I think that would depend whether you include non-white British in your concept of "native British", if you do then you are simply xenophobic, not racist.

I don't think there is, or ever has been a natural right for what you're suggesting in the UK. The idea of the nation state has never really applied here with regard to race. Perhaps I am mistaken and you can point me to historical sources showing otherwise?

Why couldn't the women working at the President's Club get decent moral jobs where they wouldn't be sexually harassed like being waitresses, air stewardesses, secretaries and software engineers?

Oh, wait...

My parents retired to Hungary a few years ago and are happily settled there now. I've visited many times from the late 1990s onward and the country has been completely transformed, especially since Hungary joined the EU and Orban came to power.

Pragmatic is a good way to describe Orban. He plays the EU for money better than anyone else. Take a short drive around Hungary and you will see huge signs erected stating how much money was given by the EU for this project or that project, including massive infrastructure programs and the regeneration of historical parts of Budapest. The EU will keep giving him money because they know (or at least he makes them think) that he'd jump ship for Putin if they cut him off.

That's not to say he doesn't have his faults. His feud with Soros if beyond ridiculous. In addition to the signs mentioned above, the government has also invested hefty sums in an anti-Soros campaign, meaning you see Soros' face everywhere from bus stops to supermarkets and motorway billboards, always accompanied by dubious statements about Soros' intentions for Hungary and the EU. It does smack of antisemitism, but I believe this is more an attempt to gain votes from the supporters of Jobbik, the very far-right party in Hungary.

His other faults are things that should be anathema to any conservative - nepotism, suppression of free press, intimidation of the judiciary.

Orban is someone we can learn from, but not someone we should want our leaders should emulate.

A relative price cap would be a reasoned and proportional intervention by the Government into the energy market. It is not the same as a fixed price cap regulated by Ofgem, which would stifle competition and prevent energy companies adjusting prices with changes in wholesale energy prices. It is ironic, but a relative price cap would actually make the sector more competitive and better for the consumer.

Regardless of your stance on nationalisation/privatisation, I'm sure that we can all agree that stopping consumers (many of whom are vulnerable elderly) being ripped off simply by not switching their tariffs would be a good thing.

From what you've said, without the current Sunday trading regulations you wouldn't have the choice of whether to work or claim benefits, you'd have to claim them. You've been given more choice and opportunity to work and you want to complain about it? The current Sunday trading regulations have been good for you and for the country, hence why the Chancellor wants to extend them.

I'll never understand those who argue against extending Sunday trading hours. If you don't want to work on a Sunday in a supermarket then don't work in a supermarket on a Sunday. If you want to go to church on a Sunday, go to church on a Sunday. If you want to spend Sunday with your family, then spend Sunday with your family. If you can't keep your family unit together for one day merely because shops are open then I imagine you probably have deeper issues than Sunday trading hours. This is the problem with trying to give people more liberty and choice - we're constantly stopped by those who either can't or won't take control and responsibility of their own lives or those who rely on the direction of ancient fictional texts.

Thanks for your reply ToryToryTory. I do understand that gay men are the largest group of people living with HIV and this historically and presently is the reason for the perception. The point I was trying to make is that ignorance and complacency about HIV in the straight community could potentially be a big problem in the future as infection rates are increasing year on year. The 40% infection rate I quoted is from heterosexual intercourse, not intravenous drug taking:

"A similarly large proportion of people diagnosed with HIV in the UK in 2014 (40 per cent) were infected through heterosexual sex. 44% of newly diagnosed heterosexual people were aged 45 years or above in 2014." - http://www.tht.org.uk/

Although I appreciate that chemsex is a problem, as is the spread of HIV in the MSM community, this is hardly something new. There always has been and always will be a section of the community who, regardless of how much you try to educate them, will never use condoms, as there is in the straight community too. There will be people on here arguing that these people (and immigrants) do not deserve to have tax payers pay for their treatment, however this would be an extremely foolish approach. As Ryan mentioned in the article, those people who undergo AVT treatment are much less likely to pass the infection on, thus reducing the future burden on the tax payer. We should be encouraging more diagnosis and treatment as soon as possible after diagnosis.

What Ryan fails to mention, in what I can only assume is an attempt to perpetuate the fallacy that HIV only affects the LGBT community, is that 40% of new infections are among heterosexuals. This is the real public health time bomb and really, you think no heterosexual person has had sex whilst on drugs? Education must be across the board and start as early as possible.

This is not a question of morality or ideology, it's one of mathematics. More education = less infections, more diagnosis = more treatment = less infections, less infections = less cost to the NHS. The human element is irrelevant as I'm sure the Chancellor would agree.

To put things into perspective, the cost of HIV treatment to the NHS is around 6-8% of what we spend on alcohol and tobacco related illness. Those are also "self-inflicted injuries" as Don_Collapso stated.