Originally posted by spymaster
Ah ha i knew it wouldnt be long before Sminkey got hold of this thread
- Alright there, never let it be said I'd let you down!
they (the Insurence Company) will have a clause in there somewhere to allow them to get away from paying out in case of a claim.
- I don't dispute this as a general point but surely you must have noticed the number of stories recently hitting our press about how insurance
premiums (especially things like the mandatory liability insurances) are going through the roof?
That's what I mean; employers have to have this and to make their premiums affordable the companies are insisting on this kind of thing.
It's not long once that happens that governments and things like the EU step in with law to take the heat out of the issue and make this a 'level
playing field' by law; quite rightly IMO.
Daily Mail 5 July 2005
- Uh oh.
Patients’ lives are being put at risk because thousands of doctors working in Britain have a poor command of English, experts warned
yesterday. Medics from outside Europe are tested on their language skills before being accepted into the profession. But under an EU labour law
ruling, doctors from Europe are exempt from the tests.
- Do you know that once upon a time this kind of story was all about English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish accents?
The simple fact is that if a doctor is unintelligible to the patients then it is the responsibility of the hospital that hired them. Here in Northern
Ireland the complaint is that the staff (from outside
of the EU) cannot be understood.
You won't find that in the Mail, huh?
Irrespective of the general guidance hospital and health authorities still interview staff for the possible posts.
if there is a problem it ought to be picked up there.
The UK health service is
presently over-reliant on 'foreign staff', that's a sad fact that you can't just ignore, no matter what occasional
communications problems may sometimes arise.
It takes us 10yrs to 'train' a doctor to the standard we require so the increased funding begun in 1997 is still some way off of producing its first
Still, since when did the Mail ever let the facts get in the way of a chance to bash the EU?
Originally posted by zappafan1
Well, I'd say that something more indicative in the EU's aims was a law passed that does not allow using a capital letter when using the word
"Christ" or a capital "J" when mentioning Jews.
- I can honestly say, as a person resident in the EU and reasonably au fait with current affairs here that I have never heard of this "law".
free speech is in danger, too. it's against the law to say anything derogative the EU or their policies.
- No, this is not so. You are mistaken.
We have several parties across the EU that are critical and/or hostile to the EU (especially in the UK).
A priest of precher can't even quote the Bible when saying anything about homos.
- I think you might be confusing this with the much talked about 'incitement to hatred' legislation.
That is something the UK is doing itself, it has nothing to do with the EU.
(although once again there is an angle where employers are helping to drive some of this so as to avoid being sued over employee disputes, where an
employee claims constructive dismissal through the hateful actions of co-workers that the employer did little or nothing to stop)
Since the EU is basically setting up the European countries as :states", like in America, then they should only get one vote at the
- Sorry but the EU is doing nothing; the sovereign nation states drive the EU.
Those sovereign nation states remain sovereign nation states and as such are entitled to their UN votes.
You will, however, find occasions where the EU acts collectively (the WTO for instance) and has just the one vote.
This makes sense where 'we' have a single market in place.
We do not have single foreign policies or defence policies so in that regard a single vote would be a nonsense.
[edit on 30-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]