Should non UK nationals be allowed in these competitions?

3 of 4

PenguinBear

01-06-2008

Of course they could always just let anyone audition if they want to.

They only get in trouble if they don't let someone audition even though they are an EU national and have a command of the English language. But if they are simply an EU national, they can prevent you if you don't have a language command.

silsder

01-06-2008

I rest my case, hey if you take over the world (enterprise speaking) why complain when we want some too?

silsder

01-06-2008

I agree without the non uk residents all of the reality shows would be ... shite really.
Take away Terry wogan, Grahan Norton all live t.v would be well............. boring. Live Aid was great apart from Bob Geldof, Louis Walsh, Boyzone, wesrlife, Eammon Andrews (THIS IS YOUR LIFE), U2. All the Murphys, McDonaghs, and Doyles, and the rest non uk nationals mentioned in the Tv credits apart from the whole Tv networks, what have we done to vote in their Nancy Final ????

Dub1

01-06-2008

Stupid question.You may as well ask if Graham Norton,Terry Wogan and Des Lynam should be allowed on British tv.

They are all Irish as well.

Liza with a Zee

01-06-2008

Originally Posted by Tangledweb7:
“I suppose you think they should ban any Irish entering these competitions”

That would be ridiculous. I just don't understand why anyone thinks that other countries should be given a vote.

Dub1

01-06-2008

Originally Posted by Liza with a Zee:
“That would be ridiculous. I just don't understand why anyone thinks that other countries should be given a vote.”

Read the op.He wants the Irish banned from British tv.

Christ, its like a Klu Klux Klan convention round here sometimes.

Onwards&Upwards

01-06-2008

Originally Posted by PenguinBear:
“Wrong.

Under EU rules you can derogate away from that if the job requires a command or skill of the home country's language.
Since that is the case with Musicals, and English is essential to the job, the BBC do not have to abide by the orignal EU rules.

Football is different because language isn't as essential to being a good football player.

That's why Irish contestants are eligible for these shows.

Americans, Australians, etc wouldn't be because they are not part of the EU even though they can speak English (Even assuming they had the accent down)”

No, YOU are wrong, not in fact but in interpretation. All my statement implicitly said was that people could not be prevented from applying on the grounds of their (EU) nationality. Whether or not there is a derogation recognising practical requirements is an additional issue. Your point was amplificatory, not contradictory.

In addition, they are actually bringing in a language requirement for footballers.

Happy to help.

mimi dlc

01-06-2008

Originally Posted by Onwards&Upwards:
“No, YOU are wrong, not in fact but in interpretation. All my statement implicitly said was that people could not be prevented from applying on the grounds of their (EU) nationality. Whether or not there is a derogation recognising practical requirements is an additional issue. Your point was amplificatory, not contradictory.

In addition, they are actually bringing in a language requirement for footballers.

Happy to help.”

Well, this is a pleasant change: this is the first post that contained the words derogation, amplificatory and contradictory. Nice to have my vocabulary increased.
Makes a refreshing change from

WOW

Tangledweb7

01-06-2008

Originally Posted by Dub1:
“Stupid question.You may as well ask if Graham Norton,Terry Wogan and Des Lynam should be allowed on British tv.

They are all Irish as well.”

I Did'nt know Des Lynam was Irish

PenguinBear

01-06-2008

Your original statement was wrong and misleading.

You:
"FIFA won't be able to bring in the 6+5 rule in football, and Andrew Lloyd Webber couldn't prevent Bulgarian, Portugeuse or Finnish people from applying even if he wanted to."

If you had wanted to talk about derogation you would have mentioned it, instead you didn't which would give anyone the impression that ALW couldn't do this.

Dub1

01-06-2008

Originally Posted by Tangledweb7:
“I Did'nt know Des Lynam was Irish ”

Yeah,it's a little known fact i guess.He was born in Clare and moved to England when he was a kid.

CASPER1066

01-06-2008

I think the phone lines seem to control who can phone in or not....maybe use the voting button on the TV instead.....like the Red button on Sky......something like that

WillowFae

01-06-2008

Originally Posted by Liza with a Zee:
“English people don't ever back English people. If a Scottish, Irish or Welsh person was in the competition you can bet that their country would be right behind them. England does not seem to unite the same.”

Then perhaps the English have more sense. I couldn't give two hoots where someone is from and I loathe all the mentions of a person's home town or country.

Vote on their talent and suitability for the job for crying out loud!

Onwards&Upwards

01-06-2008

Originally Posted by PenguinBear:
“Your original statement was wrong and misleading.

You:
"FIFA won't be able to bring in the 6+5 rule in football, and Andrew Lloyd Webber couldn't prevent Bulgarian, Portugeuse or Finnish people from applying even if he wanted to."

If you had wanted to talk about derogation you would have mentioned it, instead you didn't which would give anyone the impression that ALW couldn't do this.”

PenguinBear, your construction skills are inadequate.

I didn't address language derogation. I also didn't address numerous other possible reasons why people of foreign, or domestic, citizenship might be prevented from applying to the show, whether through the express rules of the competition or through other circumstances which might render them susceptible to disqualification. I also did not address Canadian interest rates.

All I was addressing was that people could not be prevented from applying on grounds of nationality.

Andrew Lloyd Webber couldn't prevent Bulgarian, Portugeuse or Finnish people from applying [ON THAT BASIS - IE BECAUSE OF THE CITIZENSHIP STATUS INDICATED BY THE ADJECTIVE APPLIED TO THEM] even if he wanted to."

Next time, use the word "wrong" only when you are correcting, not glossing. High-handedness blinded you to the inferential words in capitals, which I have kindly inserted for your benefit, with further explanation lest you come back once more telling me I am wrong because you can't render basic interpretation.

Your gloss was pertinent. It was a good contribution. But you pointlessly distracted from it by characterising a relevant qualification instead as a contradiction of a statement that, by basic legal construction, it did not contradict.

And yes, I am a lawyer (LPC distinction, yada yada yada), in case you were getting your briefs in a twist about a civilian daring to challenge your epic intelligence.

I feel you may still be confused. Let me put forward the following statement:

"Andrew Lloyd Webber cannot prevent English actresses from applying to I'd Do Anything".

Now, clearly, that is a "wrong" statement if an English actress applies who is also a drug-using, gun-running whore, which doubtless falls foul of the competition's rules. In that instance, Andrew Lloyd Webber COULD prevent an English actress from applying.

But it is NOT a wrong statement to the extent that it characterises the scope of Andrew Lloyd Webber's power to disqualify only insofar as the distinguishing adjective indicates. And that is the construction anyone other than an idiot would apply.

Essentially, you are treating "Andrew Lloyd Webber cannot prevent Bulgarian actresses from applying" as synonymous with "Andrew Lloyd Webber cannot prevent Bulgarian actresses with insufficient language skills derogating from their entitlement as EU citizens from applying".

Don't worry, I won't tell the Law Society, because they might strike off "people with insufficient contruction skills who make unforensic assumptions and who in substitution for being able to interpret competently instead go around telling other people that they are "wrong"".

It's a shame because, as I said, it was a pertinent addendum.

Glad to be of assistance.

mimi dlc

01-06-2008

Originally Posted by Onwards&Upwards:
“PenguinBear, your construction skills are inadequate.

I didn't address language derogation. I also didn't address numerous other possible reasons why people of foreign, or domestic, citizenship might be prevented from applying to the show, whether through the express rules of the competition or through other circumstances which might render them susceptible to disqualification. I also did not address Canadian interest rates.

All I was addressing was that people could not be prevented from applying on grounds of nationality.

Andrew Lloyd Webber couldn't prevent Bulgarian, Portugeuse or Finnish people from applying [ON THAT BASIS - IE BECAUSE OF THE CITIZENSHIP STATUS INDICATED BY THE ADJECTIVE APPLIED TO THEM] even if he wanted to."

Next time, use the word "wrong" only when you are correcting, not glossing. High-handedness blinded you to the inferential words in capitals, which I have kindly inserted for your benefit, with further explanation lest you come back once more telling me I am wrong because you can't render basic interpretation.

Your gloss was pertinent. It was a good contribution. But you pointlessly distracted from it by characterising a relevant qualification instead as a contradiction of a statement that, by basic legal construction, it did not contradict.

And yes, I am a lawyer (LPC distinction, yada yada yada), in case you were getting your briefs in a twist about a civilian daring to challenge your epic intelligence.

I feel you may still be confused. Let me put forward the following statement:

"Andrew Lloyd Webber cannot prevent English actresses from applying to I'd Do Anything".

Now, clearly, that is a "wrong" statement if an English actress applies who is also a drug-using, gun-running whore, which doubtless falls foul of the competition's rules. In that instance, Andrew Lloyd Webber COULD prevent an English actress from applying.

But it is NOT a wrong statement to the extent that it characterises the scope of Andrew Lloyd Webber's power to disqualify only insofar as the distinguishing adjective indicates. And that is the construction anyone other than an idiot would apply.

Essentially, you are treating "Andrew Lloyd Webber cannot prevent Bulgarian actresses from applying" as synonymous with "Andrew Lloyd Webber cannot prevent Bulgarian actresses with insufficient language skills which might derogate from their entitlement as EU citizens from applying".

Don't worry, I won't tell the Law Society, because they might strike off "people with insufficient contruction skills chock full of unprofessional assumption who in substitution for being able to interpret competently instead go around telling other people that they are "wrong"".

It's a shame because, as I said, it was a pertinent addendum.

Glad to be of assistance.”

I want to put this as my "moment when you went WTF" !

Bob22A

01-06-2008

Originally Posted by MARTYM8:
“Half the people who live in the City of Westminster (where Oliver will be staged) were born overseas. Where exactly do you draw the line at 'Britishness'? Surely the nationality of someone appearing on the West End stage in the worlds' most cosmopolitan city is irrelevant.”

He did state "Non UK Nationals" This has a very specific legal meaning. You dont have to be born in the Uk to be a UK National.

jackbauer<3

01-06-2008

Put it this way, it is extremely difficult to work on Broadway if you are not a US citizen.

Golden anemone

01-06-2008

Originally Posted by Onwards&Upwards:
“PenguinBear, your construction skills are inadequate.

I didn't address language derogation. I also didn't address numerous other possible reasons why people of foreign, or domestic, citizenship might be prevented from applying to the show, whether through the express rules of the competition or through other circumstances which might render them susceptible to disqualification. I also did not address Canadian interest rates.

All I was addressing was that people could not be prevented from applying on grounds of nationality.

Andrew Lloyd Webber couldn't prevent Bulgarian, Portugeuse or Finnish people from applying [ON THAT BASIS - IE BECAUSE OF THE CITIZENSHIP STATUS INDICATED BY THE ADJECTIVE APPLIED TO THEM] even if he wanted to."

Next time, use the word "wrong" only when you are correcting, not glossing. High-handedness blinded you to the inferential words in capitals, which I have kindly inserted for your benefit, with further explanation lest you come back once more telling me I am wrong because you can't render basic interpretation.

Your gloss was pertinent. It was a good contribution. But you pointlessly distracted from it by characterising a relevant qualification instead as a contradiction of a statement that, by basic legal construction, it did not contradict.

And yes, I am a lawyer (LPC distinction, yada yada yada), in case you were getting your briefs in a twist about a civilian daring to challenge your epic intelligence.

I feel you may still be confused. Let me put forward the following statement:

"Andrew Lloyd Webber cannot prevent English actresses from applying to I'd Do Anything".

Now, clearly, that is a "wrong" statement if an English actress applies who is also a drug-using, gun-running whore, which doubtless falls foul of the competition's rules. In that instance, Andrew Lloyd Webber COULD prevent an English actress from applying.

But it is NOT a wrong statement to the extent that it characterises the scope of Andrew Lloyd Webber's power to disqualify only insofar as the distinguishing adjective indicates. And that is the construction anyone other than an idiot would apply.

Essentially, you are treating "Andrew Lloyd Webber cannot prevent Bulgarian actresses from applying" as synonymous with "Andrew Lloyd Webber cannot prevent Bulgarian actresses with insufficient language skills derogating from their entitlement as EU citizens from applying".

Don't worry, I won't tell the Law Society, because they might strike off "people with insufficient contruction skills who make unforensic assumptions and who in substitution for being able to interpret competently instead go around telling other people that they are "wrong"".

It's a shame because, as I said, it was a pertinent addendum.

Glad to be of assistance.”

Respect Onwards & Upwards. I hope you got the address to send the bill to for that piece of work!

Funky Mango

01-06-2008

Originally Posted by Onwards&Upwards:
“PenguinBear, your construction skills are inadequate.

I didn't address language derogation. I also didn't address numerous other possible reasons why people of foreign, or domestic, citizenship might be prevented from applying to the show, whether through the express rules of the competition or through other circumstances which might render them susceptible to disqualification. I also did not address Canadian interest rates.

All I was addressing was that people could not be prevented from applying on grounds of nationality.

Andrew Lloyd Webber couldn't prevent Bulgarian, Portugeuse or Finnish people from applying [ON THAT BASIS - IE BECAUSE OF THE CITIZENSHIP STATUS INDICATED BY THE ADJECTIVE APPLIED TO THEM] even if he wanted to."

Next time, use the word "wrong" only when you are correcting, not glossing. High-handedness blinded you to the inferential words in capitals, which I have kindly inserted for your benefit, with further explanation lest you come back once more telling me I am wrong because you can't render basic interpretation.

Your gloss was pertinent. It was a good contribution. But you pointlessly distracted from it by characterising a relevant qualification instead as a contradiction of a statement that, by basic legal construction, it did not contradict.

And yes, I am a lawyer (LPC distinction, yada yada yada), in case you were getting your briefs in a twist about a civilian daring to challenge your epic intelligence.

I feel you may still be confused. Let me put forward the following statement:

"Andrew Lloyd Webber cannot prevent English actresses from applying to I'd Do Anything".

Now, clearly, that is a "wrong" statement if an English actress applies who is also a drug-using, gun-running whore, which doubtless falls foul of the competition's rules. In that instance, Andrew Lloyd Webber COULD prevent an English actress from applying.

But it is NOT a wrong statement to the extent that it characterises the scope of Andrew Lloyd Webber's power to disqualify only insofar as the distinguishing adjective indicates. And that is the construction anyone other than an idiot would apply.

Essentially, you are treating "Andrew Lloyd Webber cannot prevent Bulgarian actresses from applying" as synonymous with "Andrew Lloyd Webber cannot prevent Bulgarian actresses with insufficient language skills derogating from their entitlement as EU citizens from applying".

Don't worry, I won't tell the Law Society, because they might strike off "people with insufficient contruction skills who make unforensic assumptions and who in substitution for being able to interpret competently instead go around telling other people that they are "wrong"".

It's a shame because, as I said, it was a pertinent addendum.

Glad to be of assistance.”

Class post. Made my evening. Thanks

PenguinBear

01-06-2008

Originally Posted by Onwards&Upwards:
“PenguinBear, your construction skills are inadequate.

I didn't address language derogation. I also didn't address numerous other possible reasons why people of foreign, or domestic, citizenship might be prevented from applying to the show, whether through the express rules of the competition or through other circumstances which might render them susceptible to disqualification. I also did not address Canadian interest rates.

All I was addressing was that people could not be prevented from applying on grounds of nationality.

Andrew Lloyd Webber couldn't prevent Bulgarian, Portugeuse or Finnish people from applying [ON THAT BASIS - IE BECAUSE OF THE CITIZENSHIP STATUS INDICATED BY THE ADJECTIVE APPLIED TO THEM] even if he wanted to."

Next time, use the word "wrong" only when you are correcting, not glossing. High-handedness blinded you to the inferential words in capitals, which I have kindly inserted for your benefit, with further explanation lest you come back once more telling me I am wrong because you can't render basic interpretation.

Your gloss was pertinent. It was a good contribution. But you pointlessly distracted from it by characterising a relevant qualification instead as a contradiction of a statement that, by basic legal construction, it did not contradict.

And yes, I am a lawyer (LPC distinction, yada yada yada), in case you were getting your briefs in a twist about a civilian daring to challenge your epic intelligence.

I feel you may still be confused. Let me put forward the following statement:

"Andrew Lloyd Webber cannot prevent English actresses from applying to I'd Do Anything".

Now, clearly, that is a "wrong" statement if an English actress applies who is also a drug-using, gun-running whore, which doubtless falls foul of the competition's rules. In that instance, Andrew Lloyd Webber COULD prevent an English actress from applying.

But it is NOT a wrong statement to the extent that it characterises the scope of Andrew Lloyd Webber's power to disqualify only insofar as the distinguishing adjective indicates. And that is the construction anyone other than an idiot would apply.

Essentially, you are treating "Andrew Lloyd Webber cannot prevent Bulgarian actresses from applying" as synonymous with "Andrew Lloyd Webber cannot prevent Bulgarian actresses with insufficient language skills derogating from their entitlement as EU citizens from applying".

Don't worry, I won't tell the Law Society, because they might strike off "people with insufficient contruction skills who make unforensic assumptions and who in substitution for being able to interpret competently instead go around telling other people that they are "wrong"".

It's a shame because, as I said, it was a pertinent addendum.

Glad to be of assistance.”

Once again you are missing the point with your rationalizing.

Please provide a translation in English. I think you are lost in your own legal language here.

It's quite simple what you said was incorrect and misleading and now you are trying to back pedal with verbiage.

Sorry, you aren't Nancy.

Ever Elegant

01-06-2008

Originally Posted by Flamethrower100:
“Yes pure and simple. They replublic of Irland should have been alowed their vote.
It is joined to our country after all. The isle of man can vote and it isn't.
It's stupid. Just because they are independent from us.”

I don't think it's stupid at all. They are not joined to our country. Through their own choice the Republic of Ireland are not joined to us. They do not pay the licence fee why are they entitled to a vote?

But it is different when there are 5 english people in a competition. Do you vote for the one that is most english? I don't support nationalist voting but if you are welsh and there is one welsh girl in the competition the nationalist vote will be more concentrated. You also may find it easier to identify with their story.

Onwards&Upwards

01-06-2008

Originally Posted by PenguinBear:
“Once again you are missing the point with your rationalizing.

Please provide a translation in English. I think you are lost in your own legal language here.

It's quite simple what you said was is incorrect and misleading and now you are trying to back pedal with verbiage.

Sorry, you aren't Nancy.”

I already saw your point and raised it to intellectual sustainability. I'll take your last post as a fold.

I wouldn't blame anyone for not possessing dextrous construction skills, because if anything that just proves you had the extreme wit not to bother with the law as a career choice; but if you don't have basic construction skills and then go around issuing inaccurate adjudications caused by said inadequacy, then you are kind of asking for a comprehensive explanation of why exactly you should at least reserve outspokenness if you are not prepared to learn to construe things properly.

If you had said in response to my post, "It should, however, be noted that..." I would have replied, "Good post - cheers".

But instead you aggrandised your point, treating it as a correction to mine rather than as an extension.

If you had competently contrued my post, you would not have read something more into it than was there, and you would have understood that your point was an extension but not a correction.

That will be £500, thanks very much.

mimi dlc

01-06-2008

To paraphrase Harry Hill...
Onwardsandupwards and PenguinBear...

FIGHT!!!!

Bob22A

01-06-2008

I dont think it applies to the theatre but being a Non UK National will bar you from some jobs in the UK.

What may bar them would be having a criminal record as they will be working with children so will presumably have to have a CRO check carried out on them.

PenguinBear

02-06-2008

Originally Posted by Onwards&Upwards:
“I already saw your point and raised it to intellectual sustainability. I'll take your last post as a fold.

I wouldn't blame anyone for not possessing dextrous construction skills, because if anything that just proves you had the extreme wit not to bother with the law as a career choice; but if you don't have basic construction skills and then go around issuing inaccurate adjudications caused by said inadequacy, then you are kind of asking for a comprehensive explanation of why exactly you should at least reserve outspokenness if you are not prepared to learn to construe things properly.

If you had said in response to my post, "It should, however, be noted that..." I would have replied, "Good post - cheers".

But instead you aggrandised your point, treating it as a correction to mine rather than as an extension.

If you had competently contrued my post, you would not have read something more into it than was there, and you would have understood that your point was an extension but not a correction.

That will be £500, thanks very much.”

Your Magic Tricks won't work here. You fumbled in your articulation. If you were really that smart you would have hedged your statement by talking about derogation instead of misleading normal people.

That is a big FAIL.

I suppose we should bring this to Penalty Kicks since you have your opinion and I have mine:
ME: 1
You: 0

3 of 4