Tresco

[:D] Did you get your waders on and try to find the treasure?

[quote user="cooperlola"]... such a change from the tone of this thread a day or so ago when brick walls and keyboards were taking such a battering.  [:)][/quote] Even then it was mostly only keyboards taking a beating, not personal attacks on forum members[:)]

From the article (and thanks for the link)[:)] "The fault lies with the employee who is exploiting and misusing their goodwill" Like I said. Chancers.[:)] Edited to add; Who would I employ? Well this is the trouble with chancers. They don't say at their interviews that they don't want to actually do the job they have applied for do they?  It's only later that the fantasy job (as opposed to the real one) they have in their heads comes to the fore.

[quote user="oakbri"]Tell me Tresco, do you not view the new act as a positive step? Do not think I believe the law is aimed at discriminating against people, you are right, it is there to protect everyone, like I said, treat everyone the same. At the end of the day a law introduced to give equality is very different to one which openly gives favour. The British airways debacle was a horrendous piece of mismanagement, and I assume the person responsible is no longer employed by BA. When I am checking in for a flight with BA I don't care if the check in agent believes in God, Allah or fairies at the bottom of the garden. I read recently that one of the UK supermarket chains was going allow muslim check out staff to refuse to serve alcohol to people. Don't ask me to prove it as it was way before christmas and I can't remember where I read it and I don't know if it ever came to anything. The point is that, as you said, immigrants were discriminated against in the work place, yet here we have the same immigrants trying to dictate which part of the job they want to do. As an employer do you employ the British applicant who will just do the whole job or the immigrant who will only do the part that suits them? To avoid discrimination you must try to fit in and not expect your host country to adopt to you. [/quote] (my bold) I've already said that on the whole I disagreed with the new law, but that's because, in my view, it will prove very very hard to prosecute on the basis of it. However if you are suggesting the new law 'favours' one religious group over any other, then I have to disagree with you. It puts people of all faiths (and none) on an equal footing as far as protection from incitement to hatred on the basis of religion (or from having no religion). Previously, the law only pretected Jews and Sikhs. The other examples are nothing to do with the Government. There are 'chancers' everywhere and yes, some of them are Muslims, but they aren't trying to dictate to the government, or their 'host' country.;; they are just chancing their luck. Anyone who has ever employed people will know how extensive the practice of  employees trying to subvert the terms and conditions they signed up to is. It's just the ones who are Muslims that have featured so heavily in certain sections of the press, in recent times.

[quote user="Ford Anglia"]Why? Why couldn't it have been poor visibility? Or poorly drained road surfaces? Or drivers who were distracted by the rain, spray, wipers etc? Or people using rear foglamps so blinding others in wet conditions? I can only agree with your statement if you remove the word "excessive", or if you mean that they shouldn't have been moving AT ALL. FA[/quote] (my bold) I suspect those are some of the 'conditions' SD was referring to. For example, if someone is blinding me with their fog lights, I slow down and let them get far, far away from me, rather than put myself in danger by maintaining the same speed while being dazzled.

[quote user="oakbri"]...I was simply trying to demonstrate one of the many reports where UK life was being adopted in order to accommodate newcomers to the UK, which if my memory serves me right was what the original post was all about. If someone wants to move to the UK or any country, work, pay tax and abide by the law then the best of luck to them. However them being there should not have an impact on the established population that could be viewed as negative. One of the keys to this, I believe, is the equal treatment of everyone. [/quote](my bold) I'm afraid 'good luck' 'hard work' etc simply wasn't enough for earlier groups of immigrants who were discriminated against in all walks of life, including in employment.  Hence, we have a  history of introducing and adapting Law to try and counter some of the more overtly discriminatory practices that were so common 30/40 years ago. I'm sure plenty of people found earlier legislation 'negative' too. Would you have those former laws repealed?  I seem to recall a bit of a kerfuffle about the Sexual Discrimination Act. What a battle that was, and what a terrible shame it was to have to compel employers etc to treat women 'equally'. Wouldn't it be great if we were all just treated as equals by everyone else, without these pesky laws.[:)] This new Act, (scrappy as it is) was enacted to try and ensure equal treatment or rather equal protection for everyone of faith, and indeed for those of no faith whatsoever.

Frederick, while I wasn't brought up to believe in voluntary work, I have always done a lot of it in one way or another. Try not to be so daunted by these pen pushers. Write a couple of choicely worded letters to try and challenge this decision. Send me the info and I'll do the same. Of course I wish you all joyous things in France, but there are plenty of other people waiting to step up full time as you've done, as long as they don't have to pay for the priveledge (sp!). 

[quote user="krusty"]...this bird is staying in my pear tree .......been coming to our house everyday for three months[/quote] And very nice he is too.[:)] 

[quote user="oakbri"][quote user="Tresco"][quote user="Bugbear"]At the end of the day does it really matter, surely it's all about how an individual sees a particular situation. T[/quote] No, it isn't. On here, it's about people posting stuff, wildly exaggerated claims which reflect badly on minority groups in society, and not providing the slightest scrap of evidence to back up their claims.. These posters will never, ever, show me the law that has banned Nativity Plays, Gollys, Christmas Carols Singers, in fact Christmas...they will never, ever,  show me the Governments role in 'yielding' to the 'demands' of Muslims, of policies which 'throw away' or in other ways try to 'get rid of' our heritage. [/quote] Tresco Friday June 10, 2005 The Guardian "A mandate is a wonderful thing, even if this government's rests on just 22% of the electorate. A bad bill already twice rejected with a big rebellion on Labour benches was tabled again yesterday, regardless of the strength of opposition to it. The incitement to religious hatred bill is back, although it lost the argument resoundingly on every other outing. Forward not back? No, back for the third time. Why? To appease a Muslim vote that elected George Galloway in Bethnal Green and gave a fright to several other MPs. It is an appeasing gesture strongly lobbied for by the mainstream Muslim Council of Britain. But its unintended consequences will stir up exactly the religious hatred it seeks to assuage." Most of the things you list can be found by a simple google search. I am sure everyone remembers the storekeeper raided by police for selling golliwogs. The charges were finally dropped in the face of massive public pressure. But what were the police doing with this in the first place. [/quote] I apologise for the massive nested quotes. Oakbri I don't know why you have cited this partial quote (and old) quote from Polly Toynbee in answer to what I said. However I said I would answer, so I will. I'm in broad agreement with Ms Toynbee, as it happens. I was at the time, but there were many people who disagreed with me. They included not only The Methodist Church, but the C of E, and Catholics were pretty keen on it too, their only quibble being that they still wanted to be able to say what they say about homosexuality.[:)] The Bill aimed to close the loophole in various other Acts, whereby Jews and Sikhs were 'protected' against racial hatred through 'attacks' on faith, but Christians, Muslims, and other religious groups were excluded from protection, so it's not surprising a wide variety of faith groups supported it, badly draughted though it was. The Association of Chief Police Officers also supported the Bill (as it was, at that stage). The people opposing the bill made for strange bedfellows.[:D] The law was passed, after much amendment. Some of the amendments took on board the C of E and Catholic churches needs to...say what they say about homosexuality.[;-)] If you read it, well to me it seems really unwieldy and I would guess unworkable, but I'm not a lawyer, or a Crown Prosecution Service person, and nor do I have a 'legal' mind. I await with interest the first prosecutions, but think I'll be waiting some time for a successful one. I don't think this is something we're going to see much of. A lot of time and money spent for very little gain.

[quote user="Frederick"]I shall soldier on without the sandwiches ! ...They also reduced the amount they give is to cover any mobile phone calls at the same time .....they will give us £2 to cover calls in a 6 day period ...Southampton General NHS Trust spent about a million filling in a fish pond and paving it over.....Health and Safety  issue ? ....[/quote] Frederick, I'm glad you're going to 'soldier' on.  It seems very mean spirited to treat volunteers this way. I can sort of  understand them taking the meal allowance away, but I don't see how the £2 max phone bill can be fair...if you had an accident or the patient you were transporting became very ill, you could easily pass that amount trying to contact people. Is the finace department seriously intent on rejecting claims made due to circumstances like this?  Did they even consult with any volunteers about these changes? Come on Ford Anglia, give us a hint as to where to find the articles you posted about![:D] (I have tried, I promise). Some large hospitals are inhabited, and visited, by many thousands of people a day. I'm guessing cleaning up, constantly, after that lot takes some doing. A lot of staff, shifts, and dealing with chemicals and oooh all sorts of  grim things. I wouldn't want to pay the person who managed all that peanuts.

[quote user="groslard"]...In brief, if you are a bit hesitant in French , "Martin Bouygues is chairman of a group that has 42,9% of TF1,  was  a witness at Nicolas et Cécilia Sarkozy's wedding and is Godfather to their son Louis. Arnaud Lagardère, is  président of the  group Lagardère, and was introduced as 'more of a brother than a friend' by Sarkozy.[/quote] Dreams can come true, then.

[quote user="The Riff-Raff Element"]... Did I dream it, or is the boss at TF1 his best mate?[/quote] If you did dream it then I have to report we are dreaming the same dreams. If I wasn't so moody, I would take enjoyment from that [:D] but even more from watching the spectacle being played out....[;-)] My neighbs are wondering why nothing has happened to ease their terrible situations. All my closest neighbours are small businesspeople: they are 'Farmers' attempting to diversify. Yes they get their subsidies for this and that, but they know they can't go on like that for ever. They want to look to the future. They want to be able to employ people, and they can't do that. Many of you will know exactly why.

[quote user="Russethouse"]No pressure then ?[:)][/quote] Rest assured Gay, I questioned Katie very closely about this. Quite the inquisition it was. I was assured that no child would be left behind.[:D]

[quote user="Charlotte3"]Interesting that this is from all the people who couldn't give a ---- about the Burmese monks being bludgeoned to death.....I mean, this is just sooo much more important, isn't it? We Brits are just so tolerant, aren't we.....read as "so wrapped up in ourselves that we can't see anyone else's point of view"! Aly [/quote] Aly I have to reiterate Gays post...I don't know where the Monks came into the thread. OK I will look back, but don't forget I'm still looking up things Oakbri pointed to 2 pages back. I may be some time...[Www]

[quote user="Iceni"]But I don't want to have to pay for things I don't want [:@] Or does that not matter ?[/quote] What are you being asked to pay for that you don't want, John?

[quote user="Charlotte3"]"No one should expect to go to a new country and  to have it changed  to fit in with them , they should learn to fit in with the country they have moved to.  NO? I have no problems with any one living where they want as long as they dosnt affect the natives in a negative way."(Pads) Exactly what happenned with the teddy bear.....silly woman!  She was very lucky. Aly [/quote] She was indeed. Thank goodness we Brits aren't seeking to sink to that level of intolerance. I'm way behind now. You guys are too quick for me.

[quote user="Marton"][quote user="You can call me Betty"][quote user="Marton"] The trouble with lots of posters on here is that you don't believe others are entitled to their opinions.     We all have one, and are entitled to it without the walls being posted.    [/quote]   You have every right to your opinion, Marton, just as everyone who has oppposed that opinion has a right to theirs. However, if you choose to twist statistics, manipulate documents and cherrypick spurious evidence to support your opinion, then it's only reasonable to expect that your use of this supposed "evidence" will be challenged. It's not your opinion that I personally wish to challenge. If that's the opinion you want to hold, then fine. I will continue to challenge you, however, where you present unsubstantiated tabloid BS as justification for that opinion. Because it's my opinion that it is wrong to allow misinformation to be disseminated in the guise of "facts".   [/quote] Ok depend on Tresco - he/she googles everything.      Open your eyes and get the blinkers off you may see some facts for yourself. [/quote] I think if you look closely, you'll find you were speaking to Betty on this occasion. Ooops sorry, just realised you were talking about my googling skills. If only you would learn some.

[quote user="Marton"]I never said there was any law, I said individual education authorities were banning depending on multi-cultural pupil levels. [/quote] Yes you did, and they as far as I can make out no Education Authority has done so.  You certainly didn't provide any evidence to suggest a EA had done so, and neither has anyone else. You also asserted that 'All went downhill after we give way for the banning of the golliwogs' when Gollys never were Banned. You then went on to post some statistics which purported to demonstrate that most immigrants to UK were a load of freeloaders, and which consequently were shown to have demonstrated...the opposite, if anything. [quote user="Marton"]...Remember the issue of the B.A. worker who was stopped from wearing her necklace crucifix.  I suppose that did'nt happen either.   [/quote] (My bold). No it didn't. She wasn't stopped from wearing it, she was stopped from wearing it on display. She works for BA if I recall correctly, and would have had the same reaction to a nose ring. The Prime Minister stated his objections...everyone did...but BA stuck to their guns, as the visible display of a crucifix is not a requirmement for Christans. Your final comment has to be one of the cheapest shots ever made on this forum. Do you seriously think you are the only forum member whose family has been affected by devastating events recently? As for your 'what goes around comes around' goes, it is beneath contempt to suggest that people who disagree with you here on these issues would not sympathise with your familys' distress, or worse, that by not doing so publicly, ill may befall them.  

[quote user="oakbri"]Tresco Friday June 10, 2005 The Guardian "A mandate is a wonderful thing, even if this government's rests on just 22% of the electorate. A bad bill already twice rejected with a big rebellion on Labour benches was tabled again yesterday, regardless of the strength of opposition to it. The incitement to religious hatred bill is back, although it lost the argument resoundingly on every other outing. Forward not back? No, back for the third time. Why? To appease a Muslim vote that elected George Galloway in Bethnal Green and gave a fright to several other MPs. It is an appeasing gesture strongly lobbied for by the mainstream Muslim Council of Britain. But its unintended consequences will stir up exactly the religious hatred it seeks to assuage." Most of the things you list can be found by a simple google search. I am sure everyone remembers the storekeeper raided by police for selling golliwogs. The charges were finally dropped in the face of massive public pressure. But what were the police doing with this in the first place. [/quote] Oakbri I'm sorry I missed your post too. The link you give leads to todays Guardian, (whereas the quote 2 years old) is from somewhere else...I will track it down though.[:)] A simple google search in most cases leads to evidence of just how much many of these 'stories' are exaggerated, but that's beside the point. Why should I be the person who has to search for these 'stories' people come up with, time and time again, about Muslims forcing non muslims to do this, that and the other?  Why don't forum members quote their sources at the outset? I have no idea what the police were doing, as there is no BAN on Gollys. Nasty things though.

[quote user="Bugbear"]...Likewise................................[/quote] What are you relieved about? I never suggested I was 'helping' you.[8-)]

[quote user="Charlotte3"]...I'm sure I heard that the history of WW2 and our role in it was no longer to be taught in English schools, but I would be really happy to be told otherwise![/quote] Ooops sorry Aly, I missed your post. I know that their was some discussion a year or two ago about the secondary History syllabus being a bit top heavy with Nazis/WW2. There was no mention of 'dropping' WW2 though. Edit: We can't say N azis???

[quote user="Bugbear"]..Well if you didn't understand what I said, I don't think I can help you further.[/quote] That's a relief.

[quote user="Bugbear"]Read my post, in full.............................[/quote] I did. Twice.

[quote user="Bugbear"]...Carry on then Tresco,  and when you all reach a mutually agreed conclusion,  I'll be the first to apologise.[/quote] Are you suggesting that because their is little chance that everyone will agree, we should all stop talking?

[quote user="TWINKLE"]Oh well - she's disappeared again.  She was in Hong Kong on new years eve, and on Friday she was leaving Singapore on a flight to Sydney. [/quote] She pm'd me from Sydney. She said she was having a fantastic time... While her back's turned, could we discuss the other thing? The Paris thing?[:D]