015 08:06:58 +1000, Simon263 wrote:

If only we were more like Norway and Switzerland, who have no control
over their non-EU migration at all...

Both do have quite a bit of control over non EU migrants who do crime
in their country and Norway has kicked quite a few of them out of
their country.

Just as the UK (or, indeed, any EU country) can do with people from
other EU countries.

So your original 'have no control over their non-EU migration at all...'
is wrong.

shrug
OK, so when the 'kippers say that the UK has no control over EU
migration, they're also wrong...

Yes they are.

But neither Switzerland nor Norway have any control at all over
migration before that point. Somebody from somewhere cannot apply for a
Swiss or a Norwegian visa. They apply for a Schengen visa.

They still have control over people who end up in their country who do
engage in criminal activity or who lied in their application for a
Schengen visa.

If somebody lies on their Schengen visa application, the visa would be
withdrawn centrally

Not necessarily, that depends on who finds out that it was a lie.

- so, again, that's not Switzerland or Norway having any control.

That is not correct when one of those countries discovers that an
individual has lied on the Schengen visa application.

An Albanian (say) can live and work in Switzerland or Norway for 90 days
out of every 180 without any visa at all, and the government of those
countries can do nothing to stop him unless and until he's convicted of a
crime serious enough to warrant deportation.

So they clearly do have some control over that immigrant.

But he can't even visit the
UK as a tourist for a weekend without a mountain of prohibitive
bureaucracy.

Irrelevant to what you got wrong.

On Wed, 27 May 2015 08:56:32 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

I think I'll file that under I'll believe it if I see it. Lots of coulds
and maybes and, of course, a government with a small majority can avoid
having to try to totally overhaul our, admittedly unwritten,
constitution by ensuring that the Bill of Rights is something that
Strasbourg can agree to.

Er, not unwritten, in fact. Just not all written down in one place. We
already have the following (from Winky):

snippety long list of 800yrs of legislation

Personally I might have included the Habeus Corpus Act, too, but Winky
chooses not to for some reason.

Which isn't an explicit constitution, but a selection of bits of
constitutional legislation which - taken together - can be interpreted to
be a constitution.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I never said that. I merely remarked that other people than me were keen
to see the ECHR at least nuzzled, and that was a view that had popular
traction well beyond myself.

Nuzzled? Traction? Could you please supply a glossary of your terminology?

Plenty of people would like accused murderers executed without trial.
Hound suspected child molesters without a scrap of proof. And so on.
Called the lynch mentality. Not really surprising you align yourself with
them.

If you consider that you are in fact better than all those people, well
that's your karma. It has but little to do with me, I merely show that
that is what you seem to claim.

Perhaps I am odd, then. Expecting a fair trial for everyone. Regardless.

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
harryagain wrote:
If what you mean is the idea of an Islamic state in the UK, it's
laughable.

It's what's happening in certain UK cities.
You know, the ones where muslims feel free to go around raping white
non-muslim children

Are those who have been given long jail sentences for such disgusting
behaviour free?

Perhaps you'd define freedom.

--
*When companies ship Styrofoam, what do they pack it in? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
Shouting "racist" is just a ruse to shut up the opposition when you
don't have any rational arguments to refute what they say. It's wearing
seriously thin these days, though, as more and more people wake up to
these little tricks.

What I find odd is just why racists object to being called racists?

--
*IF YOU TRY TO FAIL, AND SUCCEED, WHICH HAVE YOU DONE?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:08:17 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I never said that. I merely remarked that other people than me were
keen to see the ECHR at least nuzzled, and that was a view that had
popular traction well beyond myself.

Nuzzled? Traction? Could you please supply a glossary of your
terminology?

Plenty of people would like accused murderers executed without trial.
Hound suspected child molesters without a scrap of proof. And so on.
Called the lynch mentality. Not really surprising you align yourself
with them.

If you consider that you are in fact better than all those people, well
that's your karma. It has but little to do with me, I merely show that
that is what you seem to claim.

Perhaps I am odd, then. Expecting a fair trial for everyone. Regardless.

Quite.

Perhaps TNP would like to explain exactly which of the convention rights
it is that he takes exception to, and why.

Nobody ever really does that. They just object to the "interpretations -
which is strange since, after all, it surely can't be the HRA's
incorporation into UK law, since the same UK courts that judge breaches
will be judging breachs of a new British Bill of Rights, and nobody
(sane) seems to be suggesting we leave the Council of Europe and thereby
the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court.

In article ,
harryagain wrote:

It's what's happening in certain UK cities.
You know, the ones where muslims feel free to go around raping white
non-muslim children

So is the fundamental problem in that scenario one of ethnicity and
religion?

On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:13:53 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

What I find odd is just why racists object to being called racists?

Denial.

On 27/05/15 11:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
Shouting "racist" is just a ruse to shut up the opposition when you
don't have any rational arguments to refute what they say. It's wearing
seriously thin these days, though, as more and more people wake up to
these little tricks.

What I find odd is just why racists object to being called racists?

They don't. But normal people who are not find it very offensive



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On Wed, 27 May 2015 10:57:14 +0000, Huge wrote:

What I find odd is just why racists object to being called racists?

They don't. But normal people who are not find it very offensive

Does the term have any currency any more? It's been
misused/abused/overused so much it's just meaningless noise.

Those on the receiving end might disagree.

But for this kind of debate, I prefer "xenophobe" or even just the more
wide-ranging catch-all of "bigot".

On 27/05/15 12:15, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2015 10:57:14 +0000, Huge wrote:

What I find odd is just why racists object to being called racists?

They don't. But normal people who are not find it very offensive

Does the term have any currency any more? It's been
misused/abused/overused so much it's just meaningless noise.

Those on the receiving end might disagree.

But for this kind of debate, I prefer "xenophobe" or even just the more
wide-ranging catch-all of "bigot".

Well those are two adjectives you are well placed to understand.

Being as how every post you make displays that kind of fear and
irrational hatred of anyone who supports UKIP


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On Tuesday, 26 May 2015 14:38:31 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The main one which UKIP and all the other racists hate. Free movement
of people between countries.

I think most sensible people would think free movement of peolpe between
countries would be problematic.

Really? You want to stop Brits retiring to Spain, etc?

No, where have I said that ?


Leting the jimmy savilles, Gary Glitters of the world go anywhere they
wish doing whatever they wish.

Now that's convoluted thinking even for you...

Gary Glitter went to various places to live how he wanted.
I do NOT think it ok that a choild sex offender should be able to go to another country adn aduse children the way he did here. I believ kids should be protected from such people throught the world not just in London or wherever.

Do you find it acceptable that he (allegedly of course) went to cambodia and thialand for sex with children



I wouldn;t weant IS's to set up here in the UK and I don't care how un
PC that makes me, and it doesn't make me a racist either a cultraslist
perhaps but that's to complex for most people to understand.

If what you mean is the idea of an Islamic state in the UK, it's laughable.

Why it's happened small scale not as IS's but with FGM practices forced marriages or do I have to agree that these soprt of practices are allowed so I ncna think of myself as PC. I'd rather people called me a racist for reporting a black person for commiting FGM.

On Wednesday, 27 May 2015 11:23:33 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
Shouting "racist" is just a ruse to shut up the opposition when you
don't have any rational arguments to refute what they say. It's wearing
seriously thin these days, though, as more and more people wake up to
these little tricks.

What I find odd is just why racists object to being called racists?

I'm not so sure that is true,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...aris-tube.html

Supporters are heard chanting 'We're racist, we're racist and that's the way we like it'

Perhaps you should just call racists racists and not call people that aren't racist, racist.

Simples.

On Wednesday, 27 May 2015 12:15:59 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2015 10:57:14 +0000, Huge wrote:

What I find odd is just why racists object to being called racists?

They don't. But normal people who are not find it very offensive

Does the term have any currency any more? It's been
misused/abused/overused so much it's just meaningless noise.

Those on the receiving end might disagree.

But for this kind of debate, I prefer "xenophobe" or even just the more
wide-ranging catch-all of "bigot".

Could shortent that to just Human or just being alive.

It's one of the first instincts to be mistrustful of anything new or untested.
It's belived we developed colour vison so we could tell good from bad as far a s food is concerned and why we find rotting stuff revolting by smell it's because it shouldn;t be near our mouths. The opposite being for vultures and other animals that CAN eat rotting flesh.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2015-05-27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/15 11:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
Shouting "racist" is just a ruse to shut up the opposition when you
don't have any rational arguments to refute what they say. It's wearing
seriously thin these days, though, as more and more people wake up to
these little tricks.

What I find odd is just why racists object to being called racists?

They don't. But normal people who are not find it very offensive

Does the term have any currency any more? It's been
misused/abused/overused so much it's just meaningless noise.

Think is humans tend to be tribal by nature. Same as most animals. Racism
just an extension of that.

But many of man's basic instincts need to be modified/curtailed by the
needs of a civilised society.

--
*Why were the Indians here first? They had reservations.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 May 2015 14:38:31 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The main one which UKIP and all the other racists hate. Free
movement of people between countries.

I think most sensible people would think free movement of peolpe
between countries would be problematic.

Really? You want to stop Brits retiring to Spain, etc?

No, where have I said that ?

Two sentences above?


Leting the jimmy savilles, Gary Glitters of the world go anywhere
they wish doing whatever they wish.

Now that's convoluted thinking even for you...

Gary Glitter went to various places to live how he wanted. I do NOT
think it ok that a choild sex offender should be able to go to another
country adn aduse children the way he did here. I believ kids should be
protected from such people throught the world not just in London or
wherever.

Do you find it acceptable that he (allegedly of course) went to cambodia
and thialand for sex with children

I think sex with children unacceptable in any country. Regardless if by a
national or vistor.

But WTF has that to do with immigration?


I wouldn;t weant IS's to set up here in the UK and I don't care how
un PC that makes me, and it doesn't make me a racist either a
cultraslist perhaps but that's to complex for most people to
understand.

If what you mean is the idea of an Islamic state in the UK, it's
laughable.

Why it's happened small scale not as IS's but with FGM practices forced
marriages or do I have to agree that these soprt of practices are
allowed so I ncna think of myself as PC. I'd rather people called me a
racist for reporting a black person for commiting FGM.

Not quite sure why you consider it racist or non PC to report a crime?

--
*Reality? Is that where the pizza delivery guy comes from?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
they really have been (super?)glued on, then the threads are going to be
a ******* to clean up,

Not so Acetone is the one reasonably common solvent for superglue.

But a condom or 10, and fill it up with acetone - glass fibre suppliers
have this - and stick it over the while valve and elastic band it in
place.

Overnight soaking will absolutely remove every last trace of superglue.
But its fearsomely volatile so needs to be inside a sealed container
while it does it.

And you've be certain acetone wouldn't effect other parts of the valve?

--
*Remember: First you pillage, then you burn.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Well so it was until you made the blanket statement that anyone who had
or wanted restricted immigration was ipso facto a racist.

I was referring to political parties whose prime objective is to stop
immigration. At any cost.

I don't think any p0litical; party has proposed that. Not even the BNP.
Can you enlighten us please?
--
bert

In article , Adrian
writes
On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:08:17 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I never said that. I merely remarked that other people than me were
keen to see the ECHR at least nuzzled, and that was a view that had
popular traction well beyond myself.

Nuzzled? Traction? Could you please supply a glossary of your
terminology?

Plenty of people would like accused murderers executed without trial.
Hound suspected child molesters without a scrap of proof. And so on.
Called the lynch mentality. Not really surprising you align yourself
with them.

If you consider that you are in fact better than all those people, well
that's your karma. It has but little to do with me, I merely show that
that is what you seem to claim.

Perhaps I am odd, then. Expecting a fair trial for everyone. Regardless.

Quite.

Perhaps TNP would like to explain exactly which of the convention rights
it is that he takes exception to, and why.

And what about responsibilities? Is it not everyone's responsibility if
they wish to claim their rights also to accept the responsibility of
being basically law abiding? Which take priority?
.
Snip
--
bert

In article , Adrian
writes
On Wed, 27 May 2015 08:06:58 +1000, Simon263 wrote:

If only we were more like Norway and Switzerland, who have no control
over their non-EU migration at all...

Both do have quite a bit of control over non EU migrants who do crime
in their country and Norway has kicked quite a few of them out of
their country.

Just as the UK (or, indeed, any EU country) can do with people from
other EU countries.

So your original 'have no control over their non-EU migration at all...'
is wrong.

shrug
OK, so when the 'kippers say that the UK has no control over EU
migration, they're also wrong...

But neither Switzerland nor Norway have any control at all over
migration before that point. Somebody from somewhere cannot apply for a
Swiss or a Norwegian visa. They apply for a Schengen visa.

They still have control over people who end up in their country who do
engage in criminal activity or who lied in their application for a
Schengen visa.

If somebody lies on their Schengen visa application, the visa would be
withdrawn centrally - so, again, that's not Switzerland or Norway having
any control.

An Albanian (say) can live and work in Switzerland or Norway for 90 days
out of every 180 without any visa at all, and the government of those
countries can do nothing to stop him unless and until he's convicted of a
crime serious enough to warrant deportation. But he can't even visit the
UK as a tourist for a weekend without a mountain of prohibitive
bureaucracy.
There is a subtle difference between freedom of movement of people and
freedom of movement of workers.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The main one which UKIP and all the other racists hate. Free movement
of people between countries.

I think most sensible people would think free movement of peolpe between
countries would be problematic.

Really? You want to stop Brits retiring to Spain, etc?


You seem to have a very simple binary brain yes no, on off, black white,
no immigration unfettered immigration. No in between.
Snip
--
bert

In article , Adrian
writes
On Tue, 26 May 2015 17:28:01 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

ISTM that there's no reason for a trade agreement to include free
movement of peoples.

And if the UK leaves the EU, EEA and EFTA, we would be free to negotiate
such a deal with the EU.

And they would be free to tell us to go **** ourselves, of course.

And in doing so perhaps do the same to themselves. After all we are a
net contributor to the EU (Greater Germany)
--
bert