RayC

Any evidence to support this contention that lots of migrants to the UK are unmotivated and undocumented?

Brexit may not have destroyed the UK's economy but it has severely damaged it, as almost all reports into its' effects have demonstrated. Was Brexit the catalyst for the fracturing of the country? Debatable, but I'd suggest it has certainly deepened the divide. Add in the fact that Brexit has soured relations with the EU (member states) and been a major contributor to the political chaos in N. Ireland, then I'd suggest that the benefits need to be substantial to compensate. Unfortunately, there are few benefits to be seen. No positives to speak of economically; no trade deals of any significance. The much touted 'taking back control' has had little, if any, positive effect. Indeed, when it comes to immigration, it can be argued that 'taking back control' has been negative, as it is now much more bureaucratic complicated and financially costly for UK employers to fill vacancies from overseas than it was when we were part of the single market. All in all, Brexit has been a(n almost) total failure to date.

Straw clutching at its' finest. Or alternatively, "vandalizing a wall by painting a mural on it is not the same as daubing paint on the walls of a research lab". The power of words, eh? I'm not obsessed with Banksy at all, although I admire his work. I'm happy to substitute your favourite graffiti artist's name for Banksys'. The point remains the same: I'm just using Banksy as an example to show the inconsistencies in your argument. If that were to happen, then Benn would almost certainly be the subject of a complaint and, if proven, almost certainly struck off. ..... But given that these events are imaginary we don't have to be overly concerned by them. Says the man who can judge a doctor's professional competence better than her professional peers.

If you type "travel insurance for schengen visa (from Thailand)" into a search engine you should get plenty of options.

To smash verb 1: to break or crush by violence 2a: to drive or throw violently especially with a shattering or battering effect also : to effect in this way b: to hit violently: BATTER 3: to destroy utterly : WRECK (Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smash) Unless you are redefining the meaning of the word 'smash', daubing paint on a wall and chaining yourself to the gates/railings/door does not equate to "smashing up a research laboratory" no matter how often you suggest that it does. Benn was found guilty of crimes and was punished. As the article states, upon her release, Benn appeared before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) to determine whether she was fit to resume her medical career. They concluded that she was. Apparently, this (additional) trial, judgement by her peers - which I think would be sufficient for the vast majority of the public - isn't enough to satisfy you. You previously complained that " ... pearl clutching middle class, leftist hand wringers ..." should not be treated differently, however, you have no problem treating the likes of Banksy differently despite him being guilty of the same crime. (Personally, I like Banksy's work, but by the letter of the law, he is guilty of criminal damage; the same offence which Benn was found guilty of). Anyway, thanks for proving my point that your objection to Benn has nothing to do with concerns about her ability to perform her role as a doctor - or for that matter equity in the eyes of the law - and everything to do with your irrationally hatred of any perceived left-wing cause which must therefore, if course, be suppressed.

" .. cannot control herself" (Whether her actions were justified or not, Benn seems to know exactly what she was doing) "Smashing up a research lab" (She daubed paint on the outside walls of a lab and chained herself to some railings. Juvenile and, no doubt, bloody annoying for those affected (which I guess was one of Benn's objectives?). It was no more, no less than that.) " ... akin to a teacher who burns down libraries at the weekends" (Oh my giddy Aunt!!!) " ... treat them differently because they are pearl clutching middle class, leftist hand wringers" (Who said anything about treating anyone differently?) " (my) doomsday cult predictions"? (I'll repeat: They are NOT my "doomsday cult". I have little time for either 'Just Stop Oil' or 'Extinction Rebellion') What complete and utter nonsense. Hyperbole of the highest order. Do you realise quite how ridiculous this all sounds? Don't bother answering: It's a rhetorical question. You still have not addressed how any of this is related to Benn's ability to practise medicine. Why? For the simple reason that there is no connection. The truth of the matter is that this has nothing to do with the separation of an individual's professional and private lives and everything to do with your irrational hatred of all things you perceive as being 'woke' and/or 'left wing'. 'Just Stop Oil' is left-wing; this doctor supports 'Just Stop Oil', therefore this doctor is 'left wing' and deserves all that she gets. No nuance. No analysis of the details. Black and white: I suspect that if a doctor was involved with an act of civil disobedience by, say, Fathers 4 Justice you would be less inclined to be calling for his disbarment. Btw: What would you do with Banksy if they can find him/her? He's painted god knows how many walls. Given your concept of justice, I imagine that s/he will be lucky to come out alive.

I did. I also meant "abuse" rather than "use". More care needed.🤷

Why do you say that? Imo a well argued opinion piece.

"The group (including Benn) used red chalk spray to daub anti-vivisection slogans at the entrance to Sequani and handcuffed themselves to the gates until police arrived to arrest them." Well personally I won't rest easy until the UK's public enemy #1 is safely behind bars and they've thrown away the keys. As TransAm says, get them to pay for the clean-up operation. Bit of a juvenile protest imo but back to the original discussion point: How does this relate to Benn's ability to do her (medical) job?

What precisely is irrelevant? What acts of vandalism did Benn engage in? You state that " ... this brings into question both (Benn's) character and her judgement which are essential qualities a doctor should have". I agree which why the GMC investigated the incidents. They subsequently concluded that Benn presented no danger to the public and could continue to practice.

You sir are a shining example of how to integrate into Thailand society👏😁 Nb: Do me a favour and stop at zebra crossings. Thanks.

Perhaps you would be good enough to produce evidence to support your claim that Sarah Benn has been convicted of " .. willfully committing criminal damage to a research lab", as my - admittedly cursory - web search didn't come up with anything. Benn is 55 and has been a doctor for many years both before and after her convictions without there being any concerns about her medical ability. There is no evidence to suggest that she would be a danger to any of her patients as you infer. It would be a loss to the country if she is unable to resume her career. I agree that individuals should be precluded from resuming their careers in certain professions (see my reply to James105) but do not agree that this list should include health professionals unless they were convicted of a crime against the person.

Upholding the law (all laws) is implicit to the duties of judges, the police, lawyers and the military, so I would agree that any type of conviction should disbar individuals from practising again in those professions. But what about other professions? Should footballers convicted of rape be prevented from resuming their careers? Personally I find individuals such as Mason Greenwood odious, and fully deserving of all the stick that he may get from the terraces, but I don't support the idea that he should be legally prevented from trying to resume his footballing career

I agree that what happens constitutionally in Belgium (almost) never has any effect in the UK; I didn't claim that it did. I merely pointed out the similarities between our two nations' constitutions and how the powers invested in the Monarch can lead to problems. It's good that Royal Ascent hasn't been refused in the UK for over 300 years. Let's play it safe and remove any lingering temptation that may exist to use it.

All well and good but nowhere in the article does it explain how these particular convictions prevent these individuals from carrying out their duties and responsibilities as doctors.

Yes because she is bound by the terms of the Hippocratic Oath. "I shall work with my profession to improve the quality of medical care and to improve the public health, but I shall not let any lesser public or professional consideration interfere with my primary commitment to provide the best and most appropriate care available to each of my patients."

I agree that the issues should not be conflated but that is exactly what you are doing ("Convicted criminals should not be practicing medicine"). I disagree. If these two doctors have broken the law, then they should be punished. However, their crimes have nothing to do with their medical abilities and there is no evidence to suggest that they would use their medical knowledge to harm the public. Therefore, once they have served their punishment, they should be allowed to resume their medical careers.

Given that - and for once, we are in broad agreement - wouldn't it be so much better if we could register our displeasure by voting them out of public office?

Exactly my point. Those sportsmen/ women who want to preserve their privacy largely keep a low profile outside of their arena. Those who court publicity usually get it. William could relinquish his right to the throne if he wanted. Imo after the inevitable immediate media interest, he would cease to be news and could live a largely anonymous life if he so wished. Look at the minor royals; they are rarely in the news If Harry didn't write books, appear on TV, produce podcasts and explore every possible avenue to promote himself and his wife maybe, just maybe, he would have a better chance of avoiding the media spotlight.

Who said anything about It happening "nearly 100 years ago"? The event occurred in 1990 so relatively recent history. Whether Belgium has "a minor royal family" is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that, like the UK, it has a constitution that allows an unelected Head of State to plunge the country into a constituental crisis. Charles has weekly meetings with the PM where he can offer his opinion and, potentially, influence government policy. Why should an unelected individual be afforded this privilege? It's known that Charles has strong opinions about a number of subjects. If he feels that he isn't being listened to, or taken seriously, he has options which shouldn't exist to make life uncomfortable for the government.

I agree with you re Merkel's 'open door' policy towards illegal migrants. No doubt well-meaning but a proven disaster. I also agree with you about the Tories and that, if elected, Labour have a hell of a job on their hands. Whether they are successful remains to be seen but it's hard to believe that they can do any worse. Unfortunately, that's where our agreement ends. Much of Europe has been governed by (coalitions of) centre right or far-right parties for most of the last decade. These parties have largely cited immigration as being the root cause of their respective country's problems. As far as I can see, there have been no positives from playing this blame game. I find it ironic and disingenuous that the likes of Orban rails against the EU - presumably an integral part of the global establishment? - when the truth is that Hungary's recent relative economic prosperity is built upon its' membership of the EU.

How many of these personalities court publicity, and then cry foul when attention is focused on areas of their life not to their liking? Having said that, imo attention is unavoidable for Heads of government/ state; public interest and scrutiny is part and parcel of the job. I've no idea whether William is unhappy with this state of affairs but, if he is, then he should relinquish his claim to the throne. Assuming that he then keeps a low profile - unlike his brother - he should have privacy respected.

Factually incorrect. Like it or not - I don't - the Head of State in the UK is the Monarch. As MrFill states the Monarch has to give Royal Ascent for bills to become law. There was a case in Belgium 30-odd years ago where the King refused to sign a bill concerning abortion. It causes a constitutional crisis. In the end, the King resigned for a day, the bill became law and the King then resumed his duties. This incident - something similar could happen in the UK - begs a number of questions including, why should an unelected individual be able to defy the wishes of the elected parliamentarians? Given that a work-around was found, why do we need to invest constitutional powers outside of government/ parliament?

The PM is the leader of the government. The Head of State is the Monarch. Although he is unelected, the King holds constitutional powers and could exercise them through the use of the Royal Prerogative.

She has gone of record stating that she does not want rid of the monarchy so - unless she's lying - by definition, that makes her a monarchist. Like any other rational person, she doesn't appear to believe in the 'divine right of kings'. If that adds up to despisal, then there's plenty of us who fit the bill