oakbri

Hi Wildcardinside Of the two in my opinion Lyon would be the better choice. Paris is great to visit, but talking from experience, it's not the best place to live. The weather is grim, winter is cold, wet and grey, summer warmer, wet and grey. Last year summer began and ended in April [:(] The weather in Lyon is much drier and warmer. It also offers the chance to ski in the winter months, the nearest slopes being less than an hour away. The cost of living in Paris is also huge. Last week I went for a pizza in Paris and it cost 14 euros!!! A few nights later I was in Italy and a similar pizza cost less than 6 euros, and was served by a waiter who actually understood the concept of customer service. While alcohol in supermarkets is quite cheap, drinking out is unbelievable, a beer at the hotel near CDG airport is 9 euros !!! The bars regularly charge at least 7 !! You also say you don't like too much concrete, the French love the stuff, as you will notice when you arrive in Paris CDG, it is the largest piece of concrete I have ever seen. The geography of the Paris area is as flat as a billiard table with very little to see, Lyon has far more to offer in this area. Finally nightlife. As a 22 year old I guess it is important to you, I know it was to me when I was your age. Be warned, France is not renowned for it's vibrant nightlife. The majority of the towns and villages in the country effectively close around 6pm and you won't see a soul. Most of the tourist places have a nightlife that rises and falls with the tourist season. That said Paris and Lyon do offer the best of what is avaialable. If nightlife is really important you might want to consider Spain. Good luck whatever you decide.

When we got married our certificate was not in English. When our son was born overseas I was told by the British Embassy that I would need it translated if I wanted a UK birth cert. We got it translated and the translation was attached to the cert by ribbon with a wax stamp. We then moved to Italy where our daughter was  born and in order to get all our documentation we had to get it translated to Italian, however they also insisted on translating the English translation already attached even though it said the same thing. We then had to move to France and had to get it translated to French ( I can't remember why, but we needed it for something). Luckily they didn't translate all the other translations, however our marriage certificate now looks more like a book, it is several pages thick, is all held together with ribbons and wax stamps !!!

[quote user="groslard"][quote user="oakbri"]  Marie took down the street lights yesterday [/quote] Who is Marie? [/quote] Sorry, - Mairie Damn my spelling !!!

[quote user="cooperlola"] People in positions of power are no less susceptible to evil doing than those who are not (possibly more so - Robert Mugabe springs to mind) - that does not mean that the entire population under their control is in agreement with what goes on.  The problem of course is - that with religion as a motivation, they appear to have power over your afterlife as well as life on earth.  What you describe has gone on for centuries (read the bible) - the world is not "going mad" - these things have always happened. The problem lies with those in control. As Robert Reed (former BR chairman) once said - "It's like a septic tank - the sh*t floats to the top." [/quote] So who are the people in control who need to be blamed when a father kills his daughter for honour, the British government? The clerics? This post was originally about changing traditions so as not to offend, a form of political correctness. I think PC is a terrible illness and the UK in my opinion suffers from it worse that most other countries. In the case of the teacher in Sudan, David Milliband wanted her to STAY IN PRISON, all in the name of PC. And the guy is still in office. http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=500631&in_page_id=1770  

[quote user="cooperlola"] Lots of horrible things are done in the name of "religion" or "faith" but on the other hand millions practice their beliefs without ever causing harm to others.  It has always seemed to me that those individuals who are naturally unpleasant use their religious doctrines as a cloak for performing unspeakable acts.  They would probably have acted badly, even without the "excuse" - they just feel it gives them some sort of moral justification.  Tough to argue with anybody who thinks that there's an afterlife where they will be rewarded for doing these horrible things - what punishment can mere mortals give them that will in any way alter their agenda when they have such a belief system? But I still reckon that the majority of people of all faiths and nationalities do not act in this way - happily human nature is better than many people give it credit for and most people really can tell right from wrong.  And make no mistake, crimes committed under the excuse of "faith" have been going on since time immemorial, it wasn't any better 20 years ago (or 200 for that matter) - it's simply that we hear more about it now. [/quote] Cooperlola As you quite righly said, there are good and bad people in all faiths. However most of these people act badly contrary to their religious beliefs not in accordance with it. The amputation of limbs in Saudi is not carried out by individuals for pleasure who later try to use religion to justify it, they are carried out by the Mutaween or religious police, in accordance with sharia law. Similarly the stoning of women is done under sharia law. The recent case in Saudi of a girl sentenced to 200 lashes for being gang raped was done under sharia law. A recent survey of young muslims in the UK showed that around 40% would like to see sharia law in the UK. I am sure many of them only want it to apply to people of their faith but the thought of any part of it finding its way into our judicial system makes my blood run cold. It amazes me these people drop a veil of silence when it comes to a young woman who is murdered by her family, but are quite vocal when a cartoonist draws a stupid cartoon!!! The world is going mad.

[quote user="You can call me Betty"] Maybe before outright condemnation of people doing things under the guise of "religion", and the assumption that this only applies to "other" religions (whatever you choose that to mean) you might all care to read the headlines in today's Times?http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3174882.ece While you're at it, have a look at the actual number of "faith schools" at the bottom of the article. If, as has been contended elsewhere in this thread, there's a muslim takeover bid for the UK, it's certainly not happening in the education sector, is it?   [/quote] Probably better off ignoring the numbers as they seem very inaccurate, especially when it comes to the number of muslim schools, they say 2 when this site (which incidentally is a muslim education website, states 127) http://www.ams-uk.org/

[quote user="Chief"] Can you imagine the threads going up if tehse people were Muslim:.................................................... Disabled fliers get 'rescue' areas Phoenix Sky Harbor has created "areas of rescue assistance" for disabled travelers who might not be able to use elevators during an emergency. They are well-marked areas throughout the airport where people in wheelchairs can gather during evacuation. "Firefighters would know to check (the areas) for people who need assistance down stairs," says spokeswoman Julie Rodriguez. Typically located in the landings of stairwells, the areas will be equipped with a two-way intercom system. There are 18 rescue areas at the airport, and more are in the works. edited to read: Muslim fliers get 'rescue' areas Phoenix Sky Harbor has created "areas of religious assistance" for muslim travelers who might not be able to use prayer mats during an emergency. They are well-marked areas throughout the airport where muslims can gather during evacuation. "Firefighters would know to check (the areas) for muslims who need assistance praying," says spokeswoman Julie Rodriguez. Typically located in the landings of stairwells, and always facing mecca the areas will be equipped with a two-way intercom system, prayer  mats, non-alcoholic drinks, halal canteens and a benefits office. There are 18 rescue areas at the airport, and more are in the works. [/quote] Chief, as you said, imagine how many posts would go up if the story read about providing areas only for muslims, and quite rightly. Why would they not also provide all these facilities for catholics, protestants, buddhists, sikhs etc etc etc? Interestingly why did you add at the end the provision of a benefits office, what does that have to do with the provisioning of places of worship, or do you believe muslims are more likely to be claiming benefit? As some other previous posters have aleady written that they don't like some areas of Islam, I will add to this that I am with them. My personal view is that Islam is a religion which promotes brutality and oppression. I find sharia law, the subjugation of women, the stoning of women, the amputations performed on criminals, the forced marriages, the honour killings all totally repugnant. I also believe that any religion, whilst it condones these actions, has no place in Great Britain.

[quote user="Chief"][quote user="oakbri"] [quote user="Tresco"]...I don't remember anyone implying that the only chancers are non-white, in fact a couple of posts have mentioned that the Sainsbury decision could, for example, pave the way for Catholics to refuse to serve birth control, many catholics are white. No you didn't state that.[:)]All the quotes and current incidences you and others cite, which are reported by various sections of the media, are about Muslims though. You don't think there is anything odd about that? [/quote] I don't know Tresco, could it be that they are the group most predominant in trying it on. It's not only in the UK this link is about Somali taxi drivers in the USA quoting their religion as a reason not to carry passngers carrying alcohol, when it is widely believed that they are using the tactic to get out of picking up small fares. http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2006-09-17-airport-check-in-usat_x.htm [/quote] Seems you were a little ecomonical with the data.  Would appear that there is NOT a wide belief that the tactic is used to avoid small fares (actually it states short distance), but that it is a concern (assume there are other concerns as well). The article states that currently taxi drivers refusing fares are required to go to the back of the taxi rank queue (thus potentially losing more than the 'Big' fares you allude to them preferring).  this policy is under review, but still in force.  Text below: Minneapolis-St. Paul is concerned that its taxi service is deteriorating. Citing their religious beliefs, some Muslim taxi drivers from Somalia are refusing to transport customers carrying or suspected of carrying alcohol. It started with one driver a few years ago, but the average number of fare refusals has grown to about three a day, says airport spokesman Patrick Hogan. "Travelers often feel surprised and insulted," he says. "Sometimes, several drivers in a row refuse carriage." Taxi drivers and officials from the airport, taxi companies and the Muslim American Society are discussing how to address the issue. Partly out of concern that taxi drivers might be citing religion to avoid short-distance fares, the airport is now forcing drivers who refuse a fare to go to the end of the line for waiting taxis. It is not a popular decision among drivers, Hogan says. Might just be me being wrong again, but don't some airlines refuse to take people if they feel they are drunk, or have been drinking too heavily. [/quote] Chief Sorry for using the word widely, that was my mistake, I had read various reports which all voiced the same suspicion, hence my conclusion it was a wide belief, however the origin of the sources would have been the same. I stand corrected. As for small fare or short distance, I would guess they mean one and the same. As for your final remark on airlines not taking drunk passengers, I am not sure what you are getting at or what relevance it has. Airlines can refuse drunk passengers, as can taxi drivers, thats no problem. The report was not about drunk passengers, it quite clearly talked about passengers arriving with duty free in their bags from their flight, which is not uncommon.

[quote user="Tresco"]...I don't remember anyone implying that the only chancers are non-white, in fact a couple of posts have mentioned that the Sainsbury decision could, for example, pave the way for Catholics to refuse to serve birth control, many catholics are white. No you didn't state that.[:)]All the quotes and current incidences you and others cite, which are reported by various sections of the media, are about Muslims though. You don't think there is anything odd about that? [/quote] I don't know Tresco, could it be that they are the group most predominant in trying it on. It's not only in the UK this link is about Somali taxi drivers in the USA quoting their religion as a reason not to carry passngers carrying alcohol, when it is widely believed that they are using the tactic to get out of picking up small fares. http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2006-09-17-airport-check-in-usat_x.htm

Tresco I don't remember anyone implying that the only chancers are non-white, in fact a couple of posts have mentioned that the Sainsbury decision could, for example, pave the way for Catholics to refuse to serve birth control, many catholics are white. The simple fact of the matter is that a poor decision like the one from Sainsburys creates a precident which can be exploited by all chancers, no matter what their creed or colour.

I have some terrible problems with AXA and finally changed to AMV, I think it is www.amv.fr. If I remember correctly one of the clauses where you can get out of a contract is if they hike the price up at renewal, I don't know if it still the same. Anyway when AXA sent my renewal it had gone up over a hundred euros, when I tried to exercise the get out clause the manager admitted he had simply added an extra, which I had not asked for, when I tried the get out he removed the extra to bring the quote back to the original price and told me I would therefore not be able to cancel the contract. Anyway best of luck

[quote user="Chief"][quote user="oakbri"] 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] Expanding this a little then.  What isd your position on female firefighters?  Reason i ask, they are not permitted to fight fires in radioactive environments in case of damage to their reproductive organs.  Fortunately male firefighters don't have reproductive organs so i guess thats okay........ I think the issue is this.  If you can comfortably accommodate a specific request or dispensation without detriment to service or standards, why not do so. Crosses, turbans, no radiation, no alcohol,...not detriment then why not?????????? [/quote] Chief But in the case of Sainsburys there is a huge detriment to service. if you read the report it says each time any alcohol is placed on the conveyor he either swaps with someone else or raises his hand until another member of staff handles the alcohol for him. Now imagine a very busy Sainsburys on a Saturday, thousands of people will pass through the shop during thee day, a percentage of whom will include in their shopping a beer or a bottle of wine etc etc. I don't know what percentage but I would guess it to be considerable. Certainly in my experience in supermarkets a vast majority of trolleys will have alcohol in some form or another, or maybe thats just France [:D] I think the disruption caused but the check out process being stopped each and every time alcohol is presented would by fairly big. With the case of BA and the cross, there is obviously no detriment to service, but my opinion was that is was a gross piece of poor management to ban one group from displaying a religious symbol on the grounds that it was not necessary, but was still going to allow another group display an equally unnecessary symbol, especially when at the end of the day its the passenger that counts, and I as a passenger, don't care to see any symbols as it is of no interest to me, I just want to be checked in for my flight.

[quote user="Pierre ZFP"]Read in the paper today that there were an astonishing 4615 deaths on French roads in 2007 and 104 601 injured in a total of  81 378(reported) accidents.  This is an increase of around 2% on 2006.  I don't know what the numbers are for the UK or other EU countries but it seems very high to me.  It would seem that the extra speed checks and cameras are having little effect.  I wonder if we will see lots more of them in France in an attempt to curb the carnage rather than trying to address the fundementals of why it's happening - or am I begining to sound like JC? link repaired by a mod [/quote] I would doubt the cameras will do anything to reduce accidents. I don't want to look up statistics as you will find ones that show them as effective and ones that don't. We all know statistics can be manipulated to show whatever you want. However speaking from personal experience, I find myself very distracted, especially when driving in the UK, constantly checking my speedo, and I don't like anything that takes my eyes off the road ahead. Modern cars are well soundproofed and its getting harder to just judge your speed with enough accuracy. Governments don't really care if you hit someone who stepped out from behind a parked car because at that split second you were once again checking your speedo, they want your money !!! I don't advocate getting rid of cameras, and one 100 metres before a school is always a good thing. However a camera in a van on a bridge above the A1 at 2 am is tantamount to highway robbery.  

[quote user="Tresco"]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] Agreed The chancers don't come to an interview and start dictating what part of the job they want. But in keeping with your post, where you described immigrants being discriminated against. Now imagine you are the manager of a Sainsbury supermarket. 2 people apply for a job. They are both intelligent, well presented and have the required qualifications, however 1 is muslim. 1 person will slot straight in and do the whole job, the other MAY OR MAY NOT decide after they begin they no longer want to handle alcohol. It could be they will not misuse the goodwill of the store, as was reported in the article, however they may be of the other breed. They therefore find themselves being discriminated against due to a rule which should never have been allowed in the first place.

Tresco Agreed, it is not only the muslims, they have become a focus of the press post 9/11, but this story shows how important it is not to change rules to favour anyone. If you allow it for one group it opens the doors for all the others. Firstly the muslims won't sell alcohol, next catholics won't sell birth control. Before you know it people of jewish descent will be refusing to sell to people they suspect of being arabic. When someone from any background takes a job they know what the work entails. For an employer to then bow to the demands of one group is incredibly irresponsible. If some aspect of that job doesn't fit your beliefs then you know where the door is, someone else, who will be the better man for the job , will take your place.

I found a link to the story. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2558198.ece Another amazing piece of mismanagement, especially in light of the fact it is even being condemned by senior muslims. I don't know who is more at fault, Sainsburys or the staff abusing this rule to escape work. The point is that, as a manager of the store, it is your responsibility to employ the best man for the job, who would you employ?

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.

Tresco 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. The British Airways fiasco was a perfect example. The lady was banned from visibly displaying a cross. Why? Because it wasn't necessary for her religion. However hijabs were going to be allowed, even though they are not a requirement of the Koran. This was a BA rule, not government doctrine, but what a perfect example of how a stupid decision can cause a cultural divide. The decision was eventually recinded, however my personal belief is that it would have been better to keep it, but apply it to EVERYONE. But as I said that is my opinion. I applauded the French law 2004-228 for this reason. When they banned the wearing of religious symbols in schools it didn't matter if you were christian, jewish or muslim, the rules were meant for everyone.

Many thanks Ian As I said I don't mean the little guy any harm I just don't want him in my house throwing wild tap dancing parties at all hours of the night and the thought of him filling our loft and walls with dead bodies is making my other half a little nervous. So am going to try to locate some moth balls today.

Many thanks for the replies. I will try the mothball route. Strangely I was working up there 2 days ago, making lots of noise, after a couple of weeks break over Christmas. Since all the noise we haven't heard him, he probably hates the noise of a hammer drill (as we all do). As I understand he may well come back so I will try to make the place as unattractive as possible for when he gets her with a liberal layer of mothballs. Thanks for the advice.

The Marie took down the street lights yesterday, most homeowners followed suit, although some are still up. Amazing quite a number leave the lights and decorations up all year, obviously they don't turn them on, but it does make me smile to see a little Santa hanging onto a ladder in July, but I think this is just pure laziness.

[quote user="Chief"][quote user="Chief"][quote user="oakbri"] A friend of mine was telling me how his young son brought a letter home from school saying they were taking the children to visit a mosque "in order to give a balanced veiw of faiths", my friend bumped into the headmaster outside the school and said that it was fair enough but asked when were they going to visit a church as well, the headmaster said they were not, as it might offend the parents of the muslim children. [/quote] Can you provide the name of the school and headmaster by any chance.  I would love to take this up (as unbelievable and hearsay as it sounds [;-)]) [/quote] Oakbri, you seem to have forgotten this one.  Is it as i suspected, just tittle tattle that you are repeating for effect or is there some basis to it. [/quote] Chief Not forgotten, just tryng to think of a way to email my friend in the UK to ask him for his sons old school details about an incident that happened 18 months so someone can make something out of it, and not sound a bit strange

Charlotte3 I never saw the original post. Awful story. Don't expect the UK to do anything unless Bush says so, and he won't bother unless it suits his agenda. The monks were brave men, the fact the military government happily butchered them to hold onto power shows what little hope that country has.  

Betty, a few thousand from 39 million is a massive difference to a few thousand from 2.2 million. Again, in a huge city like Khartoum with little infrastucture or transport options, the actual percentage is impossible to calculate. But anyway we are now way off topic.

[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."   Exactly what happenned with the teddy bear.....silly woman!  She was very lucky. Aly [/quote] Sorry Charlotte are just saying she deserved it? You don't think the religion of peace over reacted? As it transpired it was the kids who named the bear, muslim kids, the teacher had nothing to do with it. It also transpired it was started by a vindictive email from a secretary, knowing the teacher had no knowledge of the problems it could cause. Had that teacher been working in say Dublin and the kids called a teddy moses do you think there would have been a crowd baying for her blood? Thought not. How about if she was in Tel Aviv, angry jews wanting to cut her head off,,,,, doubtful. So why in Sudan ??