Carte de sejour Nigella's dad and I are applying!

Could be this coming true.

1 Like

Care to join me on planet earth?

Really I think it’s more about being able to have a ‘healthy’ debate not a banal conversation. We humans are expressive and passionate beings and we all express ourselves in different ways based on many, many factors that have and do affect our lives. We shouldn’t aim to ‘prescribe’ or control interactions so long as they are within the boundaries set out by this forum.

Guess what - we don’t ALL agree ALL of the time…we never will - how boring would that be? :-:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye::stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye::stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

1 Like

Harry, I don’t want cheese you off unnecessarily but (there has to be a qualification) what source(s) of official data meet your factual criteria, so we can see what is likely to meet your expectations, what will fall short of them, and what you will take umbrage over?

I don’t want to have to preface my own comments with FEEH (For Everyone Except Harry) to avoid getting on your amiable t*ts, my friend and fellow ex- asylum attendant. Did you ever learn how to use a twisted damp towel as a pacifier in the good old loony bin culture of the 1950s? Quicker than oral paraldehyde and leaves no marks, and that was an official fact. :zipper_mouth_face:

something with facts on it like i posted above.

New clause 58—Retaining Enhanced Protection (No. 2)—

“Regulations provided for by Acts of Parliament other than this Act may not be used by Ministers of the Crown to amend, repeal or modify retained EU law in the following areas—

(a) employment entitlement, rights and protection;

(b) equality entitlements, rights and protection;

© health and safety entitlement, rights and protection;

(d) consumer standards; and

(e) environmental standards and protection.”

This new clause would ensure that after exit day, EU-derived employment rights, environmental protection, standards of equalities, health and safety standards and consumer standards can only be amended by primary legislation or subordinate legislation made under this Act.

yes but what I understand is that while it withdraws from the EU bill it retains the same standard as we had with the EU.

I have seen nothing that actually says they want to water down and change any of the current safety regulations. That is the facts i was asking for as i cannot find anything I even logged into my rep account with UNISON and even there there is no factual information just speculation.

MPs who have seen the document claimed it shows ministers are considering weakening employment rights post-Brexit – with one branding the paper an “absolute disgrace”.

Theresa May has consistently said she will not weaken worker rights after the UK quits the EU, and has even vowed to strengthen them, but she has failed to commit to maintaining specific protections to do with working hours.

MPs told The Independent the document refers to a Department for Business, Environment and Industrial Strategy review of the potential impact of amending or removing existing employment regulations.

The Government has faced intense questions over the Brexit assessment paper, which MPs can now view under strict conditions.

It has already been reported that the paper suggests the UK will be worse off after Brexit, even if the country secures free trade deals with the EU and other countries.

But MPs who have read it now claim that a part of the document in which officials explore areas for boosting the UK’s economy also contains a lengthy section on “maximising regulatory opportunities”.

“Claims and speculation”

oh and to add.:

What they want to change is this apparently:

The section specifically mentions the EU’s Working Time Directive as one of the regulations which could present an opportunity. The directive limits the hours someone can work in a week to 48 for most employees, makes annual leave compulsory and states that staff must be allowed at least 11 hours rest a day.

And all the document contains according to some unnamed ministers is a reference to “regulatory opportunities”

ALSO:

Other MPs told The Independent they feared the reference to “regulatory opportunities” was code for scrapping employee protections**, though they admitted other parts of the paper included mention of a desire to “maintain standards”.**

They left that part out that didn’t they.

We are allowed, and encouraged, to make claims about what seems to be a reliable fact, and to speculate on the degree to which our claims to fact are, or aren’t, reliable, Harry.

We test the reliability of our claims to “what is” by examining the internal and external factors operating at the time, and using all the faculties available to us, and with reference to our lived experience of the same or similar representations of what seems to be the case, or what “is”, in our circumstances. If we are wise, we qualify what we deem to be a fact by indicating that we are prone to error, and may be wrong, about our ‘fact’. We may or may not choose to reference all the sources we have had access to in making our judgement on reliability.

It’s called thinking, Harry. None of us can ever “see the world” from anything other than an individual perspective, and - again if we are wise - we take this multi-perspectival nature of fact into account in our dealings with others, and in our common search for truth and meaning.

Do you sympathise with this opinion of mine, Harry? If not, why not?

1 Like

unfortunately thinking is not facts. The facts are in a document that no one has seen and it it is mentions “regulatory opportunities” but also other parts of the paper included mention of a desire to “maintain standards”.

What part are we to believe. I was asked the other day to look at the facts by david, not just what id heard yet here we are with him presenting us with non factual information and expecting us to believe it on blind faith.

UNISON is telling its members to wait for the actual information to be presented before they look at what action if any they need to take. That says to me that no one knows nothing apart from some ministers that could mean 1 or 2 or more who could just be stirring the pot.

Once the facts come to light I will be more than happy to debate it but as it stands right now its a crock of horse manure as far as I am concerned until facts are presented.

FACT: there has been no evidence given on this just some random post on a Facebook page and some story in the media that says one thing and also says it has positives too in the same paper about employment laws all of which is very vague on both sides of the coin so i am reserving judgement… I also saw an add for me getting rich off buying oil through a broker on Facebook but again I am not buying into that either.

Oh do you really trust the promises.
The legislated promises.
When people are currently being denied their right just to remain in UK.

1 Like

nope I will wait till they write it in stone

Broadly speaking I think that you are right - the main question at present is whether some  sort of agreement will be reached, perhaps with a very large helping of fudge, which will soften the blow.

Unfortunately, given the parlous state of the government at present, especially after May’s betrayal of the “rebel” Tory MPs and given the ongoing lack of ability to reach any  agreement over what we actually want our relationship with the EU to be, it is entirely possible that either the government will collapse and/or that we will run out of time to reach agreement before March next year (or, rather, October this year which is when it is all supposed to be sorted by for approval by the UK and EU parliament - personally I expect it to go right to the wire).

1 Like

I think some people live on a different planet to me. I have spent my whole life reading, researching and making quantitive decisions about what to accept and what to reject. I have done so in my professional and private life. I certainly never tried to teach my grandmother to suck eggs and certainly not how to play bridge. I am certainly not going to be influenced now by a patronising poster on an online forum. I certainly don’t need advice on judging what might be safe or unsafe on the internet, I planned and refined a curriculum where that was a central part and lectured on the subject to fellow professionals. I do however know next to nothing about dogs and if I get one I will be seeking expert advice.
I am unlikely to ever get a dog of my own because there already seems to be one around if I want one.

still not facts.

What? Please try to understand other posters’ posts.

while i shall not be rude back to you, I do not live on another planet. I go from facts and your beliefs are not fact, they are nothing more than your own personal feelings. you shared a post that was not backed by facts but by a half baked story. If you choose to beleive that then that is your choice. UNISON do not believe it and are activily waiting for FACTs to be published before seeing if they need to act on those FACTS. The stories out there are all double sided saying ne thing but saying the opposite is being said as well. saying there is good things and bad things in the “Analasy report” You yourself asked me the other day for facts.

i must have missed where you shared your research on all this.

Please do enlighten me to how you drew your conclusions to these facts since it seems even the politicians cannot make up their mind

As I said, you don’t understand the point of my original post. I could spell it out in words of one syllable but…

see you need to be rude, only way for you to try to shut down the convo where you have no facts. I end my case. You are not worthy with your fiction.

@james is this acceptable along with his previous rude post.?