General News/Current Affairs Thread
- Thread starter theirsbailiff
- Start date
theirsbailiff
School Idol
vashdaman said:
Come on man, people might have had something to eat whilst looking at that pictures.
Anyway, moving away from Scotland and Dickhead parties:
UK/Ireland News
*Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams in custody over the murder of Jean McConville in 1972
*1/5 of crimes have not been reported by the police
*15 Year Old boy from Leeds in court over the murder of School Teacher. Mail absolutely certain that Dark Souls is to blame.
*Chris Morris impersonator, Jeremy Paxman to leave Newsnight
*Bob Hoskins passes away due to bout with pneumonia
European News
*IMF to give creator of chopsticks, Ukraine, a $17b bailout fund to help remove Pro-Russians from their land. *checks article* Nope, I'm sorely mistaken. It's actually to help their economy.
*Spanish police arrest someone accused of throwing a Banana at Barca player Dani Alves
*Italian Judges absolutely certain this time that Amanda Knod did stab to death Meredith Kercher
*Apparently, there's such a thing as "President of the European Commission". Only reason I know this was because there was a debate going on.
Rest of World News
*World Health Organisation (AKA The WHO) are saying that we may be entering a 'post-antibiotic' era.
*Outdoor grills are another thing 'Banned in China', though this is somewhat less reactionary than you think seeing as the ban's being put in place to cut down on the country's world famous pollution levels
ayase
State Alchemist
Vash, I'll send you a PM later re: Patlabor so as not to totally derail this thread.
Yes, I'd noticed the IMF (and their puppets the UK and US governments) attempting to destroy Russia's economy for not doing their bidding. I can't decide who I dislike more, Putin for his nationalism and social policies or global finance for stealing (with the help of politicians, who handily put it all into sacks for them) the wealth of western nations to line their own pockets. WWIII is probably still my preferred outcome because hopefully it would destroy them both and let something else rise from the ashes.
Yes, I'd noticed the IMF (and their puppets the UK and US governments) attempting to destroy Russia's economy for not doing their bidding. I can't decide who I dislike more, Putin for his nationalism and social policies or global finance for stealing (with the help of politicians, who handily put it all into sacks for them) the wealth of western nations to line their own pockets. WWIII is probably still my preferred outcome because hopefully it would destroy them both and let something else rise from the ashes.
ayase
State Alchemist
Last edited by a moderator:
theirsbailiff
School Idol
ayase said:
Yeah, you might want to retract that statement.
BBC News said:
Last edited by a moderator:
ayase
State Alchemist
Nope. Pretty confident the upshot of this will be that more people will come to believe UKIP are not racist than there previously were people who thought they were racist. They can now loudly and publicly condemn and dismiss these particular elements and point out (unlike say, the BNP) that they have supporters and candidates from many ethnic backgrounds. It may contain traces of racist (like with all nuts, we could say that about any group of people), but there is no actual, legitimately racist sentiment espoused in UKIP's policies as far as I can see. I may not agree with either postition but nationalism =! racism - The press and major parties have been rather silly to play this game and it's played right into Farage's hands.
Remember that 27% aren't united behind a single party. "just saying the things ordinary people actually think"? Sounds to me like that 26% are leaning pretty heavily UKIP. And that's a serious number of people.
Don't get me wrong, I don't wish UKIP success* but nevertheless, they are achieving it. Mainly because, as I mentioned above, there's no f*cking anti-establishment alternative for dissatisfied voters on the left, so while the right becomes more united the left has the option of not voting or grudgingly voting New Labour or (which we know is establishment business as usual). The Greens? They couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery - They're nowhere near vocal enough, nor do they have a leader as recognisable or charismatic as Farage. And the fact that they are so utterly useless at publicity and getting their voice heard doesn't endear them to me.
*though I almost wish I did. I don't agree with their policies at all but their attitude is spot-on. They're brash, unafraid and don't tiptoe around the issues trying not to offend anyone. What Farage practices is Politics with a capital P, not Blair-style management speak bullshittery, as continued by Messrs. Cameron and Clegg.
Remember that 27% aren't united behind a single party. "just saying the things ordinary people actually think"? Sounds to me like that 26% are leaning pretty heavily UKIP. And that's a serious number of people.
Don't get me wrong, I don't wish UKIP success* but nevertheless, they are achieving it. Mainly because, as I mentioned above, there's no f*cking anti-establishment alternative for dissatisfied voters on the left, so while the right becomes more united the left has the option of not voting or grudgingly voting New Labour or (which we know is establishment business as usual). The Greens? They couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery - They're nowhere near vocal enough, nor do they have a leader as recognisable or charismatic as Farage. And the fact that they are so utterly useless at publicity and getting their voice heard doesn't endear them to me.
*though I almost wish I did. I don't agree with their policies at all but their attitude is spot-on. They're brash, unafraid and don't tiptoe around the issues trying not to offend anyone. What Farage practices is Politics with a capital P, not Blair-style management speak bullshittery, as continued by Messrs. Cameron and Clegg.
-Danielle-
Death Scythe
Yeah, one thing I agree wih UKIP on is the fact that we have all now been made to feel like we're being racist if we so much as mention Immigration. That's very true.
Also I dislike hearing that they are allowing interpreters to be at polling stations. If you're in our country and do not choose to learn to speak or understand our language then you have no right in voting in my opinion.
Also I dislike hearing that they are allowing interpreters to be at polling stations. If you're in our country and do not choose to learn to speak or understand our language then you have no right in voting in my opinion.
st_owly (witch)
Time-Traveller
What if someone's not been in the country very long and hasn't had a chance to become fluent?
(Bear with me if I say something completely stupid, I've been trying to stay away from politics as possible...)-Danielle- said:
What happened to the whole idea that immigrants who want to become an official citizen of the UK having to take steps in its application? For example, to live here for at least 5 years. I thought that would of been long enough for a "hopeful applicant" to be able to learn basic English (if not more...) so that we'd not need interpreters. And come on! These polls are supposed to be one person voting privately in a booth. I don't have a problem if these interpreters are to translate things outside the booth (i.e. Where to collect their voting papers, explain what the organisers have instructed etc.), but I would not be happy if 2 people went inside the same place that is supposed to be private and uninfluenced. Is one person (i.e. the interpreter or family member) giving their own input into the others: forcefully or scheming? Shouldn't the voter be able to cast a vote on their own, without known pressure/with ultimate freedom of choice for that one decision?
Hence is why only citizens should be the only ones in my view to be allowed to vote, after all the application and validation procedures are done. After they can be trusted to do things by themselves, or can we believe they are actually serious about being a citizen or contributing to the system (politically and as a member of the country in general).
I'm not going to talk about parties and their reactions - the media and the "suits" do all the whining and finger-pointing for me. So much I just don't trust any of them. I don't even trust what's been promised in their manifestos, as there's usually changes due to their scope and what the current situation gives them, or they just don't fulfil them. I just don't trust any party, just pray and hope whoever I vote for may do something that's helpful or says their interest is similar to mine. Doesn't mean they'll do it though.
It just seems like when it was mainly Labour vs Tories, growing up in the world you had some clarity in what the parties have set themselves out to do, and you felt a definite change. Now - it feels like money has more of an impact on my life than what the head-honchos say or promise, as well as the variable amount of "so-called" high impact players blurring what options are available.(I know, that sounds constricting on freedom-of-choice, but it did seem easier to decide between the 2 polar opposites.) So why bother listening?
Remember kids: Politics are all "Lies, Damn lies and Statistics."
-Danielle-
Death Scythe
You do have a point there Owly.
It's a tough call as sometimes you will get the people who haven't had enough time to learn but then on the other side of the spectrum, you have those with no desire to learn who you see speaking in their own language on buses etc etc. I'm pretty sure we've all seem them and know the types I'm on about.
There was even a family on tv show about like debt collectors or whatever and there was a whole family living in england, not keeping on top of their rent where only their child could understand english and speak broken english.
I think tieing into what Chaz said about the whole citizenship thing, there should be some way of prooving that you are trying to live here in England, not live here like you're still in the country you came from, if that makes sense.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... cracy.html
The above says how they're worried the interpreters will give direction to those voting.
It's a tough call as sometimes you will get the people who haven't had enough time to learn but then on the other side of the spectrum, you have those with no desire to learn who you see speaking in their own language on buses etc etc. I'm pretty sure we've all seem them and know the types I'm on about.
There was even a family on tv show about like debt collectors or whatever and there was a whole family living in england, not keeping on top of their rent where only their child could understand english and speak broken english.
I think tieing into what Chaz said about the whole citizenship thing, there should be some way of prooving that you are trying to live here in England, not live here like you're still in the country you came from, if that makes sense.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... cracy.html
The above says how they're worried the interpreters will give direction to those voting.
ayase
State Alchemist
I'm pretty sure that's still the procedure for those who want citizenship, but that's a question you might be better off asking chaos, as iirc he's been through it. Certainly immigrants from outside the EU still have to obtain visas in order to live and work here.Chaz said:
The thing about being in the EU is that it enables free movement of people without the need for visas or permits - Something I'm all for and which I think a lot of British people forget is a two-way street. Yes, it means anyone from another European country can come here to live and work but it also grants British people the exact same freedom to live and work in other European countries. Why more of us don't take up this offer I don't really know, other than that as a society we must have a much larger aversion to both listening to and learning to speak foreign languages.
People complain a lot about the fact that because we have higher wages, people from the EU move here and there's more competition for jobs. Yeah, we do have higher wages, but we also have a massively higher cost of living - It's not as though you can continue to magically pay Polish levels of rent while earning British level salaries. And who the hell are we to deny people opportunity? Just because we happened to be born on one particular patch of land we deserve more than someone born somewhere else does? What nationalistic bollocks. As far as I'm concerned nobody has an intrinsic right to anything. What the free movement of people does is create a society where you succeed on your merits, not your circumstances of birth - The only thing which really needs to be addressed in terms of inequality is corruption, and those people who do still unfairly benefit from nepotism and their connections in our political system.
st_owly (witch)
Time-Traveller
@Danielle - I definitely agree that if you want to live here long term you should make the effort to learn the language. Same applies to Brits abroad as well...
If I remember correctly, the other day Mum said that my local hospital has implemented a policy that staff members may only speak English when they're on the wards. It's most likely because patients might think people are talking in a foreign language about them or something, which is understandable.
Basically, my opinion is that in a place of work, you should speak the native language. In your own home? I don't care if you communicate through booby-mouse-mat collages.
Basically, my opinion is that in a place of work, you should speak the native language. In your own home? I don't care if you communicate through booby-mouse-mat collages.
-Danielle-
Death Scythe
Yeah Owly I totally agree, it's a two way street for sure and as Ayase said, it's odd how we Brits don't grasp at moving around the EU like people do here. I guess we just like where we live and what we have eh? Which is also why so many come here? 
Like I would love to take a gap year to live in Japan but I don't think I'd learn the language anytime soon I do like how Japan keep themselves as are, as in like no english translations anywhere and stuff. It was mentioned on Top Gear and I like that they maintain their culture.
Jesus, this halal stuff is like the horse meat scandal all over again. First Subway - I'm not too bothered providing they keep the removal to high muslim areas as I think that's perfectly fair to not have what they wouldnt eat in Subways they go to, and now Pizza Express are involved. Apparently it's just the chicken isn't it? I hope so as I love it there and love ham and not being funny, but I wouldn't want halal, it's bad enough thinking I'm eating animals who get slaughtered already without thinking to add to their pain they get to die slowly too.
Like I would love to take a gap year to live in Japan but I don't think I'd learn the language anytime soon
I do like how Japan keep themselves as are, as in like no english translations anywhere and stuff. It was mentioned on Top Gear and I like that they maintain their culture. Jesus, this halal stuff is like the horse meat scandal all over again. First Subway - I'm not too bothered providing they keep the removal to high muslim areas as I think that's perfectly fair to not have what they wouldnt eat in Subways they go to, and now Pizza Express are involved. Apparently it's just the chicken isn't it? I hope so as I love it there and love ham and not being funny, but I wouldn't want halal, it's bad enough thinking I'm eating animals who get slaughtered already without thinking to add to their pain they get to die slowly too.
st_owly (witch)
Time-Traveller
I have learned that most halal meat is actually stunned, so I'd have no problem eating that.
-Danielle-
Death Scythe
Is it really? That's good news then as I don't mind either in that case. Thanks
(it's a good job too as I totally forgot KFC is like all halal and my god i need a fix of that every blue moon. boneless bucket *homer simpson drool*)
So, has anyone seen that singing Nun on The Voice in the news? I kinda wana Google her now :3
(it's a good job too as I totally forgot KFC is like all halal and my god i need a fix of that every blue moon. boneless bucket *homer simpson drool*
)So, has anyone seen that singing Nun on The Voice in the news? I kinda wana Google her now :3
st_owly (witch)
Time-Traveller
There's now a campaign calling for all meat to be labelled as halal or not, which I think is a very good idea. Give people the opportunity to make an informed choice. As far as I understand, the major chains which use halal meat go for the pre-stunned stuff. Only about 10% of halal meat is unstunned, but all kosher meat is unstunned.
-Danielle-
Death Scythe
Yeah I definitely think they should, just even that icon you always see for halal on the packaging. I can't even remember what it was like back when cals and fat weren't stated on sandwiches etc in shops, it just seems like it's the normal thing that always should of been done, just like this lol as it's no different to people wanting to know what's gluten free for example.
Ah yeah kosher, was curious about that. I wouldn't even be able to tell you if I've ate it or not. I mean how/where is that even sold?! lol.
Ah yeah kosher, was curious about that. I wouldn't even be able to tell you if I've ate it or not. I mean how/where is that even sold?! lol.
I remember hearing about how one of my step-dad's friends tried to start up a sausage stand in Newmarket but had his application rejected by the council because he couldn't guarantee that he would use halal meat.
My personal opinion on the matter is that I have no issue with making it available for people who have to eat it - I respect their views, but a non-halal alternative should always be available for those who object to halal and kosher meat.
My personal opinion on the matter is that I have no issue with making it available for people who have to eat it - I respect their views, but a non-halal alternative should always be available for those who object to halal and kosher meat.
I'm a little confused about what this latest uproar is actually about since the reporting has been very reactive without ever explaining the problem. I don't exactly have a horse in the race myself, but am I correct that:
1. Meat processing facilities are paying extra arranging a licensed halal execution instead of a simple one anyone can do for an unexpectedly large number of animals.
2. They aren't mentioning this anywhere on the packaging, so Muslims don't know they can buy the meat and non-Muslims have to eat meat killed in a particular way.
3. The people angry about this are the non-Muslims, because they don't want to eat halal food.
4. The objection isn't to the blessing, but the fact that some of the meat prepared as halal is killed in a way which is perceived to be more barbaric than the way everyone (apparently) thought it was done?
My question: What are people actually objecting to? The fact that the animals aren't being stunned (in which case the fact that it's halal is actually a separate issue), the fact that it's blessed for a specific religion, the fact that the death is seen as more painful even with the stunning or the fact that for some inexplicable reason there's a massive industry out there paying people to secretly bless food without telling anyone?
I think it makes sense for everyone to label products which have been treated in a way that enhances their value for particular demographics, of course, but I don't understand the rest of the debate properly. Is it actually that people want a meat equivalent of the 'free range' label on eggs so they can choose food they think has been handled more ethically? Or to outlaw the kind of executions which are regarded as barbaric in the first place, since it doesn't seem to be as much of a strict requirement in earning a halal label as originally thought?
Also Josh: I think all big supermarkets should stock both (and where I live, they do) but it's unrealistic for small restaurants to do both in all situations. Many restaurants can't even provide food suitable for people who can't eat dairy food or have dangerous allergies - while choice is great, it's impractical when there are so many hundreds (if not thousands) of different opinions on what constitutes 'choice'. Where I live every restaurant proudly displays halal certificates so it's pretty obvious what you're getting and people know they have the choice. Failing that, I guess pork is always safe if you must have a meat dish?
(And why did the stand have to be halal if it wasn't advertised as such? Did it also have to sell vegan sausages and kosher sausages and corn dogs to meet some kind of peculiar sausage quota? I can't imagine any more strict Muslims regularly visit sausage stalls than vegans do..?)
Sorry for my ignorant post, I'm just really, really confused by this issue.
R
1. Meat processing facilities are paying extra arranging a licensed halal execution instead of a simple one anyone can do for an unexpectedly large number of animals.
2. They aren't mentioning this anywhere on the packaging, so Muslims don't know they can buy the meat and non-Muslims have to eat meat killed in a particular way.
3. The people angry about this are the non-Muslims, because they don't want to eat halal food.
4. The objection isn't to the blessing, but the fact that some of the meat prepared as halal is killed in a way which is perceived to be more barbaric than the way everyone (apparently) thought it was done?
My question: What are people actually objecting to? The fact that the animals aren't being stunned (in which case the fact that it's halal is actually a separate issue), the fact that it's blessed for a specific religion, the fact that the death is seen as more painful even with the stunning or the fact that for some inexplicable reason there's a massive industry out there paying people to secretly bless food without telling anyone?
I think it makes sense for everyone to label products which have been treated in a way that enhances their value for particular demographics, of course, but I don't understand the rest of the debate properly. Is it actually that people want a meat equivalent of the 'free range' label on eggs so they can choose food they think has been handled more ethically? Or to outlaw the kind of executions which are regarded as barbaric in the first place, since it doesn't seem to be as much of a strict requirement in earning a halal label as originally thought?
Also Josh: I think all big supermarkets should stock both (and where I live, they do) but it's unrealistic for small restaurants to do both in all situations. Many restaurants can't even provide food suitable for people who can't eat dairy food or have dangerous allergies - while choice is great, it's impractical when there are so many hundreds (if not thousands) of different opinions on what constitutes 'choice'. Where I live every restaurant proudly displays halal certificates so it's pretty obvious what you're getting and people know they have the choice. Failing that, I guess pork is always safe if you must have a meat dish?
(And why did the stand have to be halal if it wasn't advertised as such? Did it also have to sell vegan sausages and kosher sausages and corn dogs to meet some kind of peculiar sausage quota? I can't imagine any more strict Muslims regularly visit sausage stalls than vegans do..?)
Sorry for my ignorant post, I'm just really, really confused by this issue.
R