powerdesal

I don't like IE, which is why I use Chrome.

dwmcn, ''powerdesal, You can copy and paste parts of posts, you know. I do it. David'' Thank you for the advice David, however, with my post count of 4000+ versus your 200+ I believe I may have just a tad more experience of using this forum than you do. :-)

[quote user="Quillan"][quote user="powerdesal"][quote user="Quillan"] [quote user="Russethouse"]Q, apart from you, just who is it that wants this federal system - lets not count Germany.[/quote] Just try Googling "who wants a federal Europe". Many can see beyond their ancient bigotry and the end of their nose. Nothing personal I should add. [/quote] Quillan, I have already said that I accept your federalist viewpoint but don't agree with it. Everyone has the right to their own opinion even if you don't agree with it. There is, in my opinion, no reason to be insulting ( your 'bigotry' comment ) if / when you are not in agreement. Such insults are not civilised nor democratic.[/quote] It's not insulting, it is true. Many people, particularly in the UK and are of a certain age or greater still hold certain bigoted views about particular countries in Europe. As an example my wife's mother always hated the French because she was bought up during WW2 in the east end of London. Almost every day when she went to school there would be an extra empty desk in the school somewhere because another child had died in the Blitz. Her view was that this happened only because the French never fought the Germans and just gave up. I know, through history as I was not born then, that this was not the case but never the less that was her bigoted view of the French. My father would never buy German or Japanese goods because of the war. The Greeks and I think some Spanish and Italians made references to Hitler with regards to the Germans because Germany told them to cut their spending before they would receive any loans. I think that the Brits in Cyprus and not very happy with the Germans either and have probably called them a few names as well. Because of this bigotry and hate in some cases there are people who can't see beyond the end of their noses and that the only way the planet is going to move forward is by eventually becoming one planet instead of individual countries. Only then can we eradicate things like war, starvation, poverty, pollution, disease etc although that dream won't happen for a couple of hundred years, I just hope we don't destroy the place first. That's one of many reasons I support federalism in Europe as it is one small step towards the final goal of us all living together in harmony as human beings. History has proved some of this to be true, there has not been a European war for decades thanks in part (a large part) to the EU. Just to take up very quickly and basically the difference between the old USSR. Many ex USSR states never got the choice in being a member, they we forced under the threat of death to be a member or were 'given' to the USSR as part of both the Yalta and Potsdam conferences. The EU is democratic, we get a vote, we can vote yes or no, we can vote for anyone we like with currently the exception of the President and Finance Minister although that will change hopefully within the next ten years or so according to many. [/quote] Quillan, I accept that there is still hate in some quarters in respect of things they have suffered in the past, particularly WW2. However, I believe that your original ''bigotry'' comment was an implication that anyone who cannot see the ''benefits'' of a federalised Europe is a bigot, as in:- Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics. Those of us who want to retain the sovereignty of our parent country do not hate, treat with contempt or intolerance those people of other countries. We want to be friends with and trade with them. We do not want it to be ruled by anyone other than its own elected Government. That is not bigotry in any definition. I would dispute the effect of the EU on the lack of European wars in the last 60+ years, I would say it was due to the existence of NATO and a realisation that the MAD doctrine was a sobering point.

[quote user="Quillan"] [quote user="Russethouse"]Q, apart from you, just who is it that wants this federal system - lets not count Germany.[/quote] Just try Googling "who wants a federal Europe". Many can see beyond their ancient bigotry and the end of their nose. Nothing personal I should add. [/quote] Quillan, I have already said that I accept your federalist viewpoint but don't agree with it. Everyone has the right to their own opinion even if you don't agree with it. There is, in my opinion, no reason to be insulting ( your 'bigotry' comment ) if / when you are not in agreement. Such insults are not civilised nor democratic.

Quillan, ''Hopefully most of this will be sorted out when we have a federal system and Brussels will collect all taxes then pass them on to each state.'' I appreciate your federalist view but.....not all of us share the view of it's desirability.

[quote user="woolybanana"]Not outrageous at all, Nick, just an urge. To try and sort the wood from the trees. And it seems that UKIP is more like like a swamp![/quote] Wooly, What, specifically, do you object to in the statements and sentiments expressed in your opening post ?

[quote user="John Brown"]Very good! You would spell it wrong if you had just had it done Still getting over the shock! Only went in for a repeat Script Please explain the Vulcans / Powerdesal. How do they go together ? BTW I have a couple of NATO Issue Sickbags from a Vulcan in my car ( un-used ) [/quote] My last tour of duty in the RAF was as an Engineering Flight Commander on Vulcans at RAF Waddington. They have only a tenuous connection to the 'Powerdesal' moniker, that comes from the fact that my career subsequent to leaving the RAF was as a power and desalination engineer.

When we lived in Wales and had an Ivy problem we were told that cutting the main root at ground level and removing at least 6 inches of the trunk would work, it certainly seemed to. Perhaps French Ivy is more resilient.

I would imagine being prostrate for an examination is pretty normal - possibly even for a prostate check.

I seem to recall a historical method of destroying cultivation potential by ploughing salt into the ground. It seemed to be the method preferred by William the Conqueror in the North of England.

[quote user="woolybanana"]PD, have you finally decided to be in France full time or do you still have a foot in both camps. And, no I am not![/quote] Wooly, we are now 100% resident in France, we have no plans to return to the UK therefore, IMHO, we are immigrants. It is my opinion that anyone who lives permanently in another country, with no plans to leave that country after a pre-determined time is a de-facto immigrant. The British people who live in France and insist on calling themselves 'expats' are deluding themselves unless they are on a fixed-term residence with a home maintained back in UK ready for their planned return.

[quote user="woolybanana"]We are not immigrants![/quote] Oh yes we are !!!!!!

[quote user="You can call me Betty"][quote user="powerdesal"] Surely it's up to the immigrant to assimilate / integrate, not the host country population.[/quote] Presumably, that also applies to every Tom, Dick and Harry on here who posts looking for an "English speaking" doctor, dentist, hairdresser, car mechanic, notaire....... [/quote] Yes, it does.

[quote user="Wilko"]It's an immigration problem that successive Swedish governments didn't see coming. They opened their borders in the '70s to various immigrants, but failed to assimilate them in a worthwhile manner, now they are paying the price, bit similar to Blair's mc bullshit. My wife, on a recent visit, was somewhat surprised that the taxi driver couldn't speak svenska.[/quote] Surely it's up to the immigrant to assimilate / integrate, not the host country population.

Fell out of a Range Rover at 70 MPH......I don't believe it. Given the height of a RR seat and that speed, in my opinion he would be dead, not just a couple of cuts. Journalistic licence with a vengeance.

There have been various comments on here and other posts disparaging UKIP and Nigel Farage. I recently ( this morning ) saw a BBC article :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22396690 which was interesting. I cannot see much in the stated aims of UKIP that are to be objected to. Neither can I see any overt racist policies. Regarding ''protest votes'', any vote at any level which is not in support of the existing status is, by definition, a protest against that status. For example, in a general election, a vote to change the ruling govt from (say) tory to labour is a vote protesting against the tory govt.

Your edit certainly clears it up.

I agree about the Scottish Stormtroopers. Why can't you stand UKIP?

I voted for membership of the Common Market ( as it was known then) because it made sense, it still makes sense. The concept of a group of independent countries having common trading standards etc is great. The concept of each country giving up its sovereignty to a govt in Brussels / Strasbourg is not so great. I do not know if the UK leaving the EU would be good or bad for the UK. My own opinion is that it ''may'' be a good thing. My opinion is however pretty academic, the opinion that matters is that of the UK population as expressed in a vote - that is what democracy is all about. If the vote is to leave, even by a narrow margin, then that is the wish of the people - right or wrong.

'' I think I mentioned in another thread that I believe it very dangerous to put the vote to the public to decide whether to stay in or not. The majority of people are not well informed enough to make that decision.'' Dangerous thing Democracy ! Fancy asking the people of a so-called sovereign country to vote. Much better to rely on those who know they are born to lead.

Apparently Stuart Hall has moved from adamant denial to a confession. I wonder how much 'pressure' was applied during the interrogation of an 87 year old. What I really fail to get is the fact that the Police carry out 'dawn raids' on these old people, what do they expect them to do - escape over a back fence? Once upon a time suspects were ''invited'' to a Police station to answer questions, now it's an automatic arrest - why? Then there is the removal of bags full of 'evidence'. Evidence in regard of an allegation of an offence 46 years ago - get real ! edit: I read there is now a compensation claim in the offing - who would have thought it !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whether the state pension is called a 'benefit' or a 'welfare payment' or an 'entitlement' does not really alter the situation. The concept of 'National Insurance' being paid by every worker in the country was sold and is sold to the population as:- a. An insurance payment which covers the cost of health care as and when needed, unemployment welfare payments etc. b. An insurance payment which guarantees an income when working income stops on retirement. It matters not whether the NI funds were a Ponzi scheme or were invested or were used as a part of the general tax income of the state. The contract was made between the State and the individual. The individual trusted the State to do the 'right thing' in exchange for their payments. The payments were / are compulsory and the rate of payment is not negotiable. As such the State is morally, if not legally, required to maintain the payments out under the terms agreed. Whilst it is obviously possible for the state to move the goal posts, vary the premiums required and change the payments made from the scheme it does not alter the moral requirements. Still, who expects politicians to have morals ?

NickP I'm with you on the 'not giving anything back'. Having been screwed by the total inefficiency of HMRC in respect of my wife's pension I have zero sympathy towards the call to give something back. They could triple the WFA and it would still be years before we recover what was robbed from us by the clowns at HMRC.

There is a basic assumption that by the time someone reaches pension age they have no mortgage to find and that they have accrued some savings to supplement the state pension. A single non-pension person has to fund accommodation and has no savings to fall back on. The assumptions are, of course, false in many cases. In the past there was the perception that the state pension would be sufficient to live on and that's effectively how it was 'sold' to previous generations. Perhaps not a particularly good standard of living but certainly not abject poverty. Most of the 'older' generation realised that 'saving for old age' was also a necessity. Unfortunately the rise in cost of living, particularly fuel costs, together with extremely low returns on savings have effectively 'moved the goal posts' to a dramatic degree.

The UK state pension is NOT a 'benefit' in terms of the welfare budget. It is an entitlement under a contract with the Govt that required the recipient to pay a compulsory payment into the scheme. The UK media like to pander to the 'young is good - the old are useless' brigade by implying that all pensioners are:- a. Wealthy b. Getting free TV licences c. getting £200 each per year heating allowance whilst living in Spain. d. Getting free travel on buses. The reality is, of course, very different. The TV licence applies to those over 75 years of age. The WFA is £200 per household, not per person A bus pass has to be applied for. Even if in receipt of WFA and not wanting it there is no facility to return it. A point rarely mentioned is that anyone in receipt of pension income that exceeds the personal tax allowance is required to pay income tax, just like anyone who is working. The truth does not sell papers.