Carter

The regulations or lack thereof is an interesting point in this sorry debarcle. The Conformit? Europ?enne (CE) mark is formally the EC mark and is the mandatory conformity mark for products placed on the market in the European Economic Area. Thus, under EU law the MHRA is obliged to permit the import and marketing of any device which bears the mark even when it has no jurisdiction over the manufacturer - French in this case. Unless it has direct evidence to suggest that there might be something wrong, the MHRA is not even allowed to carry out its own tests to ensure that imported products bearing the CE mark conform with the required standards. The MHRA has of course its own regulations but these simply implement EU Medical Devices Directives and amendments, specifically the Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices. Breast implants are covered by the Directive, the applicable standard being EN ISO 14607:2009 which refers to "Non-active surgical implants - Mammary implants". The particular requirements are set out in ISO 14607:2007. The private clinics have a moral duty to resolve PiPs and I'm shocked by their blame game tactics. They took the money from the women to perform the operations and yet offers no safeguards if anything goes wrong. No, they do not. The fact these faulty implants have been fitted is not the fault of the clinics. Fitting implants can cover any manner of reasons including illness, cancer, accident and of course vanity. They were using EU approved surgical implants and the MHRA had no power at all. If anything the regulatory failure is at EU level. The NHS should remove or replace these implants if needed, but in the first instance should be looking to recover costs from the french, or the EU themselves. Edit to add - I have a personal interest in this. My Mum had a mastectomy 3 years ago due to breast cancer and is directly affected by this. Her clinic has been in very close contact with her and has been very supportive. Since the French firm that produced these implants has now closed down, we are examining all options.

Ah yes, the CAP. How devastating for the Norwegians, having to pay slightly higher prices for butter. But at least they are not suffering increasing poverty and famine. If surplus food is produced due to the CAP then the EU intervenes in the market either by subsidising export of the product at below cost price; by storing it, creating the EU 'food mountains'; selling it later; or destroying it. Such exports are generally dumped on poor countries, especially in Africa. To me the CAP is one of the most evil things ever to come out of the EU. There is one policy proven to kill our fellow human beings. http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSPOL/AG3.htm

Or, again, in the real world.... Norway's new diet craze means a shortage of butter. http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/13/norways-latest-diet-craze-butter/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45616920/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/diet-craze-leaves-norwegians-begging-butter/ http://www.dietdoctor.com/black-market-butter-is-becoming-expensive-in-norway Mind you, if you get your news from a rankly hypocritical rag that criticises hedge funds whilst Guardian Media Group profits from them and practices tax avoidance by using Cayman subsidiaries, then you can't help but have a hugely distorted and narrow-minded view of events. Sanctimonious champagne socialists - you gotta luv 'em.

But I am not actually wrong, though. Am I? As for 60-odd%, of course I am talking about tax, and of course I realise that the EU is but a very small allocation of that tax take but that should not detract from the fact that we should all be asking where the money goes. The fact the EU has not had its own accounts signed off for the 17th consecutive year and it hounds its own anti-fraud unit should raise massive alarm bells.

Ah, yes, but the UK Parliament can refuse any drafted bill. Parliament legislates, Civil Service enacts. The EU Parliament has no such powers. It can suggest or amend, but cannot refuse any drafted bill. The only things the EU Parliament can do is refuse to sign of the EU budget - not happened for, what, 16 years? The Parliament also has the theoretical right to dismiss the Commission if two-thirds of MEP?s vote for this. This would cause huge chaos and simply will not happen. As the driving force behind policy initiative is the Commission, such an act would deprive the European Union, in many senses, of its modus operandi. Stop their own gravy train, as it were. Therefore, the powers lie with the Commission, and the Commission is nothing like the Civil Service. Since the 27 Commissioners are appointed by the Commission, there is no will of the people. Our current Commissioner is Catherine Ashton, a woman who has never faced any democratic vote whatsoever. So yes, the EU is a lot less democratic than the UK. *Edit to add* Stitched up? Not really - I'm just interested in where 60-odd% percent of my labours, taken from me under threat of gaol, actually goes. As should everyone be.

Again, H - completely, utterly, wrong, wrong, wrong. "...they are instructed by the elected group (the European Council) to exercise European policy." Following the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission now has legislative powers. This was previously held by the Council, which still controls EU Foreign Policy. The UK Civil Service has executive, not legislative powers. The EU Council and EU Parliament may request the Commission to draft legislation, though the Commission does have the power to refuse to do so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission#Executive_power

Ah yes. I'm sorry for missing off a plurality - it should of read "Presidents" - not President. However -: Herman van Rumpuy - President of the European Council, unelected by democratic process, but appointed by member of the European Council. Jose Barroso - President of the European Commission, appointed by the European Council. Nice cosy club if you can get into it. Of course, H argues that Cameron is "appointed" by the Conservative Party. Which is, of course, not true. He was elected by members of that Party, which is right and proper. We "elect" parties to run the Government and so, the Party Leader then becomes Prime Minister. However, none of that can be applied to van Rumpuy or Barroso. *Edit to mention* And of course, don't forget the general disgust shown when Blair tried to get himself appointed the President of the European Council. *Edit #2 to mention* "...and can't tell the difference between the European Union and the Euro." This coming from someone who can't tell the difference between disliking the EU and disliking Europeans. If one expresses dislike of the EU or the Euro, which almost all people here are, then it is automatically twisted to become "Anti-European" and thus the wholly incorrect charges of "xenophobia" and "racism" can be thrown.

Your ability to ignore facts, distort arguments with strawmen and fallacies, and reside in a delusional and fabricated world is quite simply a wonder to behold. It's like watching a train crash and out of morbid fascination you cannot take your eyes away, even whilst the pieces of shredded metal are falling all around. You are Herman van Rumpuy, and I claim my ?5. Or is it ?5?

@???? I can almost guarantee H's argument here will be one photograph with a swastika and Merkozy does not truly represent the Greek view, but a survey of 0.0007% does represent European views. The logic part of my brain just exploded all over the screen. Human psychology can be so riddled with weird idiosyncrasies.

""Huguenot is right to insist that we must sign up to the Eurozone. Immediately." You see that's exactly what I mean. I have not suggested that." A selection of quotes from this very thread -: "You can read back five years of my posts on the subject of Europe, the Euro and integration. My line has consistently been that it will have its challenges and drawbacks, but in the final analysis it is necessary and overwhelmingly positive. Posted by Huguenot November 18, 03:53PM" "History will more likely look back on this as a blip in the creation of a European super economic zone, and the moment that the British truly disappeared up the arse of their own self destructive vanity." Huguenot December 09, 11:49AM And another personal favorite of mine -: "European integration is a critical objective to fight the UK's position in a world of diminishing resources and energy insecurity." Posted by Huguenot December 03, 10:51PM Now, I grant you the words "we must sign up to the Eurozone. Immediately." have not been written, however everything else you write does indicate you suggest that.

"the powerhouses of Europe are creating a superpower on our doorstep" This quote from Huguenot is actually rather telling and he is correct. Let us consider the European Stability Mechanism, or ESM. A permanent rescue funding programme to succeed the temporary ESTF. The ESM is due to be launched as soon as Eurozone Member States have ratified it, due July 2012. Here are some rather frightening pieces of the draft legislation. Article 8: Authorised capital stock 1. The authorised capital stock shall be EUR seven hundred billion (700,000,000,000) Why that number? Where did it come from? How was it calculated? Article 9: Capital Calls 3. ...ESM Members hereby irrevocably and unconditionally undertake to pay on demand any capital call made on them (...) within seven (7) days of receipt of such demand. Does this mean that all future Governments, even if they do not want to, must pay any demands made to it? Article 10: Changes in authorised capital stock 1. (The Board of Governors) may decide to change the authorised capital and amend Article 8 (...) accordingly. So EUR 700,000,000,000 is just the start, and the ESM can suck money in to it when it damn well likes? And we must irrevocably and unconditionally pay up? Article 27: Legal status, privileges and immunities 2. The ESM (..) shall have full legal capacity (...) to institute legal proceedings 3. The ESM, its property, funding and assets (...) shall enjoy immunity from every form of judicial process (...) So the ESM can sue anyone it likes, but we cannot challenge it in court? 4. The property, funding and assets of the ESM shall (...) be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation or any other form of seizure, taking or foreclosure by executive, judicial, administrative or legislative action. So no Government, law or elected will of the people can touch the ESM? The Mafia must be sooooo jealous. Article 30: Immunities of Persons 1. Governors, alternate Governors, Director, alternate Directors, the Managing Director and staff members shall be immune from legal process with respect to acts performed by them (...) and shall enjoy inviolability in respect of their official papers and documents. So all staff are untouchable. Does the inviolability of documents mean we cannot even see what is written? So this is a single unelected organisation that is untouchable by any law or Government, has no independent reviewers and is immune from all forms of prosecution that into which the Eurozone is forced to transfer unlimited assets within 7 days on order? What could possibly go wrong? Of course, me highlighting this means that I am a xenophobic, racist little Englander without any concerns for our friends across the channel, and Huguenot is right to insist that we must sign up to the Eurozone. Immediately. *Edit to say* Fitch's say that a comprehensive solution was now "technically and politically beyond reach". Clegg says that critics not to exploit the Eurozone crisis to foster "xenophobia, chauvinism and polarisation". You see, Huguey, if people are called xenophobic enough times for expressing such concerns, then eventually people won't really give a fuck about such labels.

I did not "misunderstand" your point about "How has the EU changed since then? Not at all." You asserted the EU has not changed at all - administrative or otherwise, and have been shown to be lying. Just like "The Greeks for example do not feel, nor protest the proposition, that the austerity has been imposed by Germany." - again, lying. And do you seriously think a sample than 0.0007% can be extrapolated across an entire continent as "European views..."? The European Union not only possesses such symbols of statehood as its own flag, anthem, motto and annual official holiday, it now has its own unelected government, with a legislature, executive and judiciary, its own unelected President, its own citizens and citizenship, its own human and civil rights code, its own currency, economic policy and revenue, its own international treaty-making powers, foreign policy, foreign minister, diplomatic corps and United Nations voice, its own crime and justice code and Public Prosecutor. It now even has its own defence force and Maritime agency, and a lot of the changes have come about in the last 10 years. We have the removal of democratic governments in Greece and Italy, crap though they may have been. Now Cameron has pissed off Merkozy - how long will it be before he is removed? And the citizens of the Union now owe allegiance to that Union, and to its aims and ?objectives?, even though no-one in the UK has any idea what these objectives may be. The Euro is the EU is the Euro. The two are the one and the same.

"European Views..." The problem is, that when Huguenot posts such easily disprovable crap is that he is either -: a. Very, very stupid. The eloquence and language would suggest not. b. A shill. More likely. Now we get into propaganda territory, as opposed to reasoned argument. But as long as he is right, dammit, then the rest of us are right-wing xenophobic idiots. Those graphics from the EC document referenced about how "Europeans" feel that he is so very proud of. Working on the numbers in the technical reference at the end - the results came from 31,769 people interviewed. Out of a population of 469,946,984! That wasn't even just EU countries - they threw 6 other countries in for the hell of it. In other words those graphs represent the views of 0.006760124244142398% of the population. So, again. Complete fucking crap.

"How has the EU changed since then? Not at all." [10 year timeframe] EU Diplomatic Service - est 2010 EU Arrest Warrant - est 2003 CEPOL - European Police College - est 2005 EU Institute for Gender Equality - est 2006 European Food Safety Agency - est 2005 There's about 10,000 jobs and 10 billion, and I'm sure I can find lots more if the pub wasn't beckoning. Still, at least you yourself can keep believing the bollocks you keep spouting. *edit to revise money. The Diplomatic Service has a budget of 7 billion itself.

"The Greeks for example do not feel, nor protest the proposition, that the austerity has been imposed by Germany." And my favourite...

'not been around long enough' 'wolfie' I still haven't worked out what she/he/they meant by that post.

@Katie ??? Now am really confused.

Hang on chaps, I have not been around long enough for this in-crowd commenting. Are you suggesting Wolfie and Claudia are one and the same? Woldia?

Under a mock trial held in Malaysia former leaders Tony Blair and George Bush have been found guilty of war crimes. The trial was held under the same laws and rules as at Nurenburg. The Press TV media report is here -: The sheer hypocrisy of these s-called "leaders" who preach about the ?rule of law? and international ?human rights?, whilst completely ignoring them when it suits them to do so is almost too galling for words. I hope that one day justice will prevail and that these criminals are held fully accountable for their actions.

"...attracted well over 2000 signatures from our community, but our pleas to the forum's owner went unanswered..." Whats the polite way of putting it? Being economical with the truth?

In fact, the title of this thread is disingenuous. It's not about "Combating Local Anti Semitism". It's a rant about one particular user from another forum who posted threads you found unacceptable. By your own admission your Solicitor found no evidence of your linked thread being anti-semitic, and so the Police weren't interested. And as Voyageur has found, you yourself are not beyond posting the occasional offensive statement either.

So hes not a pleasant person? Ah well, such is life. Again, why are you bringing up a 5 month old thread from another forum here? If you want the thread removed, speak to the STF admin.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you there. I don't consider the linked post to be anti-semitic. The Police did not think so, and they are pretty hot on that sort of thing. Why on earth would you be bringing up an old thread from July on another website here that disagrees with YOUR views? He is entitled to his as well.

"Tit" Excellent argument steveo - care to elaborate why? Am I a "Tit"? Is the point a "Tit"? Or, if you no objection to your taxes slaughtering your fellow man and just want to abuse me - fine. Big lad, broad shoulders. I can take that.

Sincere apologies to the Mods. Question moved, thanks.