Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

I would suggest improving the situation by sending all the immigrant doctors, nurses and allied professionals back to the eir own countries.

That will sort the problem out.

Also, stop the "temporary" immigrant undergraduate on postgraduate students.

That will sort the university problems.

Mind Vicky if you didn't post so much rubbish you wouldn't get the replies you do.

Makes you laugh does Fred ,can't get an appointment ,nothing to do with immigration .

I was in a London hospital waiting room this year with around 50 people and about 40 of them were foreign ,i went up the road to another for an x ray and it was all East European families with one British person waiting .

No we want the professionals just not the millions looking for free health care .

Fre'd so pissed these days he can't even finish his sentence .

Well seeing as these immigrant doctors/nurses are in this country to service
the ever growing immigrant population then so long as they deport those
illegals who should'nt be here, or the health tourist, then maybe the indigenous
population would be able to get an appointment within a reasonable time.

Dumbo,

P 73095 finished.

Just looking for words you may understand!

My rubbish is in response to your continual ad infinitum , day in day out , ere we go again , same old same old , round the houses , to someone in the land of make believe and folly , that doesn't exist on this forum except you . Doom and gloom endless , negative endless , on and on and on . ( sticks tongue out , blows raspberries , and one finger salutes ) ave it .

Vicky,

At the moment, for many Brexit and possible implementation of related policies and rhetoric of trying to escape from the responsibilities of being European as folly.

Also, many understand much of the froth and fury surrounding immigration into the UK is unthought out.

After the shouting is over it is obvious that the route and consequences of rash rapid changes have unknown consequences, many of which will deleterious to the majority of the UK population.


Changes to EU regulations were and are necessary, changes regarding immigration and future relationships would also be beneficial, but tearing the roof of a building when you haven't prepared a better functioning replacement is crazy.

There has been NO PLANNING for it.

Idiots led by donkeys.

The Brexiters, at the moment, are like overgrown schoolboys in the Tuck Shop.

Strange how the most vocal at the time of the referendum in the UK have disappeared or picking up their expenses in Brussels.

Just opinion!

Vicky,

Ps.

Save yourself from frothing.

Squelch me.

Fred does talk some absolute crap ,mind you VIC when your that senile and angry drinking doesn't help .

Vicky,

Read Dumbo's sensible and intelligent postings and consider.

His omniscience is awe inspiring but as usual well short of the mark.

8-)

Ps.

I think he would get lost driving around a roundabout.

I won't squelch you as I'm trying to learn at what stage senility starts to creep in .

And yours are intelligent ? is that why most people on here think your a moron ?

Freds still under the deluded illusion that if the UK had stayed in the EU
then we could have got all these 'reforms', and changes to the rules and
regulations that so obviously hinder growth, and with open door borders
allowing for unfettered immigration.

If the UK had voted to remain, then the gangsters in Brussels would've
gone full steam for ultimate integration, there would NEVER have been ANY
'reforms' to the benefit of the UK.

And the reason that it appears that no plans are in place is because the civil
servants are pro-eu with the eu ingrained in their every orifice, and will drag
their feet for as long as they can get away with.

Vicky.

Look in the mirror and try and remember who the reflection reminds you of.

Go starter for one.

-=-===

Dumbo,

Not necessarily so.

But some seem to share similar opinions to mine.

They also seem a more tolerant group than the looney neo-cons who are jumping up and down trying to close down any opposing opinions.

Lost me mate .

Lost me too ,he's a proper looney tune .

Why is the Welsh NHS just as crap as England's Fred when it has been run by Labour since 1997 ?

Don't know.

Ask an epidemiologist, but suppose it is due to "residual" morbidity following "deindustrialisation", population dispersal and investment.

But some of the care there is probably patchy as in England since tory governments post 2010 in the UK.

Some of the relative deterioration is due to managerial failure and investment policies.

Also, a lot of the problems are due the Maggie Thatcher of government turning doctors into little business men and change of various "contracts".

But explore it.

Patrick Hickey , Head of Irish Olympic committee arrested in Rio over illegal Olympic ticket sales . I must be wrong but I would have thought these people who are on these committees would have something above and beyond your usual human being , but obviously not . He tried to escape from capture .

Who is an extremist? UK faces legal challenge over strategy to stop radicals

Wed, 17th Aug 2016 11:13 - By Michael Holden

LONDON, Aug 17 (Reuters) - To his detractors, including the British government, Salman Butt is an extremist whose views on Islam fly in the face of Britain's values and help foster an atmosphere where young Muslims can be radicalised by militants.

Even though he is not accused of supporting militant groups or violence, the British authorities believe it is only by cracking down on activists like Butt and denying a forum for their ideas to be widely heard that the threat posed by jihadis and groups such as Islamic State can be countered.

But critics, ranging from civil rights groups to leading academics and lawmakers, say what the government is trying to do amounts to a curb on free speech which could drive a wedge between the authorities and Britain's 2.8 million Muslims

They argue if anything such plans will only make the problem worse and amount to an attack on the fundamental liberties the government wants to protect.

"Over the last few years the circle of who and what is considered extreme has been expanding slowly," said Butt, 30, who is taking the British government to court over its counter-extremism strategy.

"Before it was just somebody committing crimes or calling for violence and then they expanded more and more to everyday people who happen to maybe criticise certain aspects of the government policy or hold certain conservative Islamic views," he told Reuters.

The problem facing Britain and other Western governments is the same one with which they have wrestled since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States: how to stop their young citizens being radicalised without been seen to censor critics.

Thousands of Muslims, including more than 800 Britons, have left Europe for Iraq and Syria, many to join Islamic State (IS), while the recent deadly attacks seen in Paris, Brussels and Nice are a graphic illustration of the risk posed by some lured to a violent Islamist cause at home.

The revelation on Tuesday that Anjem Choudary, Britain's most high-profile Islamist preacher, has been convicted for inviting his followers to support Islamic State has again brought the issue to the fore.

Choudary was convicted last month although this could not be reported until Tuesday to avoid prejudicing the jury in a separate case. It ended a streak of many years during which he served as the leader of banned organisations but dodged prosecution by carefully managing his public remarks.

Critics questioned why it had taken so long to act against someone who had been a leading radical Islamist figure for two decades and whose followers had been involved in militant plots and acts of violence across the world.

"There should be zero tolerance towards any cleric - Muslim or otherwise - who advocates extremist views and rejects British values," Britain's top-selling Sun newspaper said. "Britain has been tolerant of men like Choudary for too long."

WHO IS AN EXTREMIST?

For those such as new British Prime Minister Theresa May, tackling extremism means no longer tolerating those who reject the country's values: democracy, free speech, equality and the rule of law.

"Where non-violent extremism goes unchallenged, the values that bind our society together fragment," May, who had been interior minister for six years before taking over the Downing Street reins, said in a speech in February.

"So while by no means all extremism leads to violence, it creates an environment in which those who seek to divide us can flourish."

May, in her former guise as interior minister, was responsible for drawing up a proposed Counter-Extremism bill with bans for individuals or groups deemed extremist and closures of places where radicals thrive, including mosques.

However, there is still no sign of the legislation, with the Home Office (interior ministry) saying it would come in "due course". One main obstacle is who decides who or what is extremist.

"Providing a clear definition of extremism is a difficult task and the government has yet to succeed in doing it," said senior opposition Labour lawmaker Harriet Harman, head of the UK parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights which produced a critical report on the government plans in July.

Even Finance Minister Philip Hammond admitted in May the issue was "a minefield": "The line between acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour is fine and fraught with dangers," he said.

"HATE SPEAKER"

Last September, Butt, 30, who runs a discussion website Islam21c, was one of the first to fall foul of the moves to clampdown on non-violent extremists after being identified by a secretive cross-government Extremism Analysis Unit, established to pick out groups or individuals of concern.

The activist, who has a biochemistry doctorate, was named in a Downing Street press release on "hate speakers" as one of six figures who gave talks at university campuses and were "on record as expressing views contrary to British values".

A later explanation given by the government to parliament said he had appeared to compare homosexuality to paedophilia and had spoken alongside figures from CAGE, a campaign group that gained attention for contacts with Mohammed Emwazi, the now-dead British militant known as "Jihadi John" who appeared in Islamic State videos beheading foreign captives.

Butt said the accusations against him were "complete rubbish", and is now taking legal action to challenge the government's way of identifying extremists and its "Prevent" strategy, its much-criticised policy to stop radicalisation.

"What has happened over the last 10 years of counter-terrorism policy is it's completely going about it in a very destructive way," he said.

"The government need to do a job to keep people safe but the way it's being done, especially recently, not only are they looking in the wrong place ... but they are completely ignoring the negative effects it's having on community relations."

It is not just those like Butt who are targeted that are concerned. In January, Professor Louise Richardson, the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, said it was better to let extremists speak on campuses and challenge their views than to simply ban them.

David Anderson, Britain's terrorism law watchdog, has warned that plans to clamp down on individuals and organisations accused of extremism could backfire by playing into the hands of militant recruiters.

"FREE PASS"

But those who back the government's intent say allowing extremists free rein in public forums or at universities exposes vulnerable people to their messages. They point out that graduates or students at British universities have been involved in numerous militant plots including Emwazi and Nigerian "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Rupert Sutton, director of Student Rights, an organisation that campaigns against extremism on university campuses, said people with controversial views were often given a platform where their opinions were not questioned.

"They're too often given a free pass," he told Reuters. "If you put it as a dichotomy between either freedom of expression or ban them from speaking that is too binary. What we need to think about is how we are going to make it so that when they do come to speak they face challenge rather than being banned."

He said the focus should be on using existing legislation to tackle people like Choudary, even if he had long proved adept at ensuring he did not break the law.

"When someone is as effective at it as Choudary is, you are going to get people saying: 'How is he allowed to go around on the street doing this?'"