Reasons to leave the EU - No. 1

[Anastasius]

The daft and utterly pointless 'EU Cookie' law. What was the bloody point of this crass and utterly stupid piece of legislation?. "Please click if you want to accept cookies". Of course, I bloody do. The bloody website won't work unless I do. So Yes...I DO want to accept cookies.

Only the same websites ask me the same bloody question the next time I visit it. And again. This forum doesn't but perhaps it doesn't set cookies? I dunno. What I do know is that I object to wasting my time clicking on those stupid 'Yes' throughout the day when browsing.

And now that cretin Junckers is talking about yet more fiddling about. If anyone can explain this gobbledegook then I'd be grateful. A Hinton..you're usually good at this sort of thing.

"During our mandate, I would like you to focus on … supporting the vice-president for the digital single market and the commissioner for justice, consumers and gender equality in finalising the negotiations on an ambitious Data Protection Regulation in 2015," Juncker said. "On the basis of the outcome of this legislative process, you should prepare a reform of the e-Privacy Directive, liaising closely with the vice-president for the digital single market, with the support of the commissioner for justice, consumers and gender equality."....

.....Consent must be "freely given, specific and informed". An exception to this exists where the cookie is "strictly necessary" for the provision of a service "explicitly requested" by the user – for example, to take the user of an online shop from a product page to a checkout.
Information law specialist Marc Dautlich of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said: "The existing Data Protection Directive and the e-Privacy Directive are closely related. Some important definitions, including of 'consent', relevant to the e-Privacy rules are derived from the Data Protection Directive, so it is important that there is consistency across both instruments following the reforms to the EU data protection framework."
"It is not yet obvious from a reading of the proposed changes to consent rules under the planned data protection reforms how those rules would apply to the storage of personal information on computers under the e-Privacy Directive, so clarity on this point and other similar ones would be welcomed. Reforming the e-Privacy Directive would also provide an opportunity to improve on the way rules on cookies were altered in 2009 and address the rise of other technology that is expected to replace cookies for tracking individuals' online behaviour and the idiosyncrasies of how that technology works," Dautlich said.

Why doesn't the EU do something useful? Like insist wine producers label the list of ingredients in their wine? Or proper labelling of meat and poultry as to whether or not it is halal so that Sikhs can avoid it in accordance with their religion?

[Bryn]

... Why doesn't the EU do something useful? Like insist wine producers label the list of ingredients in their wine? Or proper labelling of meat and poultry as to whether or not it is halal so that Sikhs can avoid it in accordance with their religion?

Such blissful ignorance!

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/new-eu-rules-require-compulsory-labelling-of-halal-meat-2006114.html

[Dave2002]

Such blissful ignorance!

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...t-2006114.html

But perhaps ignorance is bliss!

In my former place of work I noticed that some meals in the canteen were being marked as containing halal meat. I asked the chaplain what the significance of that was, and investigated further myself. It turns out that halal and kosher meat have some similarities. I think both require the reciting of some words before each animal is killed. Presumably the words would be different for the different religious communities, though I understand that some form of reciprocal relation exists between a few of these. The C of E (perhaps naturally!) seems to have relatively little concern about this.

Some while after my enquiries most of the meat used for meals in the lunch dining area was marked as halal.

Some UK supermarkets actually work on the principle that halal meat is going to be acceptable for most consumers. Those that care can be assured that the meat is halal, and most of the rest don't care anyway. I think mostly this applies to chicken, but other animals are also dealt with in similar ways.

[french frank]

Having to click to say you accept cookies seems a rather small reason for leaving the EU.

As we are now moving away from the General Election discussion and passions seem to have been reignited on one thing or another, I propose to remove the P&CA board back to the Basement and it will be closed again if members become aggressive - either towards each other or in the way they express their opinions. There really is no need for it.

The forum cookie policy link is in the sidebar. I haven't a clue how to add the codes to ask people over and over again if they want to accept our cookies, so I'm relying on the offered 'get out' that we have done our sincere best to let people know the nature of the cookies; and saying that continuing to use the site is taken as willingness &c &c. And when Mr Juncker tells us that is no longer enough we can pay some geek to get it done properly.

[Bryn]

But perhaps ignorance is bliss!

In my former place of work I noticed that some meals in the canteen were being marked as containing halal meat. I asked the chaplain what the significance of that was, and investigated further myself. It turns out that halal and kosher meat have some similarities. I think both require the reciting of some words before each animal is killed. Presumably the words would be different for the different religious communities, though I understand that some form of reciprocal relation exists between a few of these. The C of E (perhaps naturally!) seems to have relatively little concern about this.

Some while after my enquiries most of the meat used for meals in the lunch dining area were marked as halal.

Some UK supermarkets actually work on the principle that halal meat is going to be acceptable for most consumers. Those that care can be assured that the meat is halal, and most of the rest don't care anyway. I think mostly this applies to chicken, but other animals are also dealt with in similar ways.

The points towards the end of the article linked to regarding fake halal and kosher meat are illuminating. It seems that much meat currently labelled as halal is no such thing. I am particularly fond of curry goat, and the only goat meat I can find locally is labelled as halal. I would rather the goats were stunned prior to having their throats slit, and halal, strictly applied, would not permit this. However, the article claims that much meat labeled as halal comes from animals stunned prior to killing. The coming EU legislation is, I feel, much to be welcomed by Sikh, followers of Islam, and those concerned about animal welfare.

Many decades ago I worked for a short time on a poultry farm. The farmer had a contract with a leading London Kosher poulterer. When being inspected he would follow their mode of slaughter. However, when they were not around, all chickens would have their necks wrung prior to his use of the knife.

[Bryn]

Having to click to say you accept cookies seems a rather small reason for leaving the EU.

As we are now moving away from the General Election discussion and passions seem to have been reignited on one thing or another, I propose to remove the P&CA board back to the Basement and it will be closed again if members become aggressive - either towards each other or in the way they express their opinions. There really is no need for it.

The forum cookie policy link is in the sidebar. I haven't a clue how to add the codes to ask people over and over again if they want to accept our cookies, so I'm relying on the offered 'get out' that we have done our sincere best to let people know the nature of the cookies; and saying that continuing to use the site is taken as willingness &c &c. And when Mr Juncker tells us that is no longer enough we can pay some geek to get it done properly.

On the vast majority of sites I visit, the cookies notice only reappears when I intentionally clear the cookies from my system. I guess one of the most common type of cookie installed prevents repeated display of the notice.

[Anastasius]

Such blissful ignorance!

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...t-2006114.html

Did you bother to read the date of that article ? 2010.

And so progress is exactly what? Even if they did manage to make any headway, I can guarantee that by reason of their track record our own Government will not implement it. Which I know flies in the face of the thread title.

[french frank]

A complaint has been made about the language of the OP by an uninvolved member. If people want to continue with the discussion, please note the URL as the board will now be removed to the Basement.

[Bryn]

Did you bother to read the date of that article ? 2010.

And so progress is exactly what? Even if they did manage to make any headway, I can guarantee that by reason of their track record our own Government will not implement it. Which I know flies in the face of the thread title.

I started with that article to show that the EU had been working on the introduction of such measures for some years. If you want a more recent update, which indicates some of the hurdles to be jumped, try this one.

[Anastasius]

Just for clarification regarding halal and shechita ( the correct word to use in this context). There are inconsistencies in the slaughter of animals. I do warn you that the following facts are accurate but graphic.

According to some stricter interpretations of their religion, both halal and shechita will kill the animal WITHOUT any stunning. They claim that this is harmless and does not hurt the animal. I (and many others beg) to differ. They claim that the animal dies swiftly. If you have the stomach then take a look at this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=g_s_fuO1f-w and which I find abhorrent. The fact that this is allowed in this country by our Government is, in my opinion, inexcusable. I will explain why.

For meat to be sold as Halal it must receive a certification. This costs the supermarket, butcher, whoever money. Now one would like to believe that the cost of this is levied on the halal meat but somehow I doubt it which means that we all pay. There is some debate as to where this money goes to or what it funds. It IS big business. However, I digress.

Some halal meat is slaughtered with pre-stunning (there are differences between the way meat and poultry and fish are pre-stunned) and will receive the same certificate. So there is an inconsistency here. How can meat be halal one way (ie without pre-stunning) and halal in another way (with pre-stunning). If the latter is acceptable then we should ban the former in the interests of animal welfare. It is the former that is behind the Sikh religion's reason not to eat halal.

There is a catch. Sometimes, the level of pre-stunning is insufficient and so the animal regains consciousness before it has been bled to death. Not nice. The current UK regulations (WASK) that cover this are based on earlier EU Directives and go back to 1999. In fairness to the EU, they realised the animal welfare issue with inadequate stunning levels and so brought out a new Directive 2009 that would increase the level of current etc to ensure that animals did not regain consciousness. This was to have become the WATOK (Welfare of Animals at Time of Killing) Regulations in this country. However, even before it was brought into power, DEFRA revoked these regulations to their (and the UK Governments') eternal shame. 'Mustn't upset the Muslims'.

Lastly there is the question as to whether or not an individual is concerned that the meat they have bought has had some imam or rabbi mutter words over the animal prior to slaughter.

Clearly any food labelling not only needs to state whether or not the meat etc is halal or not and also the method of slaughter.

Turning to the supermarkets, I asked all of them a few basic questions. (1) How can consumers determine whether not meat etc is halal or not; (2) do their suppliers kill animals with pre-stunning or not; (3) where pre-stunning is used, is it carried out to the WASK or WATOK Regulations (even though the latter are not mandatory).

The initial replies were boilerplate BS which is what I expected and is par for the course. However, I persevered and through all the evasion and basic duplicitous replies did manage to get to some sort of truth as to exactly what was/was not happening. If anyone wishes further information then I am happy to provide it by PM but won't clog up this thread.

[Dave2002]

Demoted again. I think I can see the sentence(s) which have been objected to.

I do hope that was the only reason, as otherwise, although some of the discussion could have been considered by some controversial, I didn't see any thing too terrible. Personal insults - even if directed at third parties - seem to be particularly problematic, as also the use of some words relating to people with disabilities.

Oh well .... It's not the US. We can't plead the 1st amendment, and this is after all a website with a focus on the BBC.

I hope we don't get relegated further. If I wrote anything to contribute to this downfall, I apologise.

[Anastasius]

I started with that article to show that the EU had been working on the introduction of such measures for some years. If you want a more recent update, which indicates some of the hurdles to be jumped, try this one.

Ah, many thanks for that, Bryn...missed that one.

[P. G. Tipps]

The only good reason for the UK leaving the EU is that the other members decide that the UK has never really fully understood what the whole project is all about and reluctantly decide more progress towards a Federal Europe can only really happen without us.

I can't honestly think of any other good reason ...