Posts by Makemadam

    It's important to remember that that the case the OP has written about, 'Aiden's', are a very small minority and are very rare case scenarios when considering homelessness. Generally, work ethic and self help don't go hand in hand with homelessness as it is often a severe lack of these characteristics that see them in this scenerio to begin with. There are many services already available to help people like Aiden get back on track, the problem is there are too many people who, often through no fault of their own, don't possess the ability to help themselves, and although admirable I would be very wary of stepping in and making yourself vulnerable to someone who is most likely getting by on manipulating others and stealing, and will often play the victim act down to a Tee.

    Overpopulation is a problem that needs to be dealt with on a global scale. Unfortunately Western governments are hesitant to even raise the issue out of fear of being perceived to be taking away our 'human rights'.

    If we worked together and only had no more 2 children per household this would be sufficient to reduce it but the reality of a world that would voluntarily take this on board is a non-starter.

    I think we should bring about a policy of a 2 child max per household without severe financial consequences.

    Our water is running out, food will be in short supply, habitat for other mammals destroyed, spread of disease increased. The list goes on yet it isn't at the forefront of any political agenda and is largely swept under the carpet.

    What should we do to control this issue that could cost our future generations dearly?

    I disagree. Movement of people cannot compensate those countries that have the weaker economies. It just makes them weaker, as has been demonstrated.

    OK, so on this assumption freedom of movement has to be a good thing for the UK economy then? If it makes the countries people originate from poorer then by definition it is making the countries they're going to richer as the money doesn't just disappear.....

    A common currency cannot work among such disparate economies UNLESS the benefit of those who gain an advantage is shared.

    I would agree with you but, the advantage is shared which is the whole idea behind free movement, in that any citizen of an EU country is free to take advantage of the same economic benefits of his neighbour. How successful that has been or may be is another complex topic but the opportunity can't be ignored.

    I love that EU propaganda, It kept the peace , not NATO !, BLOODY PRICELESS.

    Precicely that, it makes for good optics that the EU was brought about for the prevention of war so this was the theme they used. However, it was needed as a giant counterweight to the economic influence of the communist Soviets. That doesn't make as good a poster though!

    When we look at the power of the Euro it has no bearing on its worth the fact that any currency was at 1:1 ratio or any other ratio for that matter. Its worth depends on what that Euro can generally buy in terms of that countries everyday products that determines its value.

    Its probably one of the most difficult areas of which to solve and not one thats going to get better as the mortality rate rises. I completely understand how difficult it can be caring for an elderly loved one. Especially when in full time work which is likely the job that ensures your immediate family are cared for.

    I understand the issue of looking after the elderly in prison. However that doesn't mean that old age is a reason to escape justice. As someone effected by the crimes of an inmate now over 70 and whose sentence will see him locked up till at least 85 my hope is that he is as miserable as can possibly be in there and with the best of luck will die before he gets a chance of release.

    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.

    If hormones are behind this problem, then the external bits and pieces are not really telling the whole story.

    Right, the external bits aren't the full story, but the internal bits are. That is potential to create an egg = female and potential to create sperm = male. Regardless of what new science comes to light it must be science conducted on one of these two forms of human. Any other form would be non-human by definition.

    HaHa had a chuckle reading these bits of advice. I'd like to think coming up to 16, he might have a handle on these, unless Josef Fritzl's had him locked up in his basement the past 15 years. Never know. Hopefully he followed them wisely!

    I think your WTO tariff argument reveals a Remainer bias. A 26% EU import tariff is an extreme example and you know it. Also, bear in mind that, for a great many products, the tariff applies to the raw or basic product, which may only represent a modest percentage of the total selling price retail. The rest is marketing, advertising, packaging, assembling or processing, distribution and administration. With many consumer products, the “base imported product” that is subject to a tariff, will represent less than a third of the total selling price. This in itself is hardly adds up to a financial doomsday. So you might want to consider easing up on the Project Fear bullshit.

    It reveals a remainer bias like it should, as I am in general, a remainer. The 26% example is just that, an example, of WTO rules being a set higher base tariff a cross the board. The fact of the raw or base materials being subject to higher tariffs absolutely would result in financial doomsday, and for a number of industries. To believe this wouldn't happen you must either be hoping for a miracle or have poor understanding of how a capitalist economy works.

    You say a second referendum doesn’t make for good short term politics but you go on to say we need a second referendum. I can only make sense of what you say if you mean that a 2nd referendum is a necessary short-term expedience to break a log jam but a pathetic way to govern a country.

    It's meant exactly how I've said it but for your ease an example for comparison could be if there was a stout Catholic married couple and the husband beat his wife black and blue on a daily basis, it could be thought that the wife shouldn't get a divorce (as her religion forbids it & would break her vows) but she needs one.

    Thank goodness almost 60% of our exports are to countries outside the EU cartel.

    That still happens to be a massive portion of our total exports that are going to the EU and that are under threat. Not only that but of the exports going to non-EU countries how many of those exported products are no longer competitive because they consisted of manufactured products from parts from the EU (cars as a specific example)

    [W]hat leverage do we have to get the EU to play ball with us once we are non-members? I would suggest;

    2) We could import considerably less from the EU and more from the non-EU. This would most certainly concentrate EU minds on whether to hatch a trade deal with us to sidestep WTO tariffs. Examples on reduced dependence on EU imports include fruit and vegetables from South Africa, Kenya, Morocco, cars and electrical appliances from Asia and the Far East, wine from South Africa, South America and, and with immigration reduced to a civilised level, home self-sufficiency turns into a necessity that could become the mother of invention

    3) To ensure that the EU doesn’t think they have us over a barrel on points 1 and 2 above, we would need to try harder to increase our percentage of exports that go to non-EU countries. I agree with you that we don’t have much to offer in the way of export products and services but what little we do have can, with a bit of effort, be more slanted to non-EU countries. Frankly, one of the reasons why 50% of our exports go to the EU is because it’s such a soft option in terms of administration, transportation and specification. If we want to be winners, we need to work at it. Either we are UK plc or we are the local office of an EU conglomerate

    This states what 'we' could do to put leverage on the EU to play ball. The only problem with this is that being a free trading capitalist country the government has no say in who 'we' sell to or buy from. The fact that the EU as you put it is a soft option for admin, transport etc. is irrelevant. The ONLY reason a business sells or buys products to or from anywhere is plain simple money.

    Its easy to sit and think "well we're going to have to be more competitive or take less profit" but over the last 10-20 years our businesses have striven to make themselves as streamlined and close to the margins as possible due to competition from all angles and numerous already saturated markets. So, to possibly survive and 'try that bit harder' businesses will have to make job cuts, they will have to hope labour market reforms and red tape is removed. Minimum wage is scrapped, pension contributions slashed and workers rights such as holidays and any job security's done away with. Any of these alone would have a marked effect on the financial economy but the main takeaway is that even a small upset to a businesses competitive advantage will have far reaching consequences and massive knock on effects.

    We've spoken on this subject before, although I don't think Fidget and the newer members were around then, but the EEC as was, was formulated at the end of WW2 as a purely political mechanism with the primary purpose to merge France and Germany together, therefore preventing a further major war between, seeing as those two countries had fought three major wars with each other, including two world wars within 100 years of each other.

    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.

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

    But surely it is inevitable that for when countries are joined in such a union that a redistribution of wealth will take place purely due to the free movement of people and money. That a given so shouldn't be a problem?

    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,

    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?

    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.

    You paint a very bleak picture of the UK. Would you care to forecast the future of the EU and its citizens?

    ps. No government has the right to hand power to a foreign government, without explicit electoral consent. The sovereignty of the country is not theirs to give. Sovereignty is 'loaned' to Parliament. The age of the internet has made information available that was previously suppressed, in particular, document FCO 30/1048.

    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.

    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.

    There's a lot of people on here giving a lot of credit to those who have been claiming benefits and sickness most of their working life as these are who we'll need to count on to do their fair share of the unskilled jobs.

    The Eastern Europeans only do it as a means to get entry into the UK. Once here, they soon move onto better jobs, leave the cabbages available for new immigrants, who then go onto better jobs ... ad infinitum. Why else do you think we need even more immigration because the cabbages are still ungathered?

    When you say better jobs what particular jobs come to mind except for those requiring qualifications?

    If we leave without a deal the 'cabbage picking' type jobs will increase massively, minimum wage will drop significantly or be abolished altogether and all the young Brits who will be needed to do all the menial work the Romanians once did will all be too busy rioting about how hard done to they are instead of doing a hard day's work.

    There's a big difference though, the gay person isn't claiming to be something that he is physically not.

    A female is someone who can potentially create an embryo.

    A male is someone who can potentially create sperm.

    Every human on earth falls into one of those two categories.

    If one was actually the other that would make us as a species 'self replicating' , which as of yet we are not nor ever have been.

    Horizon, reading between the lines of your answer;

    "We do not know the reason yet why some people are saying they are the wrong gender"

    Regardless of the reason they are saying it you unequivocally state that they are the 'wrong' gender, wrong implying it is incorrect, false, and not the gender which they in fact claim to be. Is it that you are so impelled by leftist rhetoric that you feel you need to sympathise with their particular cause or are your views unbiased and this was a 'slip of the tongue' so to speak?

    Thanks for clearing up the issue of electoral consent as it was an incorrect concept. Major did have electoral consent by the very fact the Conservative government still held a commons majority and were still in term when he became Prime minister after Thatcher. You can't therefore deduct that every outcome of a decision made by a government at the hands of a PM in power is 'without electoral consent' or undemocratic just because the PM at that time came to power mid-term.

    Undemocratic would be if it wasn't possible to have something like an 'investiture' vote, which it is, and that I believe has taken place with leaders in the past.

    Besides, for the case in question if there was any doubt over his authority to lead this was sharply put to bed by the ensuing GE which was a Conservative win.

    By-the-by I make the assumption that those in favour of leaving the EU without a deal do so because it might make a better country for possibly their children but likeliest their grandchildren? Any hopes of it being a better country for our generation will be shot. So much change takes time. NHS will have to go in favour of a more charitable set-up, scrapping the welfare state, cutting taxes which in turn will slash state services, ending labour market reforms, goes without saying minimum wage will have to go for us to be competitive, and riots will ensue.

    We would need to be the 'Singapore' of the EU to survive. I don't think we have the workforce for it but let's see.

    Many people agree its possible for it to work, but no one is under the illusion that it won't be a very violent, uncomfortable road to get there, far worse than the 80's.... (if we get there)

    Being someone who lived through the 80's I know what's coming and oh boy are some millenials in for thrashing with the reality stick. Hold on to your hats!

    And while someone may disagree with Teresa May's policies and thinks certain decisions made are not intelligent, it's clear that as a person she's actually very intelligent and astute, certainly more so than some of the other women in politics today.

    That is one of the reasons I voted Leave. Democracy was sidelined by UK politicians who took us into the EU without electoral consent, and then cooperated with the EU to make leaving as difficult as possible. If they had given people a vote, or a choice, instead of a choice of a pro-EU party, or another pro-EU party, then this debacle would never have occurred. Sidelining democracy only works for a short time, until the electorate realise the lies and deceit used against them in favour of a foreign government. Staying in the EU will further erode democracy, or what little still exists.

    What do you mean by electoral consent I don't follow?

    When you say if they'd given them a vote...... They did, in 1975, only 2-3 years after joining a leave/stay referendum was held and the British public chose to stay in the EU. I don't see how you can call out the existence of democracy, as far as I'm concerned that has never been in question.

    As far as going in to begin with it was a new ideology that most people were in favour of joining so was the right decision at the time. Referendums can't a shouldn't be called over every decision on a whim especially when there's clear support one way or another the very idea of a democracy is that you elect people to make those decisions on behalf of the people i.e. the elected party/candidate.

    As far politician's deliberately making it hard to leave. The easier it is for countries to leave the less stability is formed. By making it hard to leave would be the solid foundations and cornerstone of stability providing financial security and a solid market for investment. How could anything be assured if member states could just waltz in and out willy nilly? It wouldn't be a union otherwise.

    I'm was never opposed to leaving the EU initially but I hadn't even took into account how tied in and interlinked we are with them with everything. I'd have to see more data to be convinced we would really be saving on membership fees with all the swings and roundabouts.

    The facts that WTO rules may be the most favourable option is what frightens me. Once we've left the EU I don't think they're suddenly going to be more sympathetic and relax their stance. I understand it's in their interest to continue trading with us on one hand however, that primary goal for the EU has to be to make an example of us and ensure no other countries follow our lead. That would be catastrophic for them so its a double edged sword in this respect where no good can come from a flourishing UK outside the EU

    So if you really are "all for political discussion and differences of opinion" I'd be delighted to hear yours on any of the above

    I will attempt to give opinions on your points however discussing such broad, seemingly inaccurate and nonsensical statements will be tough. To help maybe you could provide some sources for the data quoted.

    "- their birth rate is 40-50% higher than long-established British citizens"

    By 'their' I assume you mean Muslims not living in the UK? If you could also clarify "long-established" British citizens and whether this group includes British Muslims? My broader opinion on this data is that I believe you may have just made it up. This is because all the other data I've seen seems to contradict this entirely by significant amounts. A global projection calculated between 2030 and 2035, there will be slightly more babies born to Muslims at 225 million than to Christians at 224 million (Pew Research Centre: Demographic Projections)

    "- 25% of them admit to favouring Sharia Law to operate in Britain"

    I'm surprised it isn't more. I though more Muslims were dedicated to their faith than that, after all Sharia law is the law their religion practices and runs by. Whats the big deal that when asked whether they favour the current law or the one practised by their religion they chose there own?

    I'm in favour of chopping the fingers off the hands of thieves, the hanging of rapists and the sterilisation of bad mothers, that doesn't mean I'm a threat to anyone or that any of those things are more likely to become a reality. Besides, Sharia law has many different interpretations, the most common being quite moderate, so I'm shocked that, by your data 75% of "them" didn't favour even the softest kind of Sharia law in the UK. To me that shows a more care free following of their Islamic faith and would seem to point away from extremism if anything.

    "- 70% of acts of terrorism in Britain - and indeed across Europe - are Muslim-related"

    And? Do you think that might have to do with the fact that all the countries the UK has dropped bombs on over the last ten years have all had populations made up of between 97%-100% Muslim? Again, I expected it would be higher given that facts.

    I can certainly name at least 3 countries where 100% of the bombs dropped on their population were by Christians killing dozens more people in comparison.

    "there is a difference between christian cosmopolitanism and religious multi-cultural-ism (which can become divisive)"

    That is correct. Although I'm wondering why state a random fact like this? Is there a topic within one of these fields you'd like to relate to the discussion of immigration and have me elaborate on otherwise without being more specific one could write a full thesis in any of these areas. I'm interested however, as to where, in your opinion, would they become divisive? I have always understood them to stand apart for very clear and concise reasons that cannot easily be misinterpreted.

    "- controlled borders safeguard community togetherness based on common values"

    What? Controlled borders are just that...control of a border. I'm not sure of your specific definition of "community togetherness" but it sounds like it would be best left to social services and their coffee mornings than border control!

    Aside from that, again you've stated what i think is meant to be in your eyes an obvious fact without giving area of discussion.

    Its like me asking you for a politically intelligent discussion about Teresa May is Prime Minister

    OK.....Right......and the discussion part?

    To hold any kind of intelligent debate you have your own opinion followed by reasons behind that opinion and any evidence to further give it strength. I suppose no one can say your argument is weak if you don't even have one to begin with.

    "if you keep feeding pigeons, more will come - and the same is true of immigrants - this is a fact, not a forecast"

    If you fall into a big pile of shit you're not going to smell nice getting out, this is also a fact. This sentence is equally as dumbass as the one above when used to forward a point of view in political discussion. Meaningless points like this are o ften used to bloat the content with words to distract the reader to the fact that the argument has little value.

    "- we don't have the land space for open borders (or closed borders which are not working properly"

    this is becoming so desperate that its obvious you're making stuff up now. When have we ever had open borders so why have you even brought that in as as a possibility. Running out of land space for what? Growing enough sprouts?

    - there are major cities in Britain where the public profile is no longer recognisably British - and this "invasion" is increasing rapidly

    Can I assume you're not referring to the way one would view a particular city's' facebook page and that what you mean is the ethnic characterisation of a particular city or geographic area?

    As this is a relative statement (generally) it doesn't open up the possibility of any meaningful discussion.

    - the world has two habitable hemispheres and the world must ensure that both must remain inhabited

    You do understand don't you that only 10% of the overall population live in the Northern Hemisphere leaving the Southern Hemisphere with the remaining 90%. I'm really struggling with your logic. if the world needs to ensure both remain inhabited common sense would therefore dictate the North take on an extra 40% to ensure both remain populated for an equal chance of remaining populated. I must be missing the point if you could fill us all in I'm confused.

    I believe overall you are confusing your dislike for Muslims and mixing that up somewhere in a debate on immigration when in reality there is only a small overlap and little significance one has to the other politically.

    I think I get what you're trying to say underneath that jumbleweb of words. I don't necessarily disagree with some of what i think youre saying. The only issue I have is your arguments are bullshit. Unfortunately, its ironic that you and people that argue like you openly about your views on "immigration" are unwittingly responsible for the lack of progress against fighting islamic extremism and are a direct obstacle infront of those trying to bring about change tactfully and intelligently against radicalised Islam , extreme Islam and those with the potential to be so.

    Your lack of intelligence and wit in being able to form an academically credible debate forces you to have to revert to calling names and using words that deliberately attempt to incite a negative response, such as the "invasion" you placed in inverted commas when referring to ethnic minorities in British cities. Without going into the finer details as its i'm not saying this to discredit you per se, but your argument goes something like,'if you're unable to put your point a cross then shout it louder'. Unfortunately this ends up looking and reading like you're saying all Muslims are immoral terrorists that we need to keep out.

    Now, the left wing panderers and victim chasers love this stuff, and because your shouting it, its picked up by more semi-illiterate morons who all work on a monkey-see-monkey-do basis and repeat blatant racist slurs in addition to other offensive dialogue and that is all that gets heard and used by the left to shut down for instance a productive conversation based on common sense why we need to ensure the violent teachings that are present in Islam are kept to a minimum and if needs be practises put in place to ensure Islamic teaching is regulated.

    How are we ever going to be able put forward any sensible dialogue and genuine concerns regarding the teachings of Islam and the like if people Like Rob Alka sprinkle some common sense in the pot which is abruptly lost by the nonsense and racist sauce that gets spouted out shortly after. Its the ammunition the left need to continually keep any productive dialogue related to Islam silenced under the umbrella that it must be racist or offensive.

    Finally however, and as I stated previously this isn't necessarily an immigration policy issue but more to do with people who are already here. Much more should be invested on recognising, catching and deporting illegals also.

    Fully agree Jack. We had the vote and the result should be implemented. A second vote would just cause enough trouble for the likes of Sturgeon to cause really serious harm to the country.

    This is the main reason I find a 2nd election difficult to bring about. On the flip side it could be implemented highlighting how unique the situation is, how damaging to politics it would be and therefore how we must learn lessons from it to ensure this type of second referendum nonsense never happens again. That'd be amusing. Nicola Sturgeon is about as much use in politics as a second hand tampon. The woman's numb in the head and has had her time anyway thank god.

    Should we have a second referendum? Really we shouldn’t as it doesn’t make for good short term politics. Do we need a second referendum? Hell Yes.

    In hindsight the biggest political error seen in politics for decades was made by Cameron in putting the vote to the public in the first place. The old saying “a person is intelligent, but people are stupid” wasn’t considered.

    There seems to be more than 1 person posting that believe that we would benefit in some way by reverting back to WTO trade rules. The very suggestion of which blows my mind and I’ll explain why for those who voted leave for reasons given solely by The Sun or such BS tabloid;

    The basics – We live in what’s known as a capitalist society. This kind of societal structure was built on, and requires free trade and competition to not only grow but to survive. WTO rules means that British businesses will be required to pay something ridiculous like 26% tax on products it buys from any other country. That is 26% more than than they were paying previously from countries we had free trade with.

    Now that the raw materials with which business manufacture their products from cost way more than before, the price they were selling their products at to customers no longer turns a profit so in turn they have to charge more. The customers that the business sells its products to (80% of which are abroad) are like “explain to me why it makes sense to buy from you (British Stuff ltd.) when I can get the same product at Italianos Manufacturing Inc. for the price we’ve always paid?”.

    That’s all before you’ve even mentioned that there’s also a 26% tax on products paid by other countries on all good exported.

    Well anyway you say, fuck the EU, were going to get a deal with the USA. Really now? What amazing goods and services are we hiding away that the USA are going to strike up such a bargain deal for? Bearing in mind it’s got to be long term sustainable so something the USA will deem worth paying to transport the 6000 or so miles distance. Not that we haven’t got anything but somehow I don’t think it’ll be enough to prop up even a fraction of our economy.

    So many people don’t have even a basic understanding of how our society and economy works. I keep hearing that narrow-minded rhetoric “but the Poles and Romanians are stealing our jobs”.

    What a dumbass statement!

    Clearly no one stating that has a business, and it comes back to the cornerstone of our society which again, is capitalism. Do you believe Mr ‘British’ business owner gives a shit where his staff come from? All he cares about is people are willing to work for £5 an hour cash in hand. Because of this he’s able to grow his business at which point he can realistically only take on staff through the books at minimum wage. He’d prefer British as it promotes his business image and hence he’s created a number of jobs that are open to everyone equally and that benefit our economy, not to mention grow his business further.

    How can’t people see that Romanians and Poles coming in to work are doing the menial jobs that Brits don’t want to do but are actually of massive benefit to “British” business owners who work hard every day to make a life for themselves and provide jobs.

    Does it not occur to anyone or make people proud that we live in a country that so many people from other countries want to come to even if it means doing the worst jobs for the lowest wage (because jobs above minimum wage are reserved for us).Why whinge and moan about what money other people are earning washing cars all day or packing bananas. No one is stopping you from working hard and making as much money as you like, we aren’t restricted.

    If no body reads another word of any of my other posts then mark my word here. If we completely split from the EU reverting back to WOT rules then in 20-30 years we’re going to be citizens in a country that’s such a stinking shithole of a dump that no self-respecting Pole or Romanian would consider coming within 100 miles of it.

    This is a unique situation we find ourselves in and while a 2nd referendum is bad form we should prey another chance is given to undo the mistake so many brits made when they voted leave with such little understanding of the demographics or complex relationship’s involved.

    Teresa May, has done what any leader would have. She would have been called worse if she hadn’t reached a deal to put on the table, and again, I don’t know whether people just aren’t informed but the EU hold all the cards! She had no bargaining power so how on earth could anyone be expected to reach a deal when it takes BOTH sides to agree?

    In any case, May has a very limited vocal and mental vocabulary, which is a major part of the problem.

    Lastly, off topic but couldn't resist lol at the irony. Best to not point out how badly someone uses their words while using "mental vocabulary" in the same sentence. Doh!

    I don't think we should mix up the governments' agenda to indoctrinate the people going to schools and uni's with the overall right of free speech and expression.

    We live in one of, if not the most free society on the planet. Freedom of speech doesn't necessarily mean that we can say whatever we want wherever we want and to whoever we want. Its part of a broader ideal in that we are free to be our own person and to make our own way in life the we see fit to do so. The majority of the worlds population don't enjoy that luxury so I feel thankful for that everyday and think it's something we shouldn't take for granted but too often do.

    Here is what the NHS says causes this condition and there are a lot of unknows here, so nothing is proven or black and white as you state:

    There are a lot of unknowns there and if as the NHS say, there maybe something that has gone wrong with hormones in the mother before birth, then this "disorder" is not a mental condition, but a physical one.

    While the NHS is possibly one of the worst places to get this information from I'll play devil's advocate for fairness and stick with an NHS source. From NHSlinks/Scotland;

    "The exact cause of gender dysphoria is unknown. It is currently classed as a mental and behavioural disorder in the WHO International Classification of Diseases."

    In addition to this a majority of those self identifying as transgender are also diagnosed with additional mental illnesses (mainly depression and anxiety disorder) on first presenting to health care professionals.

    (Nieder TO, et al. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2014.)

    Using NHS sources generally when arguing politically isn't the best place for unbiased information, being a government body it's policies and rhetoric are largely, if not entirely based on government agenda. It's a bit like arguing we should never be vegetarians based on info from the local butcher, or arguing the age of sexual consent should be reduced to 10 based on info from Jimmy Saville.

    Even it it were proven that it was due to hormonal imbalances in the womb that doesn't mean that therefore the resulting condition must be physical. There are a long list of mental health issues that can result from hormonal imbalances and other physical issues in the womb before birth. Autism being one.

    One of the more interesting and telling investigations conducted however, is the study of sets of biologically identical twins where only one of the two has gender dysphoria. Both shared the same womb, same blood supply, same balance of hormones present in the mother. They even share identical genes and DNA, yet only one is trans. In fact its so rare that both twins are ever also both trans that studies of the phenomenon are extremely rare.

    Fully agree with the last paragraph, but the problem is there is that most immigrants claim they are refugees, muddying the waters.

    I'm not sure where you're getting these so called 'facts' from but that's absolutely FALSE.

    Of the approximate 600,000 annual immigrants to the UK only 39,000 are seeking asylum and when you consider over 50% of those applications are denied that number is further reduced.

    I'm all for political discussion and differences of opinion but try not to state things that are just plain false.

    With regards to USA, CAN, AUZ, and NZ their history almost doesn't exist before the 17th century so they had nothing to share. As stated nearly half the Canadian population don't speak English as a first language so do we open it up to all of them?

    The problem I have with this is then you could get a large number of unskilled people coming those countries who would put equally as much strain on the benefits system and we'd be no better off for it. Yet their own countries don't have similar rules for us creating disparity.

    It's the majority view until science can prove otherwise.

    What is the majority view? And are you saying therefore that because something is the view of the majority it is therefore correct? This isn't a new field of science where no work has been done and no studies carried out. There are hundreds if not thousands of scientific studies and research papers on this issue and I have given examples of such science where it has been proven, that is why I have the issue to begin with!

    But how do we know gay people are gay. They maybe the wrong gender.

    Perhaps in the end, trans people may ultimately be gay and they are simply stating they are the wrong gender to hide their sexuality, by I am not at the point of saying that about trans people yet.

    Obviously, a microwave is not a time machine.:) We do not know the reason yet why some people are saying they are the wrong gender, yet.

    I do not accept that the issue is black and white, but good debate though!:thumbup::)

    You know if someone is gay because they say they're gay. That's like debating if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc......... Gender is not malleable. It has been proven in countless scientific tests that can be found easily online if one requires proof of basic biological facts. To disagree with these facts is quite literally like arguing black is white. Just because an issue is complex doesn't mean its facts can't be simple or easily proven.

    The scientific proof you require already exists in that we know the why isn't physical. The lack of science is in the area of what to do with people suffering this condition and I believe we're going the wrong way about it.

    I'm not sure why you're are so hesitant to accept that it's a mental disorder?

    That is how it is categorised medically.

    Otherwise, would be to be accepting one's gender can just magically change depending how one feels.

    Giving preference to people from NZ, Aus, Canada and perhaps the States, is due to language and our shared history and culture.

    I understand that a majority view is that immigration should be based purely on skills and that is a very just and liberal view, just not one I share.

    I realise that's your opinion I was just pointing out that it's racist and generally xenophobic and I can't possibly see how basing a policy on racism could benefit our economy or society as a whole.

    Trying to sugar-coat it as being because of language barriers doesn't really work especially when around 45% of the Canadian population speak mainly french and other languages other than English!

    Also we share very little history with USA, AUS, NZ and CAN compared to most of Europe and its generally accepted that all European countries share close cultural links with one another i.e western culture, so not much weight to those arguments either.

    There has never been any suggestion that the UK is at risk of becoming a majority of Muslims (>5%) or of Polish (>2%) , in fact that isn't even a current issue and is just scaremongering likely picked up from the tabloids if that's of worry to anyone.

    People need to understand the difference between immigrants and refugees also as there seems to be some confusion in other posts. Same area but 2 very different topics and policies.

    First of all I agree that immigration needs to be lowered but not by using clearly racist means to do so.

    Why should you be given preference just because you come from USA or NZ but be placed, using your words, in the lowest Tier 3 just because you're from Eastern Europe? This type of discrimination is called racism and doesn't belong in our society.

    The decision of who we allow in to our country should be based on what skills they posses and the positive impact they could potentially have on our society.

    Surely that is a better test than the colour of someone's skin or the country they were born?

    It's not about whether someone is offended or not, but whether we as a society listen to how these people self-describe themselves.

    I have never suggested otherwise. Of course people should be listened to and be allowed to describe themselves how they want, that's the beauty of a free society, but forcing everybody else to buy into that belief is something straight from the book of a government from the likes of North Korea and is becoming more common place over here without anybody realising.

    This whole movement was brought about due to the constant campaigning of lgbt regarding the suicide rate among trans people being up to 40% with the flawed view that if people viewed them as they felt they'd all stop killing themselves so of course its about being offended. They wouldn't push for legislation 'just because'.

    I have an issue when I as an individual am being told that I must, yes must ignore basic biology and pretend that men are women and women are men based on someone's subjective feelings of what they think they are.

    Leaving aside the issue of what someone does with their genitals, we do not know what is going on in their brains, their hormones or some other factor like genes which maybe a factor here. Something is rarely black and white and because there maybe no evidence yet, does not mean trans people have a mental illness.

    No, really it couldn't be clearer than black & white and can be explained and proven with basic anatomy and biology of human genes. Every human gene is coded with either an XY or an XX chromosome for both male and female respectively. From the moment of conception when the sperm fertilised the egg the foetus is hardwired from here on out with only 1 pair of chromosomes. It is the basis on which humanity has been built over many millenia yet our increasingly fascist government are dictating to us that we all must ignore this and adjust it to the way individuals feel.... just no!

    You also seem to be saying that you don't believe trans people have a mental illness, although there seems to be a contradiction in your writing. You agree we don't know what's going on in their brain so surely by definition it has to be a mental issue = brain issue

    The medical term until as recent as 2014 was 'gender identity disorder' updated to 'gender dysphoria'. However you want to phrase it whether it be mental disorder, problem of the brain or mind issue or some other new lefty term, that's what it is.

    It seems the act of being tolerant these days especially amongst the left wing is to pretend it's not there. If it may cause an uncomfortable situation then brush it under the carpet but for God's sake don't state the obvious even if it's true and sound logic.

    There is a "little" difference between microwaves and whether someone says they are a different gender to the one they are born with

    Would you elaborate on that and explain the difference. If a 20 year old man was to state the following sentences;

    I believe I'm a robot;

    I can hear voices in my head telling me to kill

    I am 150 years old tomorrow

    I am a woman

    Just because somebody believes something doesn't make it true and for the definitions above if they aren't all delusions then how else could they be described? On the other hand If somebody said they were gay that would be different and could be accepted as a way they feel and how to describe them should they wish. However feeling a different gender and asking everyone else to confirm to something that is physically what it is not is just insane.

    Lastly, if someone should buy into the whole 'woman can be men' they can't then argue that their young children, namely girls for obvious reasons, can't be sharing changing room space with same sex piers even if 1 or more has a penis, nor should they be opposed in any way to the possibility of having a personal sexual relationship with another (adult) formerly of the opposite sex. You can't have it both ways (excuse the pun). If you couldn't accept the above then your fooling yourself and making a mockery of transgender people by paying lip service saying you accept them as the sex they claim to be.

    We live an a society where the socialist left have brought about a whole generation of selfish thinkers. It's all about me, my and the way I feel about representing myself as an individual and who I am. The failures of this have lead to a victim culture where encouragement is given to be the victim; it can't be my fault, it must be his fault, who can we blame. If everybody else would just call us how we perseive ourselves then everything will be fine. When infact it hasn't made any difference. The suicide rate of trans people has remained the same for years (.8 in 100 annual)

    Like you I believe it is the product of several decades of a permissive society, and that is why I blame the parents. I further believe that this growing trend of sex self-identity conflict is part of a broader upward trend in mental ill-health among young people

    You blame the parents for what you believe is mental illness. Seriously?

    Also, I never alluded to a permissive society being anything to do with an individuals struggling with gender dysphoria, nor is there any evidence or studies that support this or the fact it begins as an attention seeking behaviour (in fact the opposite is true; with children showing characteristics of quiet and withdrawn behavior).

    However your opinion is your opinion and I respect that even if it is contrary to factual evidence.

    My comments were actually relating to the way in which 'we' as citizens are being made to modify biological facts as truth by an increasingly oppressive government.

    Have you noticed that once a person reinvents their physical identity, it is straight off the starting block seeking admission to areas where it doesn't truly belong, except as a hybrid that makes the occupants of that segment uncomfortable and undermines the authenticity of those who have an un-tampered-with sex identity, Worse still, they are crazy mixed-up self-absorbed, bandwagon-ing attention-seekers who would like to imagine they have found a place in society where they feel comfortable about themselves. I suppose even mutants want to be accepted!

    For the newly emerged teenage mutant, clearly its biggest handicap was its stupid, weak, pathetically-permissive parents

    If they want to spend time out of their home, I'm sure the newly-flush NHS can fit them up with colostomy bags

    I'm not sure whether your a young child or just a very immature adolescent but your posts just jibber on with remarks clearly designed to offend and insult which does a very poor job in terms of trying to put your point forth.

    To throw comments that insult a person's parents and parenting most likely comes off a bit rich as the type of person who types such deliberate inflammatory posts to obviously incite a response, clearly hasn't had the privilege of been given decent parenting themselves and any attention seeking referred to seems more likely a self analysis judging by the bitterness. You would have been taught some self control, manners, etiquette, and how to put forth and intelligent argument with valid points people may take in. Maybe that's why such a bitter rant. Not your fault.

    Word of advise, we get what your saying but any argument fails when you call names and deliberately insult. People will just ignore you and assume a young child is venting off after failing to attract the attention from other adults.

    Of course there are different sexes, but how many seems to be the debating point now.

    I simply don't know enough about trans people to say whether they are a different sex or not, but I tend to go with what people describe themselves as, and go with that. If a man says he is a woman, then fine she is a woman.

    Would you be equally easy to persuade if I told you (bearing in mind I am 37 years old) that I am 65 years old?

    The reason I'm not 65 years old is I was born in 1982.

    I have sympathy with people with this condition but I don't believe the solution lies in forcing everybody else to take on the belief and pretend something that is not true because you might offend a tiny fraction of the population.

    Its fundamentally wrong for the government to get involved in such a fundamental moral issue for the sole purpose of securing votes with younger voters as I can promise the politicians will not be teaching their kids these values.

    There is no evidence to date that suggests that this improves the life of people with this problem and its back to the issue of "because I feel this way that it must be right"...... Wrong! But worse still if anybody disagrees they're labeled as a hater or a bad person.

    Would there be anything wrong with saying someone was delusional because they were convinced their microwave was a time portal or would we ever be advised to encourage them and to feed into that belief that everyone owns one of these magical machines and that we all travel around the universe in them. No. Why? It encourages and feeds their false beliefs. We should be continuing to look for treatments, except now we no longer can because we have to make believe it is normal behaviour.

    How can there be more than 2 sexes other than xx/xy (female/male) If you're human you either have a penis or a vagina. Just because one may have a mental illness and decide to mutilate their genitals to make them look different this can't change that fundamental difference that has existed throughout humanity and we can't just create new sexes because we feel we should be able to or because biology clashes with our personal identity that must come above all else. Has the world gone mad!

    For those that agree we decide what gender we are according to how we feel and we can feel this at any age, are you also comfortable of the fact that any of your teenage daughters would be encouraged to shower normally at school with classmates of similar age whether or not they had a penis and scrotum. When you consider that a trans kid could also be either gay or straight I can't think of a more vulnerable position this could be putting young girls in and you'd expect being all "girls" a pregnancy would surely not be possible, right? Wrong. It's now possible (or they'd have you believe) girls can get girls pregnant. Sometimes I have to check that this is still UK were living in, it's shameful.

    Life is tough, shit happens but this generation is so molly coddled they think the world should be fair to everybody despite reality not working that way. There has to be right and wrong, truth and lies, and it makes for a dark path when a wrong turn is taken. But it's OK as long as feelings are kept intact.


    Oh you will always get idiots who take risks either they are too thick to realise the implications or they simply don't care.

    Everyone will take risks to varying degrees relative so their circumstances everyday. It's very naive to surmise people are idiots or to too thick to know better when assessing that risk.

    With that logic there must be no greater moron than those who would drive in a car for 2 hours a day to get to and from work. Greater chance of injury or harm, look at the stats.

    No more NHS care for anyone stupid enough to get injured on a road, you knew the risks, or just weren't bothered they might affect you?

    Should only the most upright citizens who don't take any risks at all be entitled to NHS or should we not assume we are perfect, more entitled or better than the next person when it comes to getting that care.

    I don't think disease is the right category for addiction but it's without doubt a condition regardless of how it came about, and those suffering should be treated like everyone else (as far as treatment goes drug abuse is a minor cost overall and a fraction or the relative cost for treatments of smokers and drinkers).