GuestHouse

36 minutes ago, swanny321 said:

 

  I think it's a smokescreen b

I wonder how 'culturally enriched the Saudis would feel if a woman decided to wear a thongkini on the beach at Jeddah!?

On the basis of the number of 'lingerie' stores in Jeddah selling 'full on webbing' I'd be reluctant to say I was certain of the answer.

21 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Forgive me if I try to 'pin you down', but are you saying that those supporting brexit had any chance of formulating a planned leave - bearing in mind only the government had all the relevant information, and the EU (for obvious reasons) had no interest in pretending there could be anything other than a 'remain' vote?

 

The EU  certainly wasn't about to start talking or negotiating in the event of any 'leave' vote!

 

They're still saying that there will be no negotiations even now  .

No, I'm saying there was no plan and todate there is no plan.

Whatever plan develops and whatever negotiation develops must, because it impacts UK constitutioal law, be presented to parliament for debate and rattification.

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying that the brexiteers had no access to all the information necessary to form a plan in the event of a leave vote?

 

But that the 'leave' vote by the population should only be 'considered'  by the politicians (and/or lawyers) - who should be able to over-ride the vote?

No what I have said all along is 'there is no plan' and 'nobody has any idea what deal is available or how a deal will be reached'.

What I added in my response to your last post are comments on the fact that Brexit and any deal that Brexit might obtain has huge constitutional implications for the UK .

The government are bound by parliamentary law to present such changes before parliament for debate and ratification.

Sovereignty resides with parliament, not with the government.

We need be neither Brexit or Remain supporters to see why this is necesary.

For example, if the negotiations are unable to deliver a key Brexit demand who then can accept the deal minus that demand when doing so would defy what Brexit claims to be 'the will of the people'?

20 minutes ago, SgtRock said:

 

I never asked you to introduce your Nationality, nor did I disclose yours.

 

I simply asked, why, as a Non Brit you are all over this thread like a rash ?

 

Stab in the dark, somewhere along the line you have a vested interest in the UK remaining a part of the EU.

 

What are those vested interests ?

Keep stabbing in the dark Sgt, I'm not about to feed your need to introduce any detail or aspect of my nationality into this discussion.

Take note one response making a guess has been removed.

8 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Surely it should be the government to come up with a plan in the event the referendum vote was to 'leave?

 

The government has (or is able to obtain) all the relevant information to come up with a plan in the event of a 'leave' vote, whereas any 'leave' supporters can only point out the reasons to leave.

 

They were in no position to come up with a plan until they had access to all the information.

In most respects I agree with this but would add that it is not simply for the government to formulate a plan and/or gather information. The government must, under parliamentary law, place the plan and options before parliament to debate.

The sovereignty of the UK resides with parliament, Brexit and the eventual 'deal' and/or 'options' to the 'deal' have huge constitutional implications.

There is no argument to remove parliament from the line by line, item by item debate on constitutional change.

So while we seem to agree in principal, the devil is in the detail.

I wonder if she ever got around to paying the fine, or if she did the sensible thing and wait for the council of state to suspend the ban on the burqini?

4 hours ago, Anthony5 said:

 

There are bigots and there are Muslim huggers on this forum.

 

Please point out to all of us where in the French law is written that women have the right to wear a burkini. Right it is written nowhere, because there is no law about it.

 

And if you think that I not understood what is written in the OP in 2 words, and which you felt the need to write down in 6 lines, then I know who is the ignorant.

 

The council TEMPORARILY suspended the ban, because there is no law regarding it at this point, which doesn't mean that there will not be a LAW banning burkinis in the near future.

 

And going from the comments from Sarkozy, PM Manual Valls and the results of polls held among the French population, it is very likely that there WILL be a LAW banning the burkini.

 

And to answer your insinuation that I hate Muslims, below is my answer.

 

Your tenacity in demonstrating you have no idea what you are talking about is impressive.

French law, like most law systems, allows rights and freedoms to any actions that are no prohibitted or controlled by law.

There need be no law to award a right to wear a garment, only the absence of a law prohibiting the wearing of a garment.

The clue is in the expression 'it's against the law'.

Nothing can be against a law that does not exist.

3 hours ago, SgtRock said:

 

I could not care less whether Brexit happens or not. I just happen to believe that the UK would be better off out of the EU.

 

I will ask you again.

 

 

Why ?

 

What stunning piece of information do you have that warrants your statement ?

 

Let me guess, nothing.

 

As a Non - Brit, why are you all over this thread like a rash ?

It's not a stunning piece of information I have, its the stunning absence of a Brexit plan.

----

I have not introduced my nationality into the conversation and I'll thank you not to do so.

9 minutes ago, SgtRock said:

 

Why ?

 

Have you got a date for the sky falling in or WW3 breaking out ?

Have you got a date for Brexit?

And just so we can judge if we ever get there a definition of what Brexit will actually be?

32 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

Ive got several French friends who visit Pattaya. They are all nationalistic and patriotic, more so than the British, Germans ans Scandinavians. In liberal speak that's racist and bigoted.

 

For years thare has bee mutual hatred between the French and their Muslim immigrants, The French were never asked for their approval on the matter of mass immigration. Muslims do not want to integrate and the French don't want them to.

 

This burkini issue is a reaction to this mutual hatred that has been intensified by recent atrocities. It's becoming a bubbling cauldron and if the Front National get in their ultimate aim will be to drive the Muslims out of France like the Algerians drove the French out of Algeria and they will take the task seriously.

Well if you are basing your views on the opinions from your several French friends who you admit are Racist and Bigoted, we might conclude the views you have expressed are blinded by racism and bigotry.

Questions to ask might include:

What part are politicians playing in stirring hatred and mistrust? To what end? Cui Bono will seldom let you down.

What is the real story of integration or lack thereof?

Are the broad brush views and assumptions of people representative of any truth or are they blinding us to a different view?

25 minutes ago, nausea said:

Talk about fiddling while Rome burns, people are being killed left, right, and centre; and the best the authorities can come up with is a Burkini ban, with the obvious SJW response.

Absolutely agree. Starting/joining illegal wars, bombing nations back into the stone age and forcing regime change by military action needs to stop. 

26 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

But their customs are not allowed priority over what French society deems as historical French customs and identity.

 

America the melting pot has had immigration throughout its history but these immigrants willingly chose to become American first and keep their history as a personal pride in the privacy of their home. 

 

Immigrants loved the country they were born and raised in but also recognized the problems in that country which prompted their departure. They showed their willing allegiance to the new country which had welcomed them and provided opportunity for their future offspring.

 

Do you not understand the difference?

Here's a logical argument you need to find a way around. 

What French society (which includes all the French people who are the children, grandchildren of immigrants) regards as French customs and identity is not fixed in time. 

Do you understand how that demonstrates the absurdity of trying to define culture and identity as fixed and unchanging?

18 minutes ago, i claudius said:

 

oh yes you can ,just read these boards hundreds do .

They can, but they may not. 

I lived in the Netherlands for two years, departing early this summer, but also lived and worked in the Netherlands for over a year almost 30 years ago.

When I first went to the Netherlands in the late 80s Marijuana was, as it is now, on sale. 

Dutch society has not collapsed since. 

Meanwhile in the intervening years Blair deregulated alcohol in his effort to introduce 'European Cafe Culture' with the predicted result of condemning British town centres Friday and Saturday night alcohol fuelled violence that is only overshadowed by the alcohol fuelled violence that goes on in homes up and down the country.

'European Cafe Culture' was perhaps a good idea, but Blair was in hoc to the booze industry and introduced the wrong 'European Cafe Culture'. 

4 minutes ago, i claudius said:

What did Brexit supporters gain ? well for a start the pleasure of reading all the whiners who wanted to remain on here ,i read your posts, laugh and think tough titty , moan on , you still lost and we WON

I suggest you make the most of this and enjoy it while you have the opportunity. 

2 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Its a positive contribution you make to the topic here but its unfortunate you wait so long to make it while you continually bait your perceived adversary. 

 

Why not just post something like this right off and make your contributions to TVF positive rather thsn insultive?

 

Again, a well written and informative post...however ill timed.

When we have bigots drip feeding hatred and bigotry, challenging with them straight out a structured argument on the form and function of French constitutional law is pointless until the depth of their ignorance on the matter is first exposed. 

Even then assuming they don't simply deny the black and white comments they make when called to task. 

Nevertheless I'm pleased you yourself appreciate fact based and well argued points of view. 

I trust you'll now join the French law in upholding the rights of women to wear a burqini if they wish and more than that join the challenge against the bigotry being openly displayed on this forum. 

10 minutes ago, SgtRock said:

 

France is not in Asia

Asians, or indeed Muslims, born in France are French.... with Asian/Muslim beliefs and customs. 

As French citizens their beliefs and customs are part of the overall French culture. 

15 minutes ago, Anthony5 said:

 

Oh yes I do, there may be voted a new law soon, against which the council of state can nothing do at all.

 

Prime Minister Manuel Valls has defended the ban but some ministers have criticized it, splitting the government.

 

Nicolas Sarkozy, who is running again in the election in 2017, has said he’ll never allow burkinis to be worn if he becomes president.

 

 

 

As I said earlier, I don't think it a good idea to pin your hopes on the French fighting any wars for you. 

4 minutes ago, Anthony5 said:

 

So you know what the permanent ruling will be? You must be a fortune teller.

 

A permanent ruling on whether or not to ban the burkini

I asked you if you know what you are talking about, I even asked you if you really know what you are talking about. 

I then gave you a heavy clue when I asked you "Do you know on what basis the Conseiller d'État makes its rulings"

You've now come back and confirmed that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. 

Here's the answer:

The  Conseiller d'État is an administrative court, it only examines if the actions of the state or the actions of a state official are compliant with the law. The Conseiller d'État does not make the law, it adjudicates on the application of the law. 

The case examined by the Conseiller d'État was not should Burqinis be banned, but was the Mayor of Nice acting legally when he banned Burqinis. 

The council of state is not empowered to make a new law banning Burqinis and will not rule Burqinis should be banned - Making laws is not what the Conseiller d'État is established to do.

Go educate yourself before posting more nonsense on stuff you have absolutely no idea about. 

4 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

So a country that wants to retain its own cultural identity is not allowed by the PC police? 

 

If immigrants didn't change the culture of the countries they move to, the British would still be living in mud huts, dressing in animal skins, painting themselves blue. 

But we need not go that far back - the most popular food amongst British people on a night out is..... Curry. 

Culture changes - get used to the constant change. 

1 minute ago, Anthony5 said:

 

 

Really he overruled it? Great selective reading from your side.

 

The ruling by the State Council in Paris is a temporary one which only applies to the town. A permanent ruling on whether or not to ban the burkini from public view in France is expected to be made in a few months.

Yep, overruled. 

Do you know on what basis the Conseiller d'État makes its rulings and if so what do you expect to change between now and the formal binding ruling?

13 minutes ago, Anthony5 said:

 

Yes I'm all for the " an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" policy, hey wait, isn't that the basic of the law applied by the group of people you support so eagerly?

How is the comparative punishments dished out according to a person's origin 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'?

It is not.

Do you have any idea of what you are talking about... I mean any idea at all?

4 minutes ago, Anthony5 said:

 

The group that supports Sharia law, which happen to be the same as which are wearing burkinis.

How about the group that supports liberty for all, not simply liberty for bigots, racists, xenophobes and Islamophobes? 

The Conseiller d'État has overruled the Burqini ban in Nice.

Welcome back to the beach ladies. 

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

If any group makes a valid case to you local council for sessions exclusive to them then most councils will do their best to accommodate them; as already shown. At least in the UK; I can't speak for your country as you wont say which it is.

 

The local pool in my home town has sessions during which access is restricted to: The women's swimming club. The local canoe club, several young people's swimming sessions banded by age, the local sub aqua club and the Over 50s swimming night.

They also have a notice that anyone wishing to book club or social group access to the pool should contact the manager for details. 

As you say, absolutely nothing unusual about groups os people booking local swimming pools for use of the facilities based on club membership or other social group association. 

38 minutes ago, Scotwight said:

What you missed --- The OP wrote, "I feel really uncomfortable here now, unwelcome and unwanted by the current government as it gets more and more restrictive, oppressive and appears to bring in new legislation and requirements, almost on a daily basis, that makes life here untenable for me."

 

When asked what was getting more restrictive and oppressive to make it untenable for him - he couldn't come up with any.  

 

The OP also asked, "Is anyone else feeling this kind of pressure?" So I guess his requests would suppose one lived in Thailand and was a mind reader - because he never said specifically what kind of pressure.  

 

Feel free to ask anytime else but you could read the OP if you have any further questions.  

I was responding to SoiBiker who said:

Quote

If it's not working out for whatever reason, better to leave and be happier elsewhere than to stay here and moan about it.

And I read the DennisF's OP, he is, for whatever reason, leaving to be happier elsewhere rather than staying in Thailand to moan about it.

Once again, unless I missed something ... he is doing exactly as SoiBiker suggests. 

If DennisF is not doing as you want him to, that's another matter.