Off Topic Political Debate

Some have accepted it some have not- many are donating it to charity. There is hypocrisy here too - an independent body was formed to set MPs pay to PREVENT MP's deciding their own. Now because that body has given an increase nobody likes it. Part of the reason for the increase was to rebalance the salary / expense equation as salaries cannot be manipulated by MPs. Whether you like it or not MPs are underpaid by industry and international standards. Do you want only the rich to be going into Parliament as they are less bothered by the income?

So so easy to create a bullet point that we are all supposed to fawn over. Headteachers get over £100,000 per year for looking after one school. Are they worth more than nurses? Another use of selective stats. Oh and actually yes - a person elected as one of 650 to help run our country in my opinion is worth more than a "ground" nurse - or teacher - or accountant - etc etc

Yorkie - if all your posts and cartoons are left biased then some of us will consider you left wing - you may not - but there you go. Look at all your posts. ON here I must come out as a "rightie" - is that a term of abuse? As it happens I find that since a lot of the comments here are inaccurate, emotional and downright slurs on character that I defend the Tories even though I don't actually vote for or support them.[/QUOTE]

 

Come on Dan - lefty is not a term of abuse. Yorkie asks for it by claiming not to be left wing - he apparently does not want to see politics in those terms - but all his posts and digs through cartoons and newspaper articles are left wing. When he has posted even a dozen anti-left or pro-right wing comments I may revise my opinion.

 

How come a posting about MPs pay rises is left wing?

Given that virtually the entire 606 message boards are about views and opinions and dare I say it emotions.. do different rules apply here?

Whatever way you put it... an opinion is just an opinion.... all are valid etc....

 

I did not say that every single comment you make is left wing - the MP pay thing appears to be across all parties - but when you bring in nurses to make a point it smacks of the typical left wing approach. Next we will be complaining that MPs earn more than "our boys" who risk their lives etc etc. All emotional - zero reasoning.
I am not criticising not606 boards - they are for opinions, emotions whatever - who cares? All I am saying is that an argument that has no substance but just appeals to the emotions does not sway me. How about someone posting that Cameron is evil to our cute little hedgehog friends - I am sure that would make me hate him. Seems you are swayed. Good - each to their own and vive la difference as OFH might say.

 

I suggest you do the myers briggs temperament sorter

this is a free version of:

http://www.keirsey.com/sorter/register.aspx


has been used in HR etc and people development for many years

basically people are:
more introvert or more extrovert
intuitive or sensing
feeling or thinking
judging or perceiving

It is interesting in that he shows your style of approaching things.....

I use to do it every year my counselling students for example and every year over half, some years, 80%, iNtuitive Feelers (NF)

If you are more of a person who deals in concrete realities you will be Senser as opposed to Intuitive
If you are more of an emotional person you will score mostly as a Feeler as opposed to a Thinker

I actually think, ...cant back it up but it feels right ...., that most people vote for emotional reasons rather than logic.

anyway I have a different way of processing things than you Leo and vice versa... yes vive la difference... all good in the mix of life!

 

Please don't take me back to Myers Briggs - thought I had managed to leave such stuff behind.
All I am saying is that it usually takes a persuasive argument to make a point -but I am sure showing fluffy kittens works for some

 

You are beyond redemption then.....

 

I would fire almost all HR people - unless they go back to being in "Personnel" ( I saw myself as a person not a HUman Resource) and alongside them their raft of psycho babble tests and all other drivel that so called experts dream up and charge companies millions especially from the top accounting firms - remember the £3m rebranding of BP ?

 

The EU is now proving the implementation of the Schengen agreement was purely political and not for practical reasons. The present squabbling and horse trading between some EU nations shows the true lack of consensus. Italy's threat to issue temporary visas to migrants, if carried out, will swamp Europe, many will end up at Calais.

The french police seem to show much more vigour keeping the migrants out of France than they do at Calais trying to stop them from entering the UK!!!

 

To be honest, the way the rest of Europe is heaping this whole problem onto Italy and Greece by saying that refugees can only be processed in the first country of entry is disgracefull. I hope the Italians are true to their word on this.

 

If you have a European "citizenry" which I guess we are intended to have then it should indeed be solved in European terms. However Greece and Italy tend to be the first point of entry into Europe for obvious geographical reasons but there seem no shortage of movement as many try to find their way to either economically better off countries and to the UK where the English language is an obvious attraction.
I would like to see the EU stop ignoring the whole issue of movement of people. Turning a blind eye and hiding behind laws that guarantee freedom to work in other member states ignores all the problems of assimilation, benefits movement and so on. To allow free movement between European countries but subject to sensible controls is good - but where are the rules for those controls?

 

It may not be a popular view but I agree with Theresa May. The more migrants that are allowed to settle in Europe the more others will follow. There is no easy answer but the migrants need to somehow return to their departure point. It is a pity the Uk has helped cause many of the migrants to seek pastures new.

 

Despicable man but he has a point here!

please log in to view this image

 

Very much agreed but maybe we should have said in the UK a long time ago.

 

Why?

 

Because there is no place for sharia law in the UK despite beardy weirdy Rowan Williams stating the use of sharia in some aspects of British law is 'unavoidable'

Plonker.

 

That's fully understood though. If UK law is broken people are punished for it so there's no need to make that clear to any specific group of people. All it does is cause bigger divisions in my opinion.

 

The question is how you see the state. Does 'the nation' belong as a cultural, historical concept - or is it simply the product of all the people who happen to be in it at any one time ? If the latter then we need to search for a middle point - Sharia is not Islamic and has absolutely no basis in the Khoran itself. The vast majority of Moslems in the west do not want this type of fusion between state and religion. We need to be embracing this peacefull majority with a state in which they are able to participate fully in order to better isolate the extremists.

 

Including David Cameron who does not agree with it and wants to get away from the ridiculous IPSA process..

 

There is a very easy answer. It's to eliminate the push factors from the migrants home countries. Allowing the aid budget to be used and accounted in this way i.e. pro active funding to make life better in third world countries rather than only allowing it to be accounted as aid if its a reactive fix is the way to move forward...