I see. It makes more sense when you actually tell us what your point is rather than just posting a link. In the absence of any context, it looked to me like you were simply highlighting that some Muslims commit serious crime, so I was countering by highlighting that some white British also commit serious crime.
Like with a few other varieties of apples, I don't like the flavour of their flesh, but the pressed juice actually tastes good, unfortunately the people we knew with a GD tree in their orchard (where we gathered an incredible surplus for pressing) have moved. I grow 10 varieties of eaters, 2 cookers, 1 multi-purpose, & 2 varieties of cider apples, and hate having to buy any, but if I'm forced to when ours have run out/gone beyond it, those are my preference. Anyway, getting back on topic, the fact I grow so much of what we eat/drink and put so much work into it, makes me resent paying anything towards EU subsidies paid to inefficient farmers to reduce the cost of their crops that are sold to other people, with of course the exception of environmental grants (and maybe more if I researched it).
Is it enough to remedy all the past environmental damage caused by draining bogs and intensifying upland production that was encouraged by CAP subsidies? And some people believe the EU's 'environmental subsidies' are still damaging the environment: "The major funding that farmers receive is called the Single_Farm_Paymentsingle farm payment[/URL], which is money given by European taxpayers to people who own land. These people receive a certain amount (usually around £200 or £300), for every hectare they own. To receive it, they must keep the land in what is called "Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition" (GAEC) It's a term straight out of 1984. Among the compulsory standards in the GAEC rules is "avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land". What this means is that if farmers want their money they must stop wild plants from returning. They don't have to produce anything: to keep animals or to grow crops there. They merely have to prevent more than a handful of trees or shrubs from surviving, which they can do by towing cutting gear over the land. If they want to expand the area eligible for this subsidy, and therefore make more money, they must get their tractors out and start clearing vegetation. From my kayak in Cardigan Bay I have often watched a sight that Neolithic fishermen would have witnessed: towers of smoke rising from the hills as the farmers burn tracts of gorse and trees in order to claim more public money. The single farm payment is a perfectly designed scheme for maximum ecological destruction" Or has the above now stopped?
I don't know whether it still happens but, in the past, there was another anomaly. Farmers were paid by one department to make their fields bigger and, therefore, more efficient. Another department was giving subsidies for planting hedgerows to encourage wildlife. So, some of the local farmers were taking a hedge out between fields, getting their grant and then planting it back in situ and getting the subsidy. Two of the farmers, who were my customers, told me that it was much easier money than actually growing crops.
So, some 54 years after the introduction of the CAP (for which I understand the UK has always paid in far in excess of what our farmers have got back) it still hasn't been sorted out?
Breaking news! Polling in The Telegraph readers online poll now 100% for leaving EU I've noticed that The Telegraph's stance on the referendum has been moving away from 100% support for David Cameron, perhaps they're worried about losing all their readers?
That's how we know we can trust the papers. When every other poll suggests people are really unsure, here's one that gives 100% certainty.
From the limited information I have as regards the referendum, it appears that both Cameron and Corbyn are in favour of the UK remaining in the EU. The only times that I can remember the opposition being in agreement with the government are those of war. The Falklands Conflict being one, but of course, there are others. For quite a while now, it has appeared that Boris Johnson is being groomed for high office within the Conservative Party. Am I being cynical that him wanting "out" is just the Conservative Party edging their bets? The scenario I can see is that an out vote will cause Cameron to resign, Boris taking over as leader, and a new term of office for the Tories...
Just checked the bookies odds and pretty well all the firms are offering around 1/3 to stay in. For those of you who don't bet 1/3 means you have to bet £3 to get £1 back plus your original stake, not that I frequent bookies that often. I've always used the bookies to see what they are predicting re General Elections and the like. More often then than not they are much more accurate than the likes of Mori or the daily "rags". When you are risking lots of dosh if you've got the odds wrong you tend to be pretty sure you're accurate.
I think if Obama comes over here and starts telling us we should stay "in", that could be very helpful to the "out" campaign.
Obama and any leader of any country has a right to say what they think, Pete, as we have the right to hear what he says, digest it, and reject it if we want to. There's a lot worse Leaders, and wannabe's out there saying what they want, why highlight Obama. If you really want an "educated", "sane", unbiased opinion ask Trump.
