The EU debate - Part III

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tobes said:
Let's see how far yours extend....

Do you think it's right for Le Pen to say she'll charge immigrants for education for their children, despite it taking 5 years to attain French citizenship?

Also, do you think it's right that her party have banned pork alternative school meals being offered to Jews and Muslims?
Click to expand...

I'll have a look at what she said later, I'm sounding out yours and t'other fellas version of it for now.
 
DMD said:
So why mention higher, when it says all stumpy?
Click to expand...

It's not referring to higher education you bell end.

YOU have tried to make a nonsense comparison with Scotland charging for University tuition fees in your twisted desire to defend a fascist.
 
DMD said:
Based on you not being consistent in deciding who is right or wrong in charging for education.
Click to expand...

I've been entirely consistent. Children shouldn't have to pay wherever they live. Higher education is for adults who make a decision to enter higher education rather than it being a legal requirement to do so. It's really not my fault that you choose to not see the difference.
 
I would have thought that this was fairly basic. As Watford says, the UN charter covers legal or compulsory education, presumably to the age of 15-16. Anything beyond that is voluntary and may be subject to fees.
 
The Zlatan said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-38218118

Lol
Click to expand...
This story's not very in depth and it really deserves a bit more background, as it just comes across as stupid.
It is pretty stupid, but not for the reasons that you'd expect.

Sheikh Shady Alsuleiman (literally called Shady, for ****'s sake) is a dodgy ****er who's a known extremist.
He's best known for his homophobic views and the promotion of jihadists.
He's piggybacking (sorry) on a well-known brand to use the controversy to promote this product.
It may just be an attempt to push his ideology, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was financially connected to it, either.

I'm not sure why this made the BBC, to be honest. It's a nothing story.
I'd expect it to pop up elsewhere, but it's not really significant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back