Rabbie

If the plane is flying towards you then you won't hear it if it is going faster than sound. The first you hear is the sonic boom

[quote user="alittlebitfrench"]Dogs are allowed in pubs in the UK !!!! I have seen people eat their Sunday lunch next to other peoples dogs licking their bits or dribbling everywhere. Then the people eating their lunch save a bit for the dog. To be fair, I have never seen a dog in a restaurant in France. Must be a rural thing.[/quote]A few years ago We were having dinner in a Michelin starred restaurant in Paris not far from the Arc de Triomphe when an old lady came in with her small poodle. She proceeded to order and was served her meal. The poodle's food was served with due solemnity in a bowl beside her chair. The dog behaved far better than many british children.

It seems that several towns are still continuing to keep the ban despite the courts decision so not sure how much sense is prevailing.

[quote user="alittlebitfrench"] The paradox is that a 150 k euro expat convent in the Lot with a swimming pool is probably 10-20 times more expensive than a 500 k euro 40sq metre tiny box in some suburb of Paris or other major city. Those moving to France for cheaper houses are buying something more expensive than they had in the UK. Its a trap.[/quote]ALBF, I would be grateful if you could explain this paradox for me. It is not obvious to a UK dweller like me my this should be the case.

[quote user="lindal1000"]The first 'hurdle' for the government will be the high court cases in October that review whether or not article 50 will need to be debated by parliament..[/quote]As a scot who wants to remain in the UK I hope that the government will not use  the royal prerogative  to authorise the Article 50 application but puts it to a democratic vote in Parliament to avoid giving the SNP a chance to hold another Indyref

The forum has been working normally for me this evening. I will try and get an update on monday

I know from talking to friends that there were many different reasons for people voting as they did. Some voted for Brexit  because they wanted more money for the NHS, others because they wanted to fire a warning shot over Cameron's bows, others still because they they sincerely thought that leaving was the best for the UK. Regardless of why people voted as they did, the result is still valid and should be respected but  I believe that it is legitimate to point out where people have been lazy  and not researched the consequences of their vote in advance. In my mind there is a big difference between critising anonymous people who apparently did not do their research properly and making personal attacks on members of this forum. I have not noticed any such attacks but if anyone wants to report this type of post to the mods we will look into it.

As someone who made no secret of the fact that I thought remaining in was the best for the UK I must admit to be disappointed in the result but what disappointed me more was the complete lack of a coherent plan on what to do next. It is clear that leaving the EU is not a trivial task and until we as a nation decide on the sort of deal we would like to achieve it is impossible to say how much better or worse off the UK will be. I certainly hope that the Brexit people were right and I was wrong because I want the best for my country but we will have to wait and see what deal can be negotiated. My gut feeling, for what it is worth, is that the outcome will not be as rosy as some think but not as gloomy as others have prophesied but we will have to wait and see.

Nickp, you are quite right. 75% of the sports funding does come from the lottery - the other 25% from the government. But it can be argued that the the decisions as how much money to give to each sport are political in nature even if not made by the government.

IMO the success of our athletes in Rio is entirely due to a combination of natural talent and a lot of hard work and dedication. The only effect that political decisions have had on the results is to ensure they have had adequate funding.  

I have received an email from the Archant digital editor to say there have been technical issues with the website and particularly with the forum. Their technical staff have been working to resolve these issues and seem to have succeeded. As I was unable to access the forum I could not post an update. Hopefully everything will be OK now

[quote user="vivienz"]Anyone who has an Irish parent is automatically an Irish citizen and so your husband will also qualify as he is married to you.  If you wish, you can apply for Irish passports - you will need some proof of your parent's citizenship status, e.g. birth certificates.  There is quite a backlog at the moment for passports, though, so you may want to leave it a little while before applying. [/quote]It is not quite so simple. To gain Irish citizenship because you are married to an Irish citizen you must among other things have lived in Ireland for one year and intend to stay in Ireland. Full details here

[quote user="woolybanana"]Surely, the amount of money you need to be happy is usually just a bit more than you have available[/quote] If that were true then nobody would be happy

While it is true that "money can't buy you happiness" lack of money can certainly bring you misery. For me, as I am fortunate enough to have sufficient money to pay the basic essential bills and leave a little over, happiness comes from things other than finding a little money in a forgotten pocket. Happiness for me comes from seeing my dogs playing happily, a mare becoming pregnant, an unexpected visit from an old friend, just seeing a nice flower in the garden or even a pleasant comment from someone on a forum.Happiness is so often related to the small things in life when you suddenly realise that you are happy. Mr Micawber in his famous definition got it right. Provided expenditure is less than income then misery is avoided. The other relevant quote is "the love of money is the root of all evil"

There is nothing to stop the UK having reciprocal healthcare agreements which whatever countries it wants after we leave the EU. Before Sweden joined the EU there was a full healthcare agreement between the UK and Sweden. Holders of a Brotish passport could get the same healthcare as a Swede but unlike a Swede did not have to pay the small charge that was levied.

Congratulations. It is always difficult to decide what is a good name. Our view of names is often coloured by whether or not we like people who have that name. How do you like your husband's mother's name or other family names. Where do you live? America, France or somewhere else? You could try googling for common French girls names and see if any of those appeals to you. Good luck in any case

Lehaut, you and I have been on this forum long enough to know that troll-like behaviour is not something that marks the vast majority of Mint's posts. In fact IMO, most of the post you are mentioning is concerned with raising serious questions about the OP's reasons for moving to France. It seems legitimate to me to highlight these concerns because it did seem to be a big decision made without much uptodate knowledge. I do not consider name calling to be helpful in this context and would kindly ask you to move on

It doesn't matter what Jeremy promises because he is never going to be in a position to deliver.

I must declare an interest in this discussion. I do like my meat. I do not eat pork mainly because my OH does not eat it on welfare grounds. To be honest sheep and horse meat are probably the most ethically correct meats as those animals are most likely to have grown up in a natural state. As regards animal welfare some of the most horrendous cases of animal cruelty have occurred here in the UK despite our laws. Laws do not solve problems unless they are enforced consistently and law enforcement is a national responsibility. To blame the EU for failure to enforce the laws is as misguided as to blame the EU for floods or any other act of nature. The blame lies with national governments who do not enforce laws they have passed. I admire Chessie's commitment to this cause but (s)he should point the finger at those who are really to blame and not at the convenient scapegoat.  

The NHS does a very good job in not very easy circumstances. At present though the quality of service you receive is very dependent on where you live. Unlike some people on this forum we are lucky if we can get a GP appointment within a week. The practice does its best but is often short of the correct number of doctors. The latest newsletter tells us that they have not been able to recruit a replacement for one of the doctors who has left. From what I hear from friends this is quite common across the country. I have also heard from Doctor friends that there is a relatively high rate of no-shows which wastes everyone's time and also a lot of unnecessary visits especially from older people. They are also caught up in inefficient bureaucratic processes. Compared to other West European countries the UK spends a lower percentage of GNP on healthcare so perhaps there is scope for increasing spending on the NHS and spending less on tax breaks for the very rich and on expensive vanity projects like Hinkley Point and HSE2

Gluestick, At present in the UK we have the Fixed Term Parliament Act which states that except in exceptional service there should be a five year interval between General Elections. I appreciate the point you are making but I think that any attempt to lengthen the interval would be seen by the electorate as an attempt by politicians to keep their place on the gravy train. There is also a danger that a longer period would widen the gap between the electorate and MPs. The UK is also unique in democratic countries in having a second chamber that is part hereditary and part filled with people that have been appointed for life. This clearly needs to changed in a rational way but seems to be very low on any party's agenda. As you so rightly said we need to learn the lessons of history to avoid making the same mistakes again. I am not holding my breath that our present politicians of any party will do this.

[quote user="PaulT"]Silly me Idun when I saw the title I thought you had been constipated.[/quote] Are you implying that Idun is full of S*** [:D]

For any democratic politician there is always the temptation to do what is popular rather than what is right. Politicians are only human and are likely to have at least one eye on the next election so this is understandable but does not lead to good government. It has been said we get the government we deserve and there is an element of truth in this. This inevitably leads to politicians taking a very short term view and putting too much importance on the views expressed in the media. With an issue such as terrorism I feel that if we are going to solve the problem we need to tackle the reasons that drive people to become extremists. To take a lesson from a century ago in Ireland the British response to the Easter Rebellion was counter-productive. Lets not make the same mistakes again.

Following complaints from several forum members I have removed the content from two posts in this thread because they used inappropriate language and appeared to be in breach of the Terms and Conditions which everyone agreed to when joining the forum. This action was taken after discussion with my fellow mods and the Forum Admin. I have no wish to stifle free speech and I would hope this debate can be continued in a reasonable way without anyone resorting to personal abuse. I am aware that people are understandably disturbed by the recent violent incidents and that different people have different ideas on how to deal with this. Please let's all of us continue this discussion in a civilised way.

[quote user="Harnser"]  Jihadis are living within muslim communities - to encourage those communities to turn against these terrorists and give them up to the security forces, guilt by association leading to deportation is the only way. Murder of innocent people is the height of immorality - these violent psychopaths are living and walking the streets next to you and me - get rid of them out of the country is the solution, if friends and associates are caught up in it - tough, the end justifies the means.[/quote] That to me is the fatal flaw in your argument. By being so openly anti-muslim you will alienate the muslim community and encourage radicalisation. You will also drive it more underground and make it more difficult for intelligence agents to infiltrate and this will lead to more acts of terrorism. Remember not all muslim terrorists are immigrants or of middle-eastern origin. There have been some of british origin that were converts to islam and have attempted to blow up planes and other acts of terrorism. It is my life experience that people tend to co-operate better with people they trust than as a result of threats. That's just one of the reasons I think your plan is not going to work. The end does not always justify the means. Complex problems do not always have a simplistic solution - only in very very rare cases. Your plan would so radically change the character of this country that it would no longer be the country we know and love. Your plan would be doing Isis' work for it.