It was very good. The Islamists came out of it looking very poor having dodged just about every question put to them.
The present criteria for meeting benefit claims do NOT involve excluding people with certain types of political beliefs, nor people with certain religious beliefs, nor people who have previously committed crimes, nor peoples' family connections, nor people who are nasty. It would be possible to introduce tests of claimants' beliefs, past actions, connections, and nastiness, but it would be enormously expensive and complicated to operate and each criterion would inevitably be highly controversial. So enlighten us - where should the lines be drawn, in your opinion, so as to exclude from benefits the people you disapprove of?
Most interviewers are too polite to ask the hard questions (like "Are you in favour of freedom of speech including for blasphemy") of muslim interviewees, or else they let them off the hook. I do not agree with the "Muslims should apologise for the massacre" line. It would be more to the point to ask muslims their attitude to free speech; that would sort the sheep from the goats. Everyone would be able to see which ones are the enemies of liberty and which ones are the friends of liberty.
Good that they showed the cartoons. Independent production company made the show but at least the beeb aired it.
Pete, I fear you have read too much into my post. It's the toxic combination of a non-contribution-based benefits system (excepting pension and a very few others) and EU membership which has made the UK something of a magnet. I don't believe some of the people in the articles I mentioned would receive treatment anything like as generous in much of the rest of Europe let alone USA etc. And that's nothing to do with discrimination like that which you describe.
You are right. But the problem is what to do about it now, given the tens of thousands of immigrants claiming here already. Do we stop their benefits, and if so on what basis? They are claiming within the law as it stands and changing it to prevent them claiming could be counterproductive as it might foment further radicalism and unrest. I don't have a solution, but I would like the New Labour politicians, who didn't ask the electorate before they embarked on the path of encouraging mass immigration in order to bolster their vote, to hold their hands up and admit that they were wrong. They appeared only to care about their party, not the country. I saw Harriet Harman say: "It's good for the Labour Party and it's good for the country" - in that order.
But you'll never experience the additional sensitivity enjoyed by men lucky enough to have escaped the cruellest cut. Makes sense really. Rub a sensitive area against cloth all day and you'll reduce it's sensitivity. A Jewish mate of mine refused to have his son snickered for that reason and because he regarded it as a backward and barbaric practice.
I agree - very difficult to reform the welfare state, but not impossible. After all, we cannot afford it now. It's not just about immigration though. As an Eu member we have to treat all EU citizens the same. We've had decades to deal with the implications. Yet look at the difficulty in capping benefits at #25K net - more than plenty of working families make. I'll bet I'd find it difficult to move my family to France, not have a job, and get the French state to give us a flat and income. I doubt it would be much easier if I were French.
:Banghead: It was a post highlighting the ridiculous perception put out by the right wing press in the states.
Fair enough. But I don't see how that followed on from the previous posts. I can't imagine where Fox got those ideas from. Really poor reporting - even by their low standards. I don't think they'd be allowed to broadcast here. UK broadcasters have to meet much more stringent conditions than newspapers in terms of taking a political stance, for one thing, whereas newspapers can choose to support any party they wish.
