Canny lass

They are already entitled to a place of worship. British Law and constitution dictates that every man woman and child has the right to practice the religion of their choosing. The constitution existed in England long before the arrival of the first Muslim. So they really have accepted our laws. However, I think you may be comparing Sharia Law with the law decreed by the British judicial system. They are in no way comparable. As a resident in the UK you are expected to follow the laws of Britain. In addition to that you MAY follow the 'laws' of your religion (providing they do not override the judicial laws). For a Christian, these are the ten commandments. They could just as well have been called the ten laws. For a Muslim the law of their religion is Sharia law. It could just as well have been called Sharia commandments. Please, note that I said the rules of religion MAY be followed. There are plenty of instances where they are not - comitting adultery and loving thy neigbour being just a couple of them. There are many Christians who commit adultery and show an inhumanitarian attitude to their neighbours.

I've said it before on another thread but here it is again: "First we'll take a look at the "outbreeding of the local population" and why I think it will never happen. According to the 2011 census there are around 63 million residents in the UK. Of these, some 25.3 million are aged between 15 and 44 - the fertile years. However, they are not all female. Roughly half (49%) are men leaving the 51% , 12 903 000, who are female to man the 'production line' as it were. But, wait a minute - not all of these are of the muslim persuasion! Again, according to the 2011 census, muslims account for only 4.8% of the population thereby reducing the 'workforce on the production line' to 619 344. In order to give these poor women a fair chance of succeeding with the outbreeding job, I want us to imagine that no fertile female of any other religious persuasion ever gives birth to another child. Let's also imagine that there are no multiple births from this muslim 'workforce' (there aren't so many in reality that they would significantly change the outcome of this exercise). To make the maths easier we can keep the numbers constant by allowing one teenager to become fertile for every woman reaching the menopause - a bit like it is in real life. Now, given that a fertile female (perpetually pregnant (give or take the odd hour for giving birth and the odd minute or two for conceiving) can produce max. 4 children every 3 years (multiple births not counted), and is fertile for approximately 30 years, how long would it take for these 619 344 women to outbreed the local population? I've never been brilliant at maths but I get it to somewhere around the 80 years mark! And that is in optimal conditions with no competition from any other women and taking no account of reduced egg production forced upon us (men and women) by the biological ravages of time. Not to mention the part played by headaches and brewer's droop, though the latter is not likely to be a problem for the majority of muslim men - avoiding alcohol as they do! Add to that the fact that the UK's total fertility rate has been decreasing steadily since 2008 and was recorded in 2012 as being 1.92 children/woman - somewhat lower than the replacement rate of 2.075 children/woman. […] It's never going to happen. This is not an optimal world. Women of all denominations will continue to lie on their backs thinking of England (when they are not thinking of what to give hubby for his tea) and popping out youngsters at the rate of 1.92 per woman. Some biological clocks will undoubtedly have stopped ticking by the age of 45 while most others will at the very least be going slow but I'm quite sure of one thing - whatever their religious persuasion most women will have drawn the line long before reaching the 40 births in 30 years required to "outbreed the local population"."

You can’t be serious! This ‘research’ – I use the word very, very, loosely – was conducted by a television channel (Nickelodeon) dedicated to kids’ programming. Furthermore, it was done, not in the interests of science but, in the interests of promoting a children’s TV programme. Really, I needn’t say more but it may interest some readers to know just which assessment criteria for defining male immaturity were used in this ‘research’. Here are some of the top 30 criteria revealed by the ‘research’: 1. Finding their own f@rts and burps hilarious 2. ‘Racing’ another car at the lights or on the motorway 3. Sniggering a bit at rude words 4. Trying to beat children at games and sport 5. Doing crazy dance moves 6. Owning a skateboard or BMX 7. Having a cartoon bedspread 8. Doing wheelies on their bike 9. Wearing saggy-crotched pants 10. Staying silent during an argument ….. mmm? Should anyone be so inclined the remaining 20 criteria can be read at – no prizes for guessing where (not the Daily Mail, mercuryg): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/10111993/Men-grow-up-at-43-11-years-later-than-women.html

Thanks for keeping us ex-pats uo to date Christopher. A very sad occasion for many. What a turn out and what a send off!

Of course it is, Mercuryg! Just another of my senior moments!

They would have been better teaching Greek. All politicians are speaking it these days.

I think you might just find that that quote is taken from Adrian Hilton's The Principality and Power of Europe, published in 1997.

If only you'd been a politician, Eggy! Clearly a man who thinks outside of the box and sees other solutions to problems. There's a job going at nr.10 - interested?

We are not alone, Mercuryg. Clearly the English football team have problems with their knees too. Where will it all end I ask myself. Out of Europe, out of the european cup, ... The next hurdle will be the Eurovision song contest but maybe there'll be a referendum and we'll be able to avoid it.

Now that would be a sight for sore eyes!

Free movement, now there’s a thing to strive for – or so my physiotherapist tells me – especially when it comes to knees. Free movement in the knees is invaluable in achieving all manner of things that elbows can’t do by themselves. Therefore we should all look after our knees. I’ve looked after mine but not as much as I should have done. I’ve neglected them a bit. OK, they get a bit of a going over with all this running but perhaps I could have gone the extra mile and invested in better running shoes just to show them I cared – but I have to think about my economy. And maybe I should have listened to them when they started complaining about all the tap-dancing – at my age. However, even though they haven’t got my whole-hearted support, and at times they’ve been treated very badly, they continue to give me some sort of strength and, dare I say it, stability. They make me ‘whole’ so to speak. And even if I can read research reports in the Daily Rant and the Weekly Moan telling me that the remainder of me can manage just fine without my knees AND that having them removed would only improve my life because the knees, having neither brains nor feeling, would continue to do their work anyway – with the added bonus that I no longer have responsibility for them - I am cautious. Even my physio, who’s all for movement, would have me believe that they’d still be there for me and that I’d never again have to think about going up the stairs “the knees will be there for you, CL”, ”your will will be their command, CL”, “there’s no pain without gain, CL” (did he really say that?)! He carefully ignores all my questions about ‘knee-length’ shorts and dismisses all my fears of how silly I’d look without knees as ‘just scaremongering’. How, without knees, I would be able to kneel down to comfort a crying child, resuscitate a dying human or even scrub the floor of the toilet, he does not know but he advises me against turning to any expert, these being under the control of the brain. All my ‘bad hair’ days, varicose veins and failing eyesight will disappear, he adds, and shows me a newspaper report which proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that my knees are to blame for these problems as well. His firm belief is that I “will once again get control” but he cannot really tell me how to acheive that if I don’t have knees.

And my argument is that he is no more influenced than any other British research university who get, on average, 11% of their funding (not most of their funding, as you claim) from EU. Point after point I am offering support for this argument.. You, on the other hand make no attempt to support your theory that the Russell Group has £3.5 billions of EU money at its disposal, preferring instead to throw your toys out of the pram and refuse to 'play' any more. I do not have a great deal of time either but I am never the less sufficiently interested in what you say to take the time to research your theories and provide you with the arguments which you requested. Does this latest response now mean that you've picked up your toys, got over your tantrum and want to play again - or are you still wishing I would go away? I think you'll find that Dougan's wage comes directly from the university.

That's a very good question!

A new amendment law applies from the day it is validated. With any following the amendment would apply. Hope that clears things up.

As yet, I have not taken up the syntactic arguments, but there are many, I am presenting the arguments which you requested. Not having time for them suggests to me that you are looking for an excuse to avoid defending your own 'arguments' against mine.

I haven't fineshed yet.

Something odd has happened to the numbers. All appear as £16 million. Here is the above text with the correct figures: Where did I leave off ? Ah yes, statement 3 Statement 4: You say: “you need to dig a little bit deeper to find out where Liverpool Law School gets much of it’s funding.” “If you don’t boldly present a project as EU funded (even though they only stump up 50% most of the time)” You also say: “There’s an interesting document titled “Russell Group universities and the European Union” which boasts about £3.5 billions of EU money it is responsible for disbursing” UK universities receive 16% of the total EU funding for research. In the last academic year, the UK’s universities received £836 million in research grants from the EU, an increase of £149 million since 2014. Of these £836 million, the Russell Group (Britains 24 elite, research universities) receive £384 million a year in research funds. This constitutes 11% of their research income. (http://www.conferenceboard.ca/topics/education/commentaries/16-06-21/brexit_what_it_means_for _uk_highereducation) Liverpool University is one of those 24 elite universities in the UK and can receive, on average, £16 million. Within Liverpool University there are 8 departments, one of which is the Law School. It can receive on average, £2 million. This is does not support your statement that Liverpool Law School gets “much” of its funding from EU and therefore I must, again, say that your statements are fallacious. (As a matter of interest, apart from its EU funding, the Russell Group, received almost 66% of the total university research grant in the UK, so clearly the UK thinks they are worth investing in). You also say that there is a document titled “Russell Group universities and the European Union” which “boasts about the £3.5 billions of EU money it is responsible for disbursing”. Perhaps it was a slip of the finger? Did you mean to write millions? (Giving you a get out there).That would be nearer the mark. However, I have searched the Internet and I find no trace of this document. Please supply name of author and publication date so that I can read it for myself. Until I have seen this I have no choice but to regard even this statement as fallacious.

Where did I leave off ? Ah yes, statement 3 Statement 4: You say: “you need to dig a little bit deeper to find out where Liverpool Law School gets much of it’s funding.” “If you don’t boldly present a project as EU funded (even though they only stump up 50% most of the time)” You also say: “There’s an interesting document titled “Russell Group universities and the European Union” which boasts about £3.5 billions of EU money it is responsible for disbursing” UK universities receive 16% of the total EU funding for research. In the last academic year, the UK’s universities received £836 million in research grants from the EU, an increase of £149 million since 2014. Of these £836 million, the Russell Group (Britains 24 elite, research universities) receive £16 million a year in research funds. This constitutes 11% of their research income. (http://www.conferenceboard.ca/topics/education/commentaries/16-06-21/brexit_what_it_means_for _uk_highereducation) Liverpool University is one of those 24 elite universities in the UK and can receive, on average, £16 million. Within Liverpool University there are 8 departments, one of which is the Law School. It can receive on average, £16 million. This is does not support your statement that Liverpool Law School gets “much” of its funding from EU and therefore I must, again, say that your statements are fallacious. (As a matter of interest, apart from its EU funding, the Russell Group, received almost 66% of the total university research grant in the UK, so clearly the UK thinks they are worth investing in). You also say that there is a document titled “Russell Group universities and the European Union” which “boasts about the £3.5 billions of EU money it is responsible for disbursing”. Perhaps it was a slip of the finger? Did you mean to write millions? (Giving you a get out there).That would be nearer the mark. However, I have searched the Internet and I find no trace of this document. Please supply name of author and publication date so that I can read it for myself. Until I have seen this I have no choice but to regard even this statement as fallacious.

... and that made my evening!

Put your claws away. I am not afraid of them and neither am I impressed by them. Tony made a simple statement in perfect Swedish. You said the translation was wrong. I disagreed with you and pointed out that your translation was incorrect. You go off the rails and rabble on about some Tony (?Tony p, ?Tony Blair) and his friends, which I don't understand. Would you care to explain the quoted sentence? Which first and last words have I reversed? And where is there a 't'? I really do not know what you are talking about.

I don't even know who Tony's Hate-no-Hope friends are. I've never heard the expression before so I don't know if I've met up with them or not. Why do you read something non-existent into everything that's said? I made a simple statement that the translation was correct. Unlike yours which used the English word clique. The Swedish word is klick, same pronunciation - different spelling. Never mind, at least you Google translate got the genus right!

That's probably one of the funniest things I've seen the past few weeks - and heaven knows there have been some corkers floating about in the press! You made my day, Malcolm, and taken all the pain of shoe shopping away! thank you!

No error, I assure you. Perfect translation.

Sounds a bit like here, Vic!

It can be amended, Moe, and it then gets a new name f.ex, The Bedlington Clothes Prop Length Regulation Act (1921) may become The Bedlington Clothes Prop Length Regulation Amendment Act (1999). It becomes a new law. If this didn't happen we would still be living in the middle-ages. Look again at the download. It does not say that UK gov site is down. It says that the petition site is down: petition.parliament .uk The Telegraph appear to make the same mistake as yourself. The headline stating that a new referendum is being demanded. Given that they've got that wrong, I can make an educated guess that they've got the "1.5 million signatures in 24 hours" bit wrong as well. The download can't be wrong. You get exactly what's on the screen at the time of downloading. I don't know just when it was downloaded, but it can't have been later than 18 June - one week ago today..