Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: L.A. on May 20, 2016, 02:27:06 PM
-
I was listening to something on Radio 4 the other night and it brought it all back.
In the 1970's Britain used to dump large amounts of untreated sewage into the sea with the result that most British sea-side beaches were unhealthy if not downright dangerous. Everyone knew what the problem was and everyone knew what the solution was, but there was a lack of political will to do anything about it! Then along came the tyrannical Common Market (as it was then) and told us we had to get it sorted, and after a lot of huffing and puffing we finally did, with the result that (although not perfect) we now have some of the cleanest beaches in the world.
Then I remembered that in the 1990's it became apparent that British car prices were significantly higher than the equivalent car in continental Europe. British dealers were able to make a packet because there was a closed market for UK spec cars. Then along came the EU and said this was illegal. I nipped on an Easyjet to the Netherlands and picked up a brand new peugeot 206 and saved myself over 2 grand. And eventually UK prices dropped to to the point that it wasn't worth importing the car yourself.
More recently there has been the 'roaming' scandal. For years the Mobile phone operators have ripped-off travellers abroad with exorbitant roaming charges, but now the EU have stepped in to limit these to a more moderate level.
These are typical examples of the EU interfering in British Law - are they really so bad? Of course you might take the view that it is every Britain's inalienable right be able to swim in sewage and get ripped-of by car dealers and phone companies - but personally I'd go with the EU every time.
So what about this flood of migrants? you might ask.
Interestingly, I got chatting to a lady at a National Trust property in Lincolnshire a few weeks ago. It was an agricultural area with quite a high number of Eastern Europeans. My wife (who had unfortunately been reading the Daily Mail) asked her about the migrants along the lines: "Isn't it terrible living with so many foreigners" - but apparently it's not. Most are good hard-working people who are keen to integrate. Yes, there have been problems with a small number and services have been strained - but their input has boosted the local economy.
And of course the provision of health and education services, is very much down to OUR government.
-
Dear Lapsed,
And of course the provision of health and education services, is very much down to OUR government.
Amen old chap, the rest of your post is pretty good to. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Further to LA's point about immigration, I live near plenty of Lithuanians in Norfolk and Lincs, they work hard, they're nice people, and some of them are starting up businesses. I've heard that in Peterborough, as x number of immigrants move in, unemployment goes down. Personal touch, my nephew is dating a Lithuanian girl, she is numero uno in my book, a smashing girl.
-
My 11 year old daughter thinks the EU is a mixed bag. She asked me this morning which way I was voting in the referendum and I said probably remain, and I then asked her what her view was. Her view was that it depends on what people's priorities are - she said that for example if people care about animal welfare, the EU has refused to stop live transportation of animals for slaughter over long distances, which causes them a lot of unnecessary suffering.
There are EU members who put the economic benefits to member states above animal welfare and have little regard for ethical trading. Apparently despite the European Parliament supporting restricting or ending certain practices - I think possibly this includes transporting EU animals to be slaughtered in non-EU countries, where they have little legal protections against cruelty, the EU Commission refused to introduce any legislation to help stop this.
Not sure where the UK government stands on any of this -as part of TTIP, which Cameron is a supporter of, the US government apparently wanted to exclude certain animal welfare provisions because they would presumably be detrimental to profits.
https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/partner_article/pm-eu-disregarding-its-own-rules-animal-exports
-
Yes, there were concerns about USA standards watering down EU regulations on GMOs, pesticides and animal welfare.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33055665
Not sure how much progress has been made in resolving them.
And, as you say, the EU is lagging behind the UK on animal welfare issues generally. However as long as UK farmers are not forced to operate at the lower standards, I can't see how not being a member of the EU will actually improve the welfare of any animals or help the environment. After all, if we are importing lower standard meat now we will probably continue to do so afterwards.
-
Nor is exit or remaining likely to end the cruel ritual slaughter/sacrifice of animals by religious minorities........ Including yours Gabriella ask your daughter what she thinks of that?
-
My 11 year old daughter thinks the EU is a mixed bag. She asked me this morning which way I was voting in the referendum and I said probably remain, and I then asked her what her view was. Her view was that it depends on what people's priorities are - she said that for example if people care about animal welfare, the EU has refused to stop live transportation of animals for slaughter over long distances, which causes them a lot of unnecessary suffering.
Britain has had a positive effect on animal welfare throughout the EU. In general, our standards were historically higher than the rest of the EU. We banned veal crates before the rest of the EU and it is arguable that our lead has influenced the rest.
Your daughter can rest assured that , if Britain leaves the EU, there is absolutely no chance of the British being able to stop transportation of live animals across borders in the EU.
-
Nor is exit or remaining likely to end the cruel ritual slaughter/sacrifice of animals by religious minorities........ Including yours Gabriella ask your daughter what she thinks of that?
As far as I know she is fine with eating halal meat where the animal has been stunned prior to slaughter - same as non-halal slaughter. But thanks for your interest in her views. It's good to know that you are enlightened enough to engage with minorities and ask questions rather than making statements based on assumptions. :)
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/may/08/what-does-halal-method-animal-slaughter-involve
-
Yes, there were concerns about USA standards watering down EU regulations on GMOs, pesticides and animal welfare.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33055665
Not sure how much progress has been made in resolving them.
And, as you say, the EU is lagging behind the UK on animal welfare issues generally. However as long as UK farmers are not forced to operate at the lower standards, I can't see how not being a member of the EU will actually improve the welfare of any animals or help the environment. After all, if we are importing lower standard meat now we will probably continue to do so afterwards.
I think she thought animal welfare groups would have more chance of convincing our Parliament to pass laws preventing British animals being shipped out to non-EU countries by any businesses operating in Britain if the British Parliament had autonomy from the EU
Is Britain currently allowed to prevent animals being transported in a manner compliant with EU regulations if it falls below British standards?
-
Gabriela
You mean Halal slaughter like this is approved by your daughter? Strange girl, I hope she is naive rather than uncaring.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/03/halal-slaughterhouse-staff-investigated-alleged-animal-cruelty-bowood-lamb-yorkshire
-
Gabriela
You mean Halal slaughter like this is approved by your daughter? Strange girl, I hope she is naive rather than uncaring.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/03/halal-slaughterhouse-staff-investigated-alleged-animal-cruelty-bowood-lamb-yorkshire
Did you read Gabriella's post and decide to ignore it or just not read it? It's absolute clear about her daughter approving of it after animal is stunned, so why misrepresent it?
-
Nearly Sane
Yes I read it but do not believe it.
The whole point of Halal slaughter Jewish or Muslim is that the creature is suspended upside down, a religiously authorised person then ceremoniously slits its throat. Throughout the process it is important that the creature's heart keeps beating to push out all the blood until it dies slowly in pain.
She also made no attempt to justify religious sacrifice widely practised here in the West Mids by Pakistani Muslims to "celebrate" the end of Ramadan. A practice I myself have witnessed.
Clearly you did not bother to read The Guardian article I linked either.
If the Guardian is too hard a read for you try this from The Mirror.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/halal-meat-controversy-unnecessary-cruelty-3523257
-
You don't believe the Guardian article I linked to that says 88% of halal slaughter in Britain involves stunning the animal first?
You also don't believe the Guardian article when it describes animals being hoisted and stuck to drain blood in non-halal slaughter - the meat most people consume in Britain?
Why are you posting links to newspaper articles if you don't believe what is written in them?
-
But contrary to what many assume, most animals killed by halal methods are stunned before slaughter. FSA estimates suggest that 88% of animals in the UK killed by halal methods were stunned beforehand in a way that many Muslims find religiously acceptable.
In non-halal slaughterhouses, stunned animals are shackled and hoisted above the ground where a slaughterman "sticks" them, cutting their throat or inserting a chest stick close to the heart. Cattle and some sheep and pigs are stunned by a bolt through the brain before being killed.
My Guardian link again:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/may/08/what-does-halal-method-animal-slaughter-involve
-
No "pre stunning" here as Muslim men fined for "sacrificing" British sheep.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/580745/Islam-Muslim-halal-slaughter-farm-UK-Llechrydau-Farm-court
No whitewash either.
-
Which makes them part of the estimated 12% of halal slaughter where the animal is not stunned before slaughter. Which means it is possible for Muslims to approve of a halal slaughter that includes stunning and disapprove of halal slaughter that does not include stunning.
As various RSPCA reports on their website detail - non-halal slaughter houses have animals hoisted up prior to slaughter and further there are non-halal slaughter houses where employees have been found to inflict cruelty on livestock during slaughter.
Sounds like your definition of a whitewash are reports that don't take a few horrific incidents and use them to support your prejudices and uninformed generalisations about Muslims.
-
If something was good for us, they would not require scare tactics to keep us in.
-
If something was good for us, they would not require scare tactics to keep us in.
Whereas the Express's headline about 12 million Turks wanting to come here are not scare tactics - but pure factual reporting ::)
-
Whereas the Express's headline about 12 million Turks wanting to come here are not scare tactics - but pure factual reporting ::)
Particularly as the decision on whether they are able to come (i.e. if Turkey joins the EU) is entirely under our control as the UK has a veto.
-
Speaking to people around me, there are quite a number of them who want out. ( I also know quite a few who want in )
It might be quite a close thing.
-
To date the polls are pretty much neck and neck, I gather. I was reading this article earlier: http://goo.gl/AXBdJJ which gives a breakdown of poll results so far by sex, age, occupation, education and social grouping. Broadly speaking and at huge risk of over-simplification those who favour Leave are older indigenous men, while Remainers are younger, female, and of a non-indigenous background.
-
To date the polls are pretty much neck and neck, I gather. I was reading this article earlier: http://goo.gl/AXBdJJ which gives a breakdown of poll results so far by sex, age, occupation, education and social grouping. Broadly speaking and at huge risk of over-simplification those who favour Leave are older indigenous men, while Remainers are younger, female, and of a non-indigenous background.
There are some interesting anomalies between on-line polling, which tend to show things neck and neck, and phone polls which are consistently shooing small to sizeable remain leads. Why is unclear, but one or other methodology is likely to turn out to be more accurate than the other.
The other point is that although older people tend to be more supportive of brexit (and typically more likely to vote) more affluent people are more supportive of remain (and also more likely to vote) - how that factors in to turnout effects is anyone's guess.
Interestingly too, the betting markets are often more accurate than the polls in predicting election results - they are strongly suggesting that remain will win.
-
It's also worth noting that the betting has moved from Remain being 3/1on, or 5/2 on a month or so ago to 5/1 on.
-
It's also worth noting that the betting has moved from Remain being 3/1on, or 5/2 on a month or so ago to 5/1 on.
Very pro-European in general myself, but wot abart the British fishermen?
Seems like there's recently been some very cavalier (and misleading) peddling figures of expenditure involved, without considering rebates etc.
-
Very pro-European in general myself, but wot abart the British fishermen?
Seems like there's recently been some very cavalier (and misleading) peddling figures of expenditure involved, without considering rebates etc.
Not sure what the relevance is to a comment on the odds?
-
Gabriella
You seem to be getting very exited and assuming I am in some way dissing all Muslims, I am not nor would I.
I do not deny for one second that there are areas of animal cruelty in the food chain involving all sorts of people. Aspects of battery farming for instance cause me concern. Usually the driving force is greed or expediency, not ideology.
Comments made here about your's and your daughters attitude show some concern for animal welfare and I applaud you for that.
However you jump down my throat when I suggest that Muslim ritual slaughter is deliberately and unnecessarily cruel, whilst admitting that here in the UK some 12% of Muslims are ideologically driven to behave this way. I suspect your guesstimate is very low and am very certain the figure is very much higher if not absolute in other Muslim areas.
The Pakistani origin men convicted of cruelty and sacrifice in the case I highlighted said they were only doing what was normal in their own country.
By all means campaign for better animal rights across the EU I'll stand with you but take the log from your eyes about where aspects of Muslim ideology lead.
-
Not sure what the relevance is to a comment on the odds?
On the polling - since April 12th 11 polls have given Leave a lead - with the levels ranging from 2% to 4%.
In the same timeframe 17 polls have given Remain a lead - with the leads ranging from 2% up to 20%. Seven of the Remain poll leads have been 10% or more, obviously none of the Leave leads have come close to that level.
-
L.A.
Ask the French about loss of freedoms with regards to the new Labour laws there. These laws have already been implemented in the southern member states and is EU/EZ policy. So much for Corbyn and co. going on about if we stay in the EU the employers rights will be upheld!
-
Ask the French about loss of freedoms with regards to the new Labour laws there.
These have nothing to do with the EU.
The French labour laws have been absolutely crazy for many years. It's almost impossible to make an employee redundant in France without paying punitive compensation (a year's salary IIRC). If you know you can't lay people off in periods of slack demand, you don't hire them in first place.
-
Gabriella
You seem to be getting very exited and assuming I am in some way dissing all Muslims, I am not nor would I.
I do not deny for one second that there are areas of animal cruelty in the food chain involving all sorts of people. Aspects of battery farming for instance cause me concern. Usually the driving force is greed or expediency, not ideology.
If correcting inaccurate statements and half-truths is your definition of "getting very excited" then clearly most posters on here must get very excited according to you. Let's hope you can cope with all this excitement.
Are you saying that the belief that profits are more important than animal suffering, is a more morally acceptable position to you than putting religious belief above animal suffering? Why? Because you can relate to greed but not gods?
Comments made here about your's and your daughters attitude show some concern for animal welfare and I applaud you for that.
However you jump down my throat when I suggest that Muslim ritual slaughter is deliberately and unnecessarily cruel, whilst admitting that here in the UK some 12% of Muslims are ideologically driven to behave this way. I suspect your guesstimate is very low and am very certain the figure is very much higher if not absolute in other Muslim areas.
Let me correct you again - what you meant to say was ritual slaughter by a small percentage of Muslims in the UK is deliberately and unnecessarily cruel according to the BVA and the RSPCA and quite a lot of Muslims who buy pre-stunned halal meat. That 12% estimate of no stunning is not my guess - that was the estimated figure that the RSPCA investigations have come up with.
Why don't you take the results of your investigations to the RSPCA and report back when the RSPCA have revised their figures to match yours. Given how certain you are I am sure you must have some credible evidence that the RSPCA estimate of 12% is wrong. If your investigation is correct, it might help bring about legislation that bans slaughter without stunning, no exceptions.
To help you appear more credible to the RSPCA you probably need to be aware that there is a different halal certificate for non-stun halal met. The halal certificate is displayed on the wall behind the counter in most halal butchers I have visited. For example a halal butcher who displays a certificate in his shop from the Halal Monitoring Committee (HMC) means that the meat he is selling comes from animals that have not been stunned before slaughter - part of the 12%. The HMC justification is they want to ensure the animal was alive when slaughtered rather than accidentally killed during stunning.
If a halal butcher displays a certificate from say the Halal Food Authority (HFA) - the animal has been stunned - part of the 88%. The HFA says that animals are checked during slaughter - because halal slaughter is by hand and not mechanically done - and if found to be dead rather than stunned before the animal's throat is cut, the meat from that animal is not certified as halal.
This difference of opinion amongst Muslims is just one of many that crop up due to differing interpretations of the various different Muslim ideologies. Bit like if you disagreed with your friend about whether people have a moral duty to pay more tax than they are legally obliged to pay e.g. by not opening a Ltd company and paying corporation tax but only ever operating as a sole trader and paying income tax, which is set at a much higher rate than corporation tax.
So currently I am "very excitedly" pointing out to you that your disbelief in my daughter.s ability to choose to eat stunned halal meat was incorrect, based on the fact that we can clearly see which agency certified the butcher.
Which bit was me "jumping down your throat"? Was it when I corrected your inaccurate opinions about non-halal slaughter by letting you know that non-halal slaughter also involves hoisting an animal up and allowing it to bleed?
Being corrected by posters is a normal part of the debate process on this forum - everyone does it to everyone else - so please expect to have people "jump down your throat" on here if you plan to continue posting.
The Pakistani origin men convicted of cruelty and sacrifice in the case I highlighted said they were only doing what was normal in their own country.
Ok but what a few Pakistani men in Britain said isn't really relevant to my daughter. So not sure why you used them as an example to suggest that my daughter was strange or would approve of what these Pakistani men did.
By all means campaign for better animal rights across the EU I'll stand with you but take the log from your eyes about where aspects of Muslim ideology lead.
What log? I said organisations like the RSPCA say 12% of animals killed in the halal manner aren't stunned and my daughter prefers to eat halal meat where the animal has been stunned, so she disagrees with the Muslims who support the non-stun method. She is part of the majority of Muslims in the UK who consume meat from stunned animals - the 88%.
Are you saying the Muslim ideology that permits stunning is leading to something that I should be worried about?
By the way, the EU says all animals should be stunned before slaughter but allows a religious exemption to this rule. The British laws also allow this exemption, whereas EU countries such as Denmark and Sweden have ignored the EU exemption for religious reasons and have banned all non-stun slaughter. It's up to British people to successfully campaign for a change in the law here too - 88% of halal slaughter houses already comply with the requirement to stun so should be easy to get majority support for this proposal amongst Muslims and non-Muslims.
-
Applause to Gabriella, just too 'excited' to post more
-
Applause to Gabriella, just too 'excited' to post more
Haha - thank you NS. Yes we're an excitable bunch on here - but no Wild West....yet :)
-
These have nothing to do with the EU.
The French labour laws have been absolutely crazy for many years. It's almost impossible to make an employee redundant in France without paying punitive compensation (a year's salary IIRC). If you know you can't lay people off in periods of slack demand, you don't hire them in first place.
Of course they are EU instigated. It may not be above the waterline law but it is from pressure from Brussels. As I said the same thing has been done in the southern states, all from pressure from the EU.
-
Of course they are EU instigated. It may not be above the waterline law but it is from pressure from Brussels. As I said the same thing has been done in the southern states, all from pressure from the EU.
Rubbish - if this is EU driven then it would apply throughout the EU - it doesn't - it is home grown French bureaucracy. Just as the stifling regulations on UK employers to 'prove' their 'employees' (including UK citizens giving a non paid one hour lecture - the same one they have given for the last 15 years) are entitled to work in the UK. This means every year our guest lecturer must bring their passport, a member of our HR team must take their passport, take a copy themselves, and fill out a form which the guest lecturer must sign to allow them to give their lecture (where they are giving their time free of charge). And having done that once (remember they are a UK citizen) the UK government won't accept that the next year, another copy of the passport must be taken, another form filled out.
Perhaps not onerous for most people but when your organisation benefits from dozens of experts prepared to give their time and expertise for free as guest lecturers it becomes a major bureaucratic issue.
Of and this is entirely from the UK government - nothing to do with the EU - indeed my colleagues from other EU countries are astonished at this red tape as they have nothing like it.
-
Of course they are EU instigated.
No.
They.
Are.
Not.
It may not be above the waterline law but it is from pressure from Brussels. As I said the same thing has been done in the southern states, all from pressure from the EU.
You are talking bollocks.
-
Rubbish - if this is EU driven then it would apply throughout the EU - it doesn't - it is home grown French bureaucracy. Just as the stifling regulations on UK employers to 'prove' their 'employees' (including UK citizens giving a non paid one hour lecture - the same one they have given for the last 15 years) are entitled to work in the UK. This means every year our guest lecturer must bring their passport, a member of our HR team must take their passport, take a copy themselves, and fill out a form which the guest lecturer must sign to allow them to give their lecture (where they are giving their time free of charge). And having done that once (remember they are a UK citizen) the UK government won't accept that the next year, another copy of the passport must be taken, another form filled out.
Perhaps not onerous for most people but when your organisation benefits from dozens of experts prepared to give their time and expertise for free as guest lecturers it becomes a major bureaucratic issue.
Of and this is entirely from the UK government - nothing to do with the EU - indeed my colleagues from other EU countries are astonished at this red tape as they have nothing like it.
Similar labour laws have been implemented in the southern states so that they can reach their 3% deficit targets but this isn't necessary as this austerity is to ensure that the banks don't take a hit - the real rulers of the EU. All it needs is a write down of their debts and such mean austerity can be left on the shelf.
-
No.
They.
Are.
Not.
You are talking bollocks.
Your assertions prove nothing.....and THAT'S NOT NICE !!!! :o
-
Whereas the Express's headline about 12 million Turks wanting to come here are not scare tactics - but pure factual reporting ::)
You don't find that alarming? But the truth is the EU has already meant that holiday prices are already too high.
The cost of housing is already up and down. Our own people on the street. Our own people dying because they have closed accident and emergency departments so people have to travel further. Selling off whole hospitals eventually to sell land for houses. Private houses.
What he is threatening us with has already become a reality people are dying because of the changes. People cannot afford to buy new homes. People cannot afford to live let alone go abroad for a holiday.
You know the true ignorance don't you... That when the Government mention what a family on benefits get, they include the rent and council tax. So the lump sum is not actually what they receive to live on.
When a person received £57.90 per week.
Age JSA weekly amount
18 to 24 up to £57.90
25 or over up to £73.10
Couples (both aged over 18) up to £114.85
That amount has to cover gas, electricity, water rates, food, and any other charges including looking for work and busfares to interviews.
A single person is allowed £350 per month to rent a home.
You know anyone who can live on £57.90 per week? Or where they can rent a home with one bedroom for £350 per calendar month.
Just imagine how those full of pride believe like Jeremy Kyle that their tax pays for these people. In denial of the truth that God created everything and if he suddenly decided to remove all the animals and kill the crops that man would have absolutely nothing to live on.
A piece of bread could buy a bag of gold...
Truth is they always select a large family whose benefit runs into literal thousands because they need more rooms and are feeding more mouths.
What they don't seem to understand is this:- If you pay a single person a small amount and they cannot afford to live then having children they really do not want is a step to make ends meet rather than live on the street till they find work.
In this day and age no person should be homeless or without an income.
If they work the wages are too low to cover rent and living costs.
They are in a no win situation already. However the reason they will fail is this:-
Proverbs 22:22-23
Do not rob the poor because he is poor, Or crush the afflicted at the gate; For the LORD will plead their case And take the life of those who rob them.
Zechariah 7:10
and do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.'
Psalm 72:4
May he vindicate the afflicted of the people, Save the children of the needy And crush the oppressor.
Isaiah 10:1-3
Woe to those who enact evil statutes And to those who constantly record unjust decisions, So as to deprive the needy of justice And rob the poor of My people of their rights, So that widows may be their spoil And that they may plunder the orphans. Now what will you do in the day of punishment, And in the devastation which will come from afar? To whom will you flee for help? And where will you leave your wealth?
Proverbs 17:5
He who mocks the poor taunts his Maker; He who rejoices at calamity will not go unpunished.
Amos 5:11
Therefore because you impose heavy rent on the poor And exact a tribute of grain from them, Though you have built houses of well-hewn stone, Yet you will not live in them; You have planted pleasant vineyards, yet you will not drink their wine.
Psalm 146:7-9
Who executes justice for the oppressed; Who gives food to the hungry The LORD sets the prisoners free. The LORD opens the eyes of the blind; The LORD raises up those who are bowed down; The LORD loves the righteous; The LORD protects the strangers; He supports the fatherless and the widow, But He thwarts the way of the wicked.
What our Government and others are doing can only end in disaster.
They oppress the poor and to leave people dying on our streets is the worst thing they could do for our people.
Everyone has their own point of view. No human being was born with more right than another to have food to live and a place of shelter. No amount of mans thinking will change the fact they never could earn a right to food of the land above another.
If the Government and those with money can climb over the needy crushing them to get to a place of power.
Then when they are gone there is nothing to have power over and their money becomes useless.
It isn't the poor or needy who bring this country down. It is the greedy and selfish who truly believe they somehow have more right than those less fortunate.
Love they neighbour makes you want to laugh when you see our Government the puppet of other Countries.
-
Your assertions prove nothing.....and THAT'S NOT NICE !!!! :o
It proves that you have no idea what you are talking about.
-
Somebody says what many of us are thinking - both Leave and Remain campaigns are full of the brown stuff and pulling figures, predictions and prognostications out of thin air: http://goo.gl/LTo83Z
-
It proves that you have no idea what you are talking about.
If that is your definition of proof then I can see why you live in your fantasy world as the theists do!!! ;D