Posts by Horizon

    Netflix’s Sex Education is about as British as a high-school prom

    Caspar Salmon

    With its jocks and geeks and beer-pong parties, this teen drama is selling a culturally bland vision of the UK to a US audience

    Clearly, the Guadian's reviewer wasn't enamoured with this show either. He made the point in the article that this whole show was essentially made for a American audience and raises the question whether Netflix will truly make original British shows, or simply shows that the Americans will like ie The Crown, as the yanks like everything about the royal family.

    The EU, are demanding a hard border, if there is no deal with them as a way to pressure us into accepting a poor deal aka May's crappy deal.

    I'm really irritated with the Irish PM too. He has warned that we are playing a dangerous game with the peace process, yet he has agreed and signed off on everything the EU has done up until now.

    No-deal Brexit 'means hard border' - European Commission

    It is "obvious" there will be a hard border in Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the European Commission's chief spokesman has said.

    Margaritis Schinas made the comments at the commission's daily media briefing.

    If he was pushed to speculate what might happen in a no-deal scenario, he said it was "pretty obvious you will have a hard border".

    However, the Irish government has repeated its stance that it will "not accept a hard border on this island".

    Every day for as long as I can remember through this whole Brexit saga, there has been stories related to the Irish border. No border. Hard border. Backstop. It goes on and on. I am fully aware of Irish history and the historical as well as current problems in Northern Ireland, but why is this one issue being allowed to dominate the Brexit debate?

    The EU has stated that there needs to be a hard border between the EU and UK, but the the UK and Irish governments do not want a hard border, so why should there be one then?

    If the UK is not going to impose border controls around Northern Ireland and the Irish government has said it doesn't want a hard border either, whose is going to impose border controls? The EU??

    It seems to me that the border issue via the Backstop in May's draft agreement is being used as a battering ram against the UK to accept something we do not want. Isn't Brexit meant to be about what we want?

    It's why I made the remark about communication within families, but it's easier said than done. It's very difficult for a adult child to demand that a parent comply with their request. A very tough situation and no doubt replicated all over the country. In my area, many people have built large extensions on their sides of their houses for "granny flats" for this exact reason.

    The report on Newsnight last night was about forcing people into care if they're mentally incapable. What if they're just stubborn, but need some form of care, but refuse it?

    Brexit: MPs put forward rival plans to May's deal

    MPs are putting forward plans to change the outcome of Brexit ahead of a vote next week on the PM's amended deal.

    Theresa May said on Monday she was focused on altering the backstop - the "insurance policy" designed to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.

    But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the prime minister was in denial about the level of opposition to her deal.

    Among the MPs' eight amendments are plans to stop a no-deal Brexit and to extend the deadline for leaving the EU.

    On Newsnight last night, it was mentioned that Amber Rudd is pressing the PM to delay article 50. If that happens, then the MPs need to amend the withdrawal act. What a mess.

    I haven't dug out the story yet, but on Newsnight last night, the government is going to hand over powers to care home bosses to force mentally incapable people in care homes, if they are unable to look after themselves like people with dementia.

    I don't know the ins and outs of it, but what I heard (a snippet of the report) sounded very alarming.

    It can be extremely difficult these days, given that both the man and woman are expected to work, and I had a very good career and was the main earner. We lived a few miles from my hubbies parents (he was an only child) so we were the only ones who could help. I had dogs, horses, chickens and cats (and a husband) to care for, plus full time work.

    In part, the problem of elderly care can be helped by better communication. Families have to start talking to each other and when people get old, they need to assume responsibility for themselves first, by trying to work out what their health is like now and what is may be like in the future and plan accordingly. Not so easy.

    Secondly, children of the elderly need to talk to their parents about what will happen when the parents can no longer look after themselves, again not so easy.

    Most of us will all get old and like everything else in life, it is something that needs to be planned for, but as you say, circumstances may make caring for a elderly relative very difficult. Things can change quickly (don't i know it...) and it maybe impossible for a elderly relative to avoid being put into care. Something, in my opinion, which is worse than death, having visited several so called "care" homes.

    When my hubbies Mum was alone and became unable to care for herself so well, as she was on two crutches and had ongoing problems with leg ulcers that wouldn't heal, we decided between us that we could manage best if she came to live with us, as we were in a bungalow and could cope with the care of all from home. We got everything prepared and then she changed her mind. So we arranged a stair lift for her home, and although she initially agreed, she refused that too. In the end it nearly broke our marriage, as my husband had to stay each night at her home, while I cared for the animals at home, and I got the occasional visit to collect meals that could be heated at her home or I dashed over there with meals.

    Fortunately, she had a very good neighbour who popped in to check on her while we were at work, but she found my mother-in-law dead at the top of the stairs. She had a fall, and/or a heart attack. We don't know which way round they happened, but the feeling of guilt were terrible, that we could maybe have avoided it had we been there. I was with both my parents when they died, and found that a big help in coming to terms with their death, knowing they were not alone.

    What a sad ending, I'm sorry Fidget. Did she have dementia? At least you were with your parents and tried your best with your mother in law. If she didn't want to go, what's to be done... Unfortunately, dementia or not, they can be very difficult and awkward and will not accept help. She should've accepted that stair lift, it would've saved her life in all probability.

    Those who take on full time care sacrifice their own lives for the benefit of others, and are wholly unappreciated.

    Yes. I know exactly how that feels as that's my life now and has been for the last 15 years.

    My views on caring for the elderly in general mirror that of most on here. As it being an issue that society is struggling to afford I feel its only right more onus is placed on families too many of which fail to care for elderly relatives as much as they should.

    Fully, fully agree.

    This is something I will talk a lot more about it in the future, as it was one of the reasons I set up this site (see my blog) but I had expected to talk about my experiences from a historical point of view and that quickly tuned out not to be the case...

    From my own direct experiences from within my family and from what I gather from others, there is a attitude of "out of site, out of mind," when it comes to the elderly and especially if they have dementia. Nobody is interested, especially the relatives of the elderly and that's those who have them. Many elderly people have no one.

    Take babies for example. No one expects the State to look after someone's baby, yet when it comes to elderly people, there is this "we have our own lives and the old need to be put away," like rubbish from within many families who have elderly relatives. It needs to stop.

    Unless the definition gets changed, that is.

    As I've said, I'm not 100% certain that when these trans people say they are a different gender, I'm in a place to state that they're wrong for whatever reason. Perhaps they are mistaken and it is a mental disorder of some kind, or perhaps not and science may prove that something is going on here. But for the time being, if they state they are a different gender, that is what I'd go by, with all the potential pitfalls that entails....

    I know this is not the majority opinion, but it is mine.

    France and Germany to seal new deal as Brexit looms

    France and Germany are to sign a new treaty on Tuesday aimed at breathing new life into their place at the centre of the European Union.

    As the UK moves to leave the EU and a rising tide of populism challenges the core liberal values of the bloc, the new treaty commits wholeheartedly to defending it.

    There is rich symbolism in the signing in the German city of Aachen, which has changed hands over the centuries and is known in French as Aix-la-Chapelle.

    I mentioned in the other thread about the founding of the EEC and particularly the whole point of the EEC was to stop France and Germany fighting again.

    Although the UK has always been excluded by this "cosy" pairing, it is something I support.

    If only someone better than Cameron could have persuaded Merkel to reform the EU, we might have chosen to stay in it. I certainly would've.

    Brexit: May looks for way to break deadlock

    Theresa May will try to convince Tory Brexiteers and DUP MPs to back her withdrawal deal by resolving Irish backstop concerns, cabinet sources say.

    Last week, Mrs May said she would focus on cross-party talks to get a Brexit deal accepted by Parliament.

    But it is understood she is now seeking to win approval from her own benches, with the government unlikely to win widespread Labour backing.

    I thought this deal was dust and we could consolidate in the no-deal thread, but Mrs May has other ideas.

    Why doesn't she just move on and by that, I mean drop this so-called deal?

    Just finished watching all five seasons of this on Netflix last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. :)

    The Hallmark Channel, the makers of this drama, are bringing out new episodes in the States from next month and hopefully they will eventually appear on Netflix here too.

    Looking for more feel-good stuff to watch now for my household. Does anyone have any suggestions?

    I am in the middle here, I have no problem with 'selective' employment when there is a genuine reason for that criteria being applied

    If we need to employ foreign plumbers, so be it, that is a skill, but the priority should be on identifying future skill shortages before they happen and train our own people up to do the required jobs. As for importing people to pick fruit etc, that should be zero.

    The EU is a monster, aided and abetted by our own politicians. They disregard their own treaties with impunity, when it suits them.

    Democracy was destroyed the day Heath took us into the EEC, and politicians have lied to us from that day in order to keep us there. Europe may be powerful under the EU, but it's a dictatorial power. They have total disregard for the people of Europe. This disregard will result in civil war, or worse and all the money the EU takes from the people won't be used to help the people, but will be used to gain more power and create an even bigger monster.

    At the moment the nation state is still far more powerful than the EU, but we have seen examples of that changing, especially during the 2008 financial crisis onwards.

    I think the main goal was to bring about mutual trade to counteract the aggressive economic policies of the then Soviet Union that posed a threat greater than they posed to each other and communist in nature. This would of course in turn bring harmonious relationships within the European countries and as you've pointed out prevent hostilities between them.

    The EEC was founded for the specific reasons I mentioned, but the cold war played a factor too. Here is one of the EU's current emblems which say it all really:

    All other countries entering into the Euro were exchanged with current exchange rates. Can you explain how in the world that gives Germany an advantage as surely the name given to the currency has little effect on its value? With time wealth will even out, with free movement of people and money how can't it or why wouldn't it?

    Because the rate of exchange between the mark into the Euro was a near perfect conversion rate of 1:1. No other country had that.

    The EU isn't perfect by a long shot but I'm not sure we'll ever make it alone. In the grand scheme of things I dont think sovereignty is the be all and end all, in fact I think the EU would be in a better position if we actually had a clear goal of being united into one big state like USA with a federal government and a state one for each country.

    It won't work. We're not America. Unfortunately, in the 70s when the UK joined the EEC, our people were never told that the EEC was always envisioned to be far more than just a trading bloc.


    1) Provided the employee applicant is not someone who has escaped from a prison or an asylum or the disease quarantined section of a hospital or an immigrant detention/processing centre or lacking identification papers that enable criminal checks to be made and which do not contradict the right to obtain paid work for a living and with no apparent danger to the employer's staff and customers AND the would-be employer is disposed to offer employment to that applicant, then by answer is yes, of course.

    I disagree and this in a way goes to the heart of the immigration debate.

    Anyone can wait on tables, so why do we need to import labour from overseas to do it? I just do not agree that unskilled foreign labour should be allowed into this country, the only exception being is if unemployment fell to zero and we needed them. We don't need them, though.

    That's precisely why the Italian restaurant will say to the prospective employee who is not Italian "thank you, we'll let you know". It is also why the advertisement cannot say "Italian waiters wanted". It is also why advertising for such jobs, in order to sidestep this law, will often appear only in the country of origin of sought-after applicants (which ironically will increase immigration rather than targeting Italians already living in the UK.

    Two of my most hated phrases are "the law's the law" and rules are rules". These were popular German maxims in the late thirties ..... and probably still are

    Judges like Lord Denning understood the difference between a court decision based on "The Law" and one based on what is Right & Fair. Without people able to make that distinction this will become an ugly world.

    Are you saying you think British people should be employed in these foreign owned restaurants, or not? I've lost your point, somewhere along the road.

    Agree about the jobs being advertised abroad, that's something that should be stopped.

    With regard to Immigrants requiring medical insurance rather than automatically and immediately qualify for NHS, before anyone gets too "bleeding heart liberal" about that idea, bear in mind that Canada, who are a lot more kind hearted than us Brits, operate their citizen's free health scheme with near enough the eligibility distinction between citizen's and non-citizens.

    There was a story from somewhere like Greece last year where a little kid of a British family was denied medical help, because the family could not prove they had the medical insurance. They had the European health card, but either they couldn't find it at the time, or there was some other issue and so the ambulance left them to "get on with it." He died.

    I am not suggesting that A&E treatment ever be withheld to anyone in this country, but we have got to stop the Irish "abortion run", the Aussie "baby run" and deny treatments such as cancer care to those who have not paid into the system and are not entitled to it, as harsh as that may be.

    Ah, benefits of being near the coast again, you miss the frosts.:)

    Blood moons are spectacular, no doubt about it, but after my dad died in August 2016 and I was coming home from the hospital right after he died, there was a massive blood moon in the sky then and that was very eerie. So, mixed feelings on those.

    After all the doom of recent weeks, the sun has broken out in London, but with it, the temperatures have plummeted. Frost overnight for the first time, on all the cars in the streets and in my garden, the bird bath partially froze over too.

    Just coming back to this post, but I overlooked something which I have talked about before on the NHS threads, which is a very easy and pragmatic way to control immigration and that is health insurance.

    Somebody like Michael Portillo or IDS suggested last year that anyone coming to this country must be required to have a certain level of health insurance. Apart from shielding the NHS of the costs of paying for migrants' heath costs, it acts as a screen to block out many who would never be able to afford it in the first place from coming to this country. Many countries already have such a policy, yet we don't.

    Another thing which many countries do, especially non-Western ones, and that is over citizenship. As you say, citizenship is handed over too easily. Try becoming a citizen in a "western" country like Japan.... Fat chance. But what the Japanese and others do is they also ensure that any migrants in their country who have children in Japan, are still considered migrants too and not Japanese, yet we hand out automatic citizenship for any tom, dick or harry who has kids here. Crazy.

    I don't believe the EU is fairing particularly well in the current global economic climate. It is inevitable that when countries with a significantly lower GDP than our own join the same economic community as they have done in recent years that a redistribution of wealth has to occur in some way shape or form over time. The whole idea behind the EU is that in the end wealth will balance out in the long term between our nations. I don't believe or pretend that it's ideal or we'd all live happily ever after, but I know in the scenario we're in its better the devil you know. Its not a thriving global economy and our tiny country pulling out to go at it alone I just don't think we have the guts and slog needed within us as a nation and think we've had it good for so long a whole generation have never even seen difficult times to understand.

    It's the "inevitable" bit, I have a problem with there.

    It is perfectly logical for the EU to want poorer members to be richer, ultimately that enriches everyone. But under whose mandate, permission, did they seek before going about this policy? I never gave my permission for my country's wealth to be redirected elsewhere and besides, before the eastern countries, it was Ireland that was the largest beneficiary of EU handouts, so this policy has been going on for a very long time.

    It's something I feel very strongly about given my own personal circumstances. Our people should be our priority, especially the elderly, disabled and vulnerable, first and foremost.

    I agree with you that the EU believes that wealth will balance out between nations, but that simply is not the case. Germany came into the euro on parity, in effect the euro was always the deutchmark in everything but name. That was not the case with other countries entering the euro. It gave Germany dominance over all others, especially the Mediterranean countries and that will never change while they're locked together in the same currency.

    It's because of "better the devil you know" which is why it is a fantasy to believe that very different nations at this time in human evolvent can come together in the way that the EU is ultimately planing. One day perhaps, but not now. See my reply to Heero on more about this.

    On the point about being alone, we will never truly be alone in this 21st century world with such close connections between countries, we just simply don't need to merge with them. We have great scientists, engineers, artists etc, we are leading in many fields such as genetics and AI. We can do just fine.:)

    Its only been in recent years that anyone's really started complaining about sovereignty. I don't think sovereignty has even been lost but I think it'll be such a trial matter when put up against problems that are on their way

    You would have to state what those are before I could comment further, but sovereignty, one's identity is a massive issue. But the threats, as I see them, are from power hungry, autocrats nut jobs that are in power in countries such as Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.