Like most (I hope) I am rather sceptical, and rather worried, by the recent attempts by the BNP to become a respectable political power. Its attempts to shrug off its image as being comprised primarily of football hooligans has been rather depressing, in that some people are being taken in this shiny new sheepskin coat whilst failing to see the rabid wolf underneath.

However yesterday I stumbled upon this video via another forum. It's a documentary that was shown of SKY1 last month. If the BNP thought this would help show them as a respectable party with views in tune with normal folk then all I can say is this has backfired in the most spectacular fashion. I'm amazed the the BNP even agreed to it. Bear in mind that Sky1 is owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns Fox News, so this is not a cleverly edited lefty conspiracy piece. Most of these comments cannot be taken out of context, it's pure hate and hypocrisy.

If you are in any doubt of the BNP's true face or know anyone who is starting to sympathise with these hatemonger's then place watch this or send the link to your friends. If a person can still sympathise with the BNP after seeing this then there is no hope for them.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6145793487676011977&hl=en

I watched about five minutes. Had to turn it off. That kind of blind racist idiocy makes me sick.

jerks

Trouble is, they prey on the undereducated to get elected. Look at the areas where they become councillors. Sink hole estates taught a bizarre siege mentality by the media, constantly telling them the reason they don't have a job is due to those damned immygrunts, and certainly not because the lazy aresholes won't get up from in front f the telly and try to better their lot in life with additional education or training and then getting a job.

I always thought If america got too bad I'd move to England I always had the image of it being a really tolerant place.

BloodofOrks wrote:I watched about five minutes. Had to turn it off. That kind of blind racist idiocy makes me sick.

Me too. Incidentally when that woman at the beginning was banging on about the BNP being all her own I honestly expected her to start saying "My Precious" before turning into a fat middle aged version of Gollum.

Its difficult to watch but I'm glad I did. If nothing else its made me all the more determined to fight them. God help any BNP member who comes canvassing at my door!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Trouble is, they prey on the undereducated to get elected. Look at the areas where they become councillors. Sink hole estates taught a bizarre siege mentality by the media, constantly telling them the reason they don't have a job is due to those damned immygrunts, and certainly not because the lazy aresholes won't get up from in front f the telly and try to better their lot in life with additional education or training and then getting a job.

QFT. It's no suprise that the poorest areas of the contry see the bigest support for these people. Which is why its all the more important to spread the word about thier hatmongering roots.

Next time you hear somone say the BNP is not racist (and I have!) never be tempted to give it a moments credibility.

9:17 make my wife actually sick. What do they have against Asians?

That is classy.

How much impact do they have on the national political process? We have some racist organizations in the US (no, really, we do) but they have little pull in national politics.

Asain = Paki? what is this? I thought it was derogatory for Pakistani, but I guess not.

sexiest_hero wrote:I always thought If america got too bad I'd move to England I always had the image of it being a really tolerant place.

Mostly it is.

The BNP is a tiny minority party which has failed to get more than a few local councillors elected.

However, there is a strand of racism in any country, inflamed by the kind of "Foreigners are coming to steal our jobs and women" headlines in the right wing gutter press. Funnily enough, these are middle class papers more than the traditional working class papers.

Things have been inflamed recently by a case where an Italian company got awarded some kind of engineering maintenance contract and would only hire Italian workers. (In the UK, I mean.) No-one can understand how this is legal when the EU guarantees freedom of movement of labour.

In a time of economic hardship these kind of pressures will get stronger and racism is likely to increase.

The trouble is the BNP is playing on realistic fears of the people in an unrealistic way.

Jobs are being taken up by immigrants at an alarming rate, while immigration has always introduced competition in the job market that rate of immigration and the recemt history of discrimination against indiginous workers, particularly in the public sector, is making a lot of people upset and afraid for their futures.

Stories like 'I was refused entry to the police because I was white' are commonplace. In attempts to apply what is refered to as positive discrimination, people are being challenged over opportunities and are increasingly reticent.

Then along comes to BNP which covers these points neatly, but only because their doctrines against too loose an immigration policy and overtolerance of PC dogma are a subset of their gross intolerance to any immigrant community.

Sadly because companies and political parties both are afraid to tackle such issues as runaway immigration for fear of being seen as racist, it is left to the real racists such as the BNP to speak out. They have little to lose after all.

This is only the beginning, and it can only lead to far greater trouble in the future unless the issues that drive people to the BNP are addressed by the major parties.

sexiest_hero wrote:9:17 make my wife actually sick. What do they have against Asians?

Really? 9:17 made your wife sick? Of all the many things that woman said in that video that could be considered offensive, I thought what she said at 9:17 was pretty tame in comparison. And I haven't even watched the whole thing yet.


I don't know though. It's hard for people who are so clearly idiotic to offend me or get me very riled up.

Ahtman wrote:

Asain = Paki? what is this? I thought it was derogatory for Pakistani, but I guess not.

For a start 'Asian' has a different definition in the US and UK.. What you call 'Asians' (Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese etc) we call orientals. In the Uk Asian means, loosely, from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and similar ethnic groups.

Calling an Asian a "Paki" is very derogatory, mainly through the reason this word is used. Its equivalent to the N word*, the main difference being that Asians will not call each other Paki by and large.

Furthermore Paki is short for Pakistani, but is also a reference for persons of anyonwe from the Indian subconteinent, including those from India itself, this is doubly offensive because India and Pakistan hold a semi hostile border (they still shell each other occassionally) and different religions.
Calling an Indian a "Paki" is like calling an Israeli Jew a "rag head".

Basically, its a no go term.

*This was removed by the censortron, though added here only as a informative term. Now I know there is a censortron Paki should definately be on the same ban list that n----r is on.

Orlanth wrote:For a start 'Asian' has a different definition in the US and UK.. What you call 'Asians' (Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese etc) we call orientals. In the Uk Asian means, loosely, from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and similar ethnic groups.

I thought so but wasn't sure.

I think the last time I heard it used was in the context of someone who was actually from Pakistan so it just made sense.

Orlanth wrote:India and Pakistan hold a semi hostile border

That is a bit of an understatement now isn't it.

Orlanth wrote:Calling an Indian a "Paki" is like calling an Israeli Jew a "rag head".

In the US that term isn't used for Jews but Arabs. We have other exciting names for Jews.

Kilkrazy wrote:

However, there is a strand of racism in any country, inflamed by the kind of "Foreigners are coming to steal our jobs and women" headlines in the right wing gutter press. Funnily enough, these are middle class papers more than the traditional working class papers.

Things have been inflamed recently by a case where an Italian company got awarded some kind of engineering maintenance contract and would only hire Italian workers. (In the UK, I mean.) No-one can understand how this is legal when the EU guarantees freedom of movement of labour.

In a time of economic hardship these kind of pressures will get stronger and racism is likely to increase.

In that particular case a French company had awarded a contract to an Italian company. It's arguable if these jobs could even be classified as 'British'. Many British companies have sites abroad, often for example in the Middle East. Do they employ the locals? My guess is no. In fact if they did I'd be willing the same hypocritical papers would again be kicking up a fuss.

In fact with regard to the 'coming over here taking out jobs' argument I cant remember the source but I believe the number of Foreign workers in Britain is somewhere in the region of 4 million, however the numbers of British workers working abroad is something like 5.5 million. So were actually better off. If free trade died tomorrow and all workers in the world returned to their country of origin, things would actually be far worse off!

Now just to highlight my own lack of prejudice I have just been informed that my own job is to offshore to another country in the EU. No rather a kicking and screaming about bloody foreigners I am actually taking some solace in the fact that a whole world of opportunity awaits outside the UK should I choose to look abroad for work (and I am considering it). The free market is more a blessing than it is a curse and I'm amazed that some seem to think that the opportunity for top professionals to work abroad is offset by a few polish builders.

After watching the whole thing I get the impression this is the party Alan Moore based the party in V for Vendetta off of.

Calling an Asian a "Paki" is very derogatory, mainly through the reason this word is used. Its equivalent to the N word*, the main difference being that Asians will not call each other Paki by and large.

paki's
brit's
aussie's


notice something forming here?
each is just a simple name chop from the country.

now, everyone uses brit and aussie alot, yet this changes now?

sorry, but all the racial and PC crap does go too far at times, its getting to the point now where people cant even speak anymore, what happened to freedom of speech?

the BNP are trying to bring about some decent ideas, but the way in which they are doing so it a tad too extreme.
feel free to judge me based on my comments, i dont have a problem with how i was raised.

JD21290 wrote:

Calling an Asian a "Paki" is very derogatory, mainly through the reason this word is used. Its equivalent to the N word*, the main difference being that Asians will not call each other Paki by and large.

paki's
brit's
aussie's


notice something forming here?
each is just a simple name chop from the country.

now, everyone uses brit and aussie alot, yet this changes now?

I would inmagine this is why the word context was created.

Trouble is, Paki is often used completely inaccurately.

Used by the racist morons to basically cover anyone from the region of the Asian Subcontinent, including Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis, Gujaratis, Sri Lankans and so on.

It's a general sign of the inherent moronicy of racism, and is generally used with venom and intended to be derogetary.

true, but if you walk into a room and call a person a paki, aussie or brit, im sure i know which one would cause an uproar.



just on a random note: 10% + of southamptons population is now polish, they even print a local newspaper in polish now aswell since most cant read english.
now going back 5 years that wouldnt even be 1%.

I don't like to engage in schadenfreude, but it's going to be interesting to see the results of immigration on western europe. The US has tons of racial issues, and we've been working on them for generations. Watching you guys have to start from almost scratch is going to be interesting.

JD21290 wrote:
notice something forming here?
each is just a simple name chop from the country.

Erm sorry, decent logic but missing in its application.

'Aussie' is not a derogatory term, neither is 'Brit'. Paki is a shortened term, but as explained above it lumps all persons from the Indian subcontinent together, i.e.; labelling, and the word from there has taken on a meaning of being derogatory.

I don't actually think there is a derogatory terms for Brits except for Limey or Pom, neither of which cause much offence, and both have historical rather than race deregration sources.

doc, heres an example mate, and something that did piss me off:


last week i went to the job center with a mate of mine, she was just looking about.
there was a man at the dest asking about jobs, he was african, could baely speak a single word of english, but as soon as the lady behind the desk said he couldnt have a certain job as he didnt have the qualifications he accused her of being racist towards him.

look in the local news papers:

2 white yobs commit a racist assult on a man.
yet if its the other way around then its fine, its just an assult.

its going too far now, and its just getting even worse as time goes on.

JD21290 wrote:true, but if you walk into a room and call a person a paki, aussie or brit, im sure i know which one would cause an uproar.



just on a random note: 10% + of southamptons population is now polish, they even print a local newspaper in polish now aswell since most cant read english.
now going back 5 years that wouldnt even be 1%.

When my mom was growing up, her neighborhood was roughly half polish and half Italian. It's now (40+ years later) almost entirely Arabic. As long as you integrate immigrants into your culture, you're stronger for it in the end. The American Melting pot isn't the best analogy, but part of our patriotism and nationalism is to compensate for not having a native National Culture. We're only American's because we live in America.

Actually wrong JD.

Any assault between peoples of nominally different races (and there was me thinking our race was 'human') is treated as if racism has played a part.

Indian on Pakistani, Black on Asian, White on Black etc, all treated exactly the same. It's the media once again distorting and sensationalising stuff because they have no integrity left anymore, and just want to sell sell sell.

JD21290 wrote:

paki's
brit's
aussie's


notice something forming here?
each is just a simple name chop from the country.

now, everyone uses brit and aussie alot, yet this changes now?

sorry, but all the racial and PC crap does go too far at times, its getting to the point now where people cant even speak anymore, what happened to freedom of speech?

the BNP are trying to bring about some decent ideas, but the way in which they are doing so it a tad too extreme.
feel free to judge me based on my comments, i dont have a problem with how i was raised.

No offence but I've heard this argument before and its total nonsense. As some others have said the context is very important. This has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech.

There is a huge difference between a term of affection and an insult no matter how similar they appear to be. I can call my friend 'Baldy' because of our friendship however I cant still called a random stranger 'Baldy'.

As for the Paki argument an Asian preinds of mine has the nickname of 'El Pak' which is a play on the term Paki. However only his friends get to use it and its can be described as 'taking it back'. It's not however a license for strangers to call him Paki and nor should it be. Just because 'Paki' and 'Aussie' are similar phonetically that doesn't make them the same in terms of context.

JD21290 wrote:doc, heres an example mate, and something that did piss me off:


last week i went to the job center with a mate of mine, she was just looking about.
there was a man at the dest asking about jobs, he was african, could baely speak a single word of english, but as soon as the lady behind the desk said he couldnt have a certain job as he didnt have the qualifications he accused her of being racist towards him.

look in the local news papers:

2 white yobs commit a racist assult on a man.
yet if its the other way around then its fine, its just an assult.

its going too far now, and its just getting even worse as time goes on.

Ok that’s just one example if an Idiot playing the race card. That’s no proof of some conspiracy to put white people out of work. Using Isolated incidents as 'proof' of anything is not only poor debating but just the kind of tactics we have seen recently from the gutter press.

As for the example of the local press, well I can't comment fully without serving indicdual stories but a person attacking someone of a different race is not necessarily a 'racist' attack. The motivation behind the attack is always the key. If I catch my GF in bed with a black man and punch him that’s not a racist attack. In fact if the law were to prosecute that as a reac related offense then I would admit the system was broken. But I don’t think I've ever heard of a case where it has been. Incidently I've seen plenty of reports of Racist attacks on white people.

In fact every single 'PC gone mad' court case or local council ruling I've ever come across in the press has been total rubbish. For example the farcical lies every year about school and business banning Christmas which emerge in the gutter press year after have been proved time and time again to be total lies and yet people lap this crap up. The gullibility of some people to almost anything the Daily Mail/Express/Sun/Star newspaper claim is positively terrifying.

doc, as soon as something goes wrong people tend to scream racism to get things going thier way, ive seen this alot now.

As long as you integrate immigrants into your culture, you're stronger for it in the end.

sorry, but i dont want more immigrants in this country.
local pubs and clubs are being torn down to accomodate more housing for more people, which in turn means more traffic.
and in london thanks to that there is now congestion charges.

going back 40+ years here it was alot different, my nan was recently brought into a hospital for a hip operation.
she had a black nurse tending to her at the time.
she felt uncomfortable about this as she was not used to it, she asked for another nurse and was simply told to stop being racist about it.
now, she has grown up all her life around white people, so having a black nurse was a shock to her.
and being branded racist for that is a joke.

she was brought up how she was, people cannot expect someone to change thier views over night because they are told so.

The BNP are getting more support because of the credit crunch, they even won a seat in kent. I wouldn't be suprised if their support increased as the economy gets worse, extremism always flourishs in turbelent times. History proves it over and over again, once the credit crunch passes their support will probarly fall.

A Nurse is a Nurse is a Nurse. They are all trained to do the job, so I'm afraid, intentionally or not, your Nan was actually being racist. The second a decision is made based purely upon the colour of someones skin or their 'race' thats Racism, and it needs to be stamped out.

Now, if it was a male nurse, I can understand her requesting a female one. There are legitmate reasons for such a request.

Doc, so if you have spent 80 years of your life thinking the same, you should suddenly change that because someone tells you to?
when she grew up the term "racist" wasnt even a word as such, there wasnt really such a thing.
she was brought up to call a spade a spade.

i understand the gender issues, but no, it was a female nurse.

Polonius wrote:I don't like to engage in schadenfreude, but it's going to be interesting to see the results of immigration on western europe. The US has tons of racial issues, and we've been working on them for generations. Watching you guys have to start from almost scratch is going to be interesting.

Immigration issues have been noted in Europe for longer than you think.

Some migrations occuring before the USA was founded and some even going back before the Americas was discovered have yet to be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Former Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland being two good examples, there are others.

However concerning modern migration issues there are still occassional backlashes in the UK from the first post colonial wave of immigration from the 1950's. There was some rioting in Birmingham two years ago based around confluicting communities that were settled from around that time. Immigration is such a big issue in France that their equivalent to the BNP wields influence in parts of the country. Occassionally the odd one or two far right MP's are elected in different European countries, usually on an immigration ticket, Italy appears to get more than most.

It is not only white extremism that causes problems on a large scale. Since the 1980s there have been calls amongst some groups for segregation and Islamic law within the UK, while initially refused point blank a toned down version of Sharia is currently being processed through the IIRC assize courts, on the grounds that Islamic law can apply if both parties agree. However it is transparent this is not what some groups will settle for. Bradford became so polarised that in 2003 the town council introduced 'busing' as used to help break the black white divide American cities in the 1960's. By and large the strrategies to combat segregationand polarisation are in place and by and large they work. However there are exceptions.

Some commuties are very much polarised and have been for many years. Glasgow especially, with segregation belonging loosely on religious grounds and more poiniently on whether you support Rangers or Celtic. Going into the wrong pub in Glasgow can be a dangerous mistake. So when immigrants arrive they have no hope of integration, as a result Scottish asians and blacks live in more of less their own self contained areas. However Glasgow is an extreme case. Its not quite as rough as Detroit but....

But even so, it was still a racist request.

Not exactly KKK style racism or one bred out of bizarre hatred, but one borne out of sheer ignorance.

It doesn't make your Nan a bad person in this instance, because as you say, she is from a different time. This I believe is whats called 'institutional' racism.

It's still far from right, but it is understandable, if not excusable. I would say that the staff may have been a little heavy handed in telling her to stop being racist, and there are definitely better ways to go about it!

JD21290 wrote:doc, as soon as something goes wrong people tend to scream racism to get things going thier way, ive seen this alot now.

sorry, but i dont want more immigrants in this country.
local pubs and clubs are being torn down to accomodate more housing for more people, which in turn means more traffic.
and in london thanks to that there is now congestion charges.

going back 40+ years here it was alot different, my nan was recently brought into a hospital for a hip operation.
she had a black nurse tending to her at the time.
she felt uncomfortable about this as she was not used to it, she asked for another nurse and was simply told to stop being racist about it.
now, she has grown up all her life around white people, so having a black nurse was a shock to her.
and being branded racist for that is a joke.

she was brought up how she was, people cannot expect someone to change thier views over night because they are told so.

She didnt want to assisted by a nurse for no reason other than the colour of her skin. Sounds like the very definition of the word Racist to me.

As MDK said it's institutional racism but be under no illusion its still racism and there is no justification for it, nor should it be tolerated.

JD21290 wrote:
she was brought up to call a spade a spade.

That's quite possibly the most inappropriate phrase you could have used in this context!

This line of discussion is so going to get some alerts going.

JD21290's grandmother can be left out of the discussion about the BNP without risk of affecting the basic direction of argument.

Lucious, if you have someone you dont trust or are not familiar with around you then you wouldnt be happy would you?
people are brought up differently now, PC is pretty much stamped into people now a days.

for example, alot of immagrants records do not carry over with them when they enter this country, in doing so you can be letting rapists or killers work in schools as teachers.
even officials have no idea how many illegals are over here, so all they are doing is letting a threat into the country.

as i can see, alot of people here do stand by PC now.



and doc, going back to what we were talking about earlier, a friend of mine was walking home and got mugged, 8 africans stamped and kicked him while he was on the floor while calling him a white bastard and other things, this was simply classed as an assult.

now, if that had been the other way around it would have been considered a racist assult.


if anyone has any problems with my views then feel free to say so.

Polonius wrote:As long as you integrate immigrants into your culture, you're stronger for it in the end. The American Melting pot isn't the best analogy, but part of our patriotism and nationalism is to compensate for not having a native National Culture. We're only American's because we live in America.

This is very true. In US schools the flag is flown. Take a look at the Patriot Guard too as good example. Now as said above sometimes the Americans go a bit too far with flag flying but....

Over here until recently if the Union Flag was flown, or heaven forbid the Cross of St George, you were under threat of being accused of racism. Politically correct doctrinarians even went as far as to try and stop the British Legion (our equivalent to the Veterans Assiociation) from meeting at war memorials and flying flags or holding ceremonies in uniform. To them it was remembrance, to some it was racism and imperialism.
There has been a sea change in government policy over the last two years, flags are being flown, partly in responce to problems over the unpopularity of the Iraq war. So councils that attempt to block the Legion are being spoken with and the veterans are allowed to commemorate in peace.

This is just an example. The main problem is that 'equal opportunities and 'equality and diversity' dogmas have encouraged non integration over the last ten years. immigrants are being encouraged to live in Britian but not encouraged to integrate. The reason for this was in order to reseed the demographics and therefore change the nations political balance, aghain there has been a sea change in the Uk when after the london bombings in 2005 and later Glasgow bombings even the government had to admit that to some an invitation to live in the UK under their own culture meant an invitation to impose their culture on others. Again few were willing to point this out as anyone who did so, at least prior to ther London bombings was simply labelled a racist and sidelined. Eventually the government came to realise that multi-culturalism doesnt work, or more accurately could no longer hoodwink the populace into beliving that it does, and is moving to 'anglicise' the immigrant populace. However there are questionable methods by which it is being done, some pointed to in LuciusAR's thread of a couple of days back, and questions of its timing to show that the original policy of changing the political climate by changing the demographics is still a major policy goal.

That's quite possibly the most inappropriate phrase you could have used in this context!

sorry, ill vet everything 1st.
so now the names of a playing card are no longer allowed?
the term i use is "a spade a spade and a heart a heart"

and this is the thing i am talking about, now a simple phrase is an issue.

people these days are starting to get scared to say anything incase it causes offence to someone.

now, due to alot of incidents more and more people are starting to change thier views, in which the BNP are gaining more and more peoples trust as they are the only ones wanting to change things, even if it is to the extreme.

JD21290 at the request of the Mods I'm not going to carry on this conversation, which is just as well as your last comment, accusing immigrants of being rapists or serial killers (becuae a native has never killed or raped anyone), really does not deserved to be dignified with a response. Words fail me.

Can we please get back on topic now I really dont want this be locked.

BTW for the record Spade is a derogitory word for a black person. Im not saying you purposfully used it in this manner its just that given the topic its was rather inapropriate.

If that is the wish of the MOD's then ill leave it aswell.


and BTW, i have never used the word "spade" as a shortcut or simple term for a black person.


and before someone decides to dive in here and call me a racist, feel free to, and i will laugh and possibly call you a dick.
my GF is not english for a start, so if i was, why would i get this involved with someone?
im working gate duty atm, and 5 of the people i work with are black (one chinese aswell)

now, if i was a racist im sure i would have said something by now.


i just dislike the whole immagration system at the moment and how its casuing the country to slide.

Did he try to push it as a hate crime during the report. Yo have to do that some times. Here in the USA. When a cop goes off on a member of another race, it usually had to take some pushing to get it classed as such. Either way it's a racist attack. being PC is a good thing in my opinion. Illegas are not the main source of rapists or killers, it's unfair to claim they may be. The idea that "you may be letting rapists and killers work as teachers" Implies that somebody Entered the country illegally, worked thier way up to becoming a teacher, just to rape and murder children is at best a bad joke. As for the vid, they make the same arguments i hear when one group blames another. They are taking our jobs, they are dirty, violent, they take more pride in their cars, they want our women, they are going to outnumber us. The funniest part was the "Jews got plastic and dentestry work in concentration camps, They said 6 million died to make the Germans feel guilty."

I don't know much (or anything really), but is Immigration between British Commonwealth nations a right, or are Commonwealth subjects (citizens?) just sent to the front of the line?

How can British Citizenship be earned? If you are born there, are you a British Citizen, or do you have to be born of citizens or take your own naturalization to be a citizen?

I think there are many reasons immigration works better in the US than it would in the UK. We have a lot more room, for starters. We also have more social mobility, and the myth of almost unlimited social mobility. Immigrants in general have a pretty easy time integrating nicely in a generation or two (look at our current president), while IIRC British society is still much more class conscious.

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:India and Pakistan hold a semi hostile border

That is a bit of an understatement now isn't it.

Actually no, the shelling 'helps' in fact. Both sides blow of steam this way, and the 'artillery duels are often years apart. it is rather odd but it works. So odd in fact The Onion did a satire on it.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/volatile_india_pakistan_standoff

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Calling an Indian a "Paki" is like calling an Israeli Jew a "rag head".

In the US that term isn't used for Jews but Arabs. We have other exciting names for Jews.

I was explaining to you the irony, and why it was doubly offensive. I could of said Calling an Indian a "Paki" is like calling an Arab a "yid'..

So, its now fine to let people into the country without checking them 1st?
all i was stating is that if they are letting people into the country, check them 1st.

i dont have a problem with immagrants as such, just illegals as they bypass everything, including checks, and it raises the question of why not come into england normally?

I don't think anyone is denying that Illegal immigration is an issue however it's effects have been vastly exadurated by a right wing media with an axe to grind and cheap points to score. I'm often reminded of that fantastic Simpsons episode where mayor Quimby launches a Proposition against illegal immigrants in order to distract the people from high taxes caused by his own incompetance. They are cheap target and going after them panders to the base instincts of the mob.

An Illegal immigrant cannot be definition claim benefits or secure legal employment so the idea that they are draining the economy just doesn’t hold up. If they are coming her with the purpose of committing crime then yes we should do all we can to stop them.

My objection it the way that the issue of illegal immigrants has been lumped in with immigration in general when they are totally separate issues. We are not just letting anyone in as the Rags would have us believe. The process of becoming a British citizen or even gaining a temp work permit is long, complex and expensive. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying, ill-informed or a combination of the 2. The revolting campaign against refugees that the Daily mail has been engaging in for some time is beyond contempt.

It's sad, but the economic downturn is inevitably going to lead to more people turning to extremism of various kinds- extreme right or left wing policies, extreme religious views, extreme stances against immigration...
We're all middle of the road until the gak hits the fan.

I'm not a big fan of the BNP, but I can easily see how they could gain power. A lot of it, to me, has to do with the class divides in the UK. I think the closest we have to them is Sinn Féin, but even they aren't as extreme any more, in the South at least.

On immigration in Europe: One thing Ireland has going for it is that we didn't do much slaving back in the day. There's a lot less baggage. That said, we're so overexposed to american culture that people over here are inheriting attitudes based on american history rather than irish. It's interesting.

On the subject of 'immygrunts done take all our jobs innit'..

Well, sadly, Britain appeals as a country to settle in because it is rich (Well, it was until a few months ago ) and we got those Riches via the Empire....

One could say the boot is simply on the other foot, and the pendulum has now swung our way.

THe thing that makes me grin though is when our craftsmen complain about Polish labour 'undercutting' them.

Not being funny, but if he can do it for £10 less an hour, and be finished 3 days earlier, why the hell can't a Brit do it? Oh, of course, because you're a greedy little chancer!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

THe thing that makes me grin though is when our craftsmen complain about Polish labour 'undercutting' them.

Not being funny, but if he can do it for £10 less an hour, and be finished 3 days earlier, why the hell can't a Brit do it? Oh, of course, because you're a greedy little chancer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSZdb2buU_c

Sorry it appears that embedding has been disabled on the vid above but its well worth watching. Somes it all up quite nicley.

The real problem is being missed. discrimination in the public sector.

Because of government quotas encourageing "equality" it can be difficult for some to find work because of their race.

In fact I have seen this first hand, persons prevented from being policemen repeartedly, eventually he was quietly told that at the time they were 'not recruiting whites to encourage more diversity'.
I have similar reports from persons who wanted to join the armed services and the ambulance service. Though in the case of the armed service discrimination is handled differently. Because selection is handled over several criteria it is possible to fail a soldier from an unwanted background (read white) if they fail any criteria while accepting a soldier from another if he passed only some.

You might not want to see this and scream hysteria, but 'positive discrimination' (sic) is alive and well. It is because of this being done by the front door some businesses feel confident in recruiting exclusively from abroad.

Anyway many businesses are now steering away from hiring eastern Europeans, particularly in industries working offsite with expensive equipment. The number of 'I turned around and it was gone' stories got so frequent all but the wooly liberals could see the trend.

Stereotyping, yes sadly it is, but after several transport company managers (some I know personally, others from second hand experience) swear blind that the statistical risk of theft of stock rises severalfold when the driver is eastern European they start to be hesitant of the risks, accusations of discrimination notwithstanding.

I should not have to add the caveat that it is a minority of eastern European gangs tarnishing the good name of others, but I will do so anyway to nip any hysterical accusations of racism in the bud.

The number of 'I turned around and it was gone' stories got so frequent all but the wooly liberals could see the trend. Add eastern europeans to the list of "Others" that take Our jobs and steal everything. I found this little tid bit on the net "Cheshire Police force has more than 2,200 officers and 21 are minorities or from another country"

"In fact I have seen this first hand, persons prevented from being policemen repeartedly, eventually he was quietly told that at the time they were 'not recruiting whites to encourage more diversity'.
I have similar reports from persons who wanted to join the armed services and the ambulance service." It seem's that the nummer of non white cops in England is 10 out of 1000. If your friend was one of the few who didn't get hired out of the may that did, i'm sure it had more to do than with his color. your making it sound like it is 10 native born white males tp 1000 others.

As for the Military thing, one could argue that they are quicker to accept minorities to fill up the front lines, as was done in the USA's past. I doubt this is the case either. From what I've seen first hand, The british military is pretty fair in the way it works. (The number of foreign and Commonwealth citizens joining the British army total about 6,700. 7% of the total.)

(Note I did not accuse you of being a racist at all). 7% military and 10 out of 1000 is in no way a bias towards whites.

Kilkrazy wrote:This line of discussion is so going to get some alerts going.

JD21290's grandmother can be left out of the discussion about the BNP without risk of affecting the basic direction of argument.

I'm not sure that's true. Maybe because it's more likely to lead to a flame war she could be left out of the discussion, but I think it's a pretty good insight into the bizarre kinds of rationalisations that go on to justify racist thought.

His grandmother doesn't want a black nurse. He says that's because she's old and shouldn't be expected to change. I don't really expect her to change, I doubt many would, but that doesn't mean she isn't racist. So you've got JD worried about his nan being told she's racist, and having no concern at all for the nurse who was just trying to do her job before this lady told her she didn't want to be around her because she's black.

Later on LuciusAR makes a joke about using the spade is a spade phrase, because of the obvious racial history of the term. JD, ignoring the very obvious context and humour, then complains about the oppression of not being able to use the name of a playing card.

And that's what the BNP is all about. Bizarre hyper-sensitivity about any possible concession, while maintaining absolute ignorance about any harm inflicted on ethnic minorities. Why? Probably a lot reasons. Because if it's their fault then it isn't my fault. Because family is right and that's what my family has always said. Because xenophobia is always around. Because the latest version of the collapsing society seems to draw from old racialist arguments. And to a small extent, because immigration has not been well handled in the UK.

That's a good post, sebster.

First thing, please use the quote system.

sexiest_hero wrote:I found this little tid bit on the net "Cheshire Police force has more than 2,200 officers and 21 are minorities or from another country"

Yes, I see the statistical excuses for positive discrimination, but the hard reality is that in order to offset this recruits are being rejected outright on the basis of colour. It is certainly not a 'whites out policy', but a well meaning but nonetheless discriminatory approach to police recruitment based upon equality dogmas. Equal opportunity should mean if you are good enough for the job your race, gender, age, religion or sexual preferences should not be factored into your application. However it has instead come to mean if we feel minorities are underrepresented we will discriminate against white male applicants and lower the entry bar on other applicants until the quotas are levelled.
This is what is happening, and it is by no means fair.

sexiest_hero wrote:It seem's that the nummer of non white cops in England is 10 out of 1000. If your friend was one of the few who didn't get hired out of the may that did, i'm sure it had more to do than with his color. your making it sound like it is 10 native born white males tp 1000 others.

The case I know of was in the West Midlands not Cheshire. The West Midlands has a different demographic, both for ethnicity in the general populace and in the police force, it is certainly not 1% but far higher. Also UK gov statistics are largely suspect especially the discredited Home Office statistics on immigration. EU and UN are far better sources for Uk demographics, our government lies through its teeth.

sexiest_hero wrote:As for the Military thing, one could argue that they are quicker to accept minorities to fill up the front lines, as was done in the USA's past. I doubt this is the case either. From what I've seen first hand, The british military is pretty fair in the way it works. (The number of foreign and Commonwealth citizens joining the British army total about 6,700. 7% of the total.)

I cannot repeat even half of what I hear, but it is less rosy than it looks. Positive discrimination is rife, many suspect out of MoD policy, this is as much as I am prepared to say. Feel free to reserve judgement until you hear something more solid, but you might be waiting a while.

Besides the idea that ethnic soldier = cannon fodder doesnt really wash, if this is what you mean. It would be chronically bad for morale. Also the more realistic idea of ethnic soldier = unified front doesnt wash either, because of the un-anglicised nature of many ethnic groups in the UK, and the proliferation of multi-cultural dogma many have concerns that some ethnic soldiery may have more in common with the enemy than with their fellows. This leads to unfounded mistrust of loyal ethinic soldiers alongside known cases of ethnic soldiers refusing to fight those they consider 'brothers'.

sexiest_hero wrote:(Note I did not accuse you of being a racist at all). 7% military and 10 out of 1000 is in no way a bias towards whites.

Thankyou, but I need to cover my back. To some any criticism of political correctness leads to a kneejerk reaction of finger pointing, I have seen this before, I remember as part of Hertfordshire County Council community services team undergoing formal equal opportunities training, a mandatory set of courses that must be passed for full certification. There I learned that an ethnic minority could not be racist as racism is only possible if you are part of the political majority, an ethnic could be discriminatory, but this was a lesser offence than racism. Likewise women cannot be sexist, only men. Also as a white male I am likely to be institutionally racist, and I should confess and be forgiven. After the WTF moments passed I felt like challenging all that, but sat and listened to the PC bull while thinking of the scene from Killing Fields where the journalist pretends to be a dumb taxi driver rather than envoke the wrath of the state.
Some of these dogmas have been eventually discarded, some have got worse.

Orlanth wrote:Yes, I see the statistical excuses for positive discrimination, but the hard reality is that in order to offset this recruits are being rejected outright on the basis of colour. It is certainly not a 'whites out policy', but a well meaning but nonetheless discriminatory approach to police recruitment based upon equality dogmas. Equal opportunity should mean if you are good enough for the job your race, gender, age, religion or sexual preferences should not be factored into your application. However it has instead come to mean if we feel minorities are underrepresented we will discriminate against white male applicants and lower the entry bar on other applicants until the quotas are levelled.
This is what is happening, and it is by no means fair.

Okay, should a police applicant be more likely to be hired if he’s bilingual? If an applicant can speak Polish he would be an asset in policing Polish communities.

Now then, when policing Asiatic communities, is any consideration to be given for a friendly face? I’m not saying this should be the only consideration, but by sexiest_hero’s figure only 1% of cops aren’t white. I think if I was policing an area with a strong Indian immigrant community, I’d rather an Indian face or two on my side, than another cop who managed to be in the last 1% that scraped through course admissions.

Thankyou, but I need to cover my back. To some any criticism of political correctness leads to a kneejerk reaction of finger pointing, I have seen this before, I remember as part of Hertfordshire County Council community services team undergoing formal equal opportunities training, a mandatory set of courses that must be passed for full certification. There I learned that an ethnic minority could not be racist as racism is only possible if you are part of the political majority, an ethnic could be discriminatory, but this was a lesser offence than racism. Likewise women cannot be sexist, only men. Also as a white male I am likely to be institutionally racist, and I should confess and be forgiven. After the WTF moments passed I felt like challenging all that, but sat and listened to the PC bull while thinking of the scene from Killing Fields where the journalist pretends to be a dumb taxi driver rather than envoke the wrath of the state.
Some of these dogmas have been eventually discarded, some have got worse.

It’s a complicated issue but racism really is different when it comes from different places. If I’m out at lunch and someone on the side of the street yells out ‘filthy Aussie’ it’s bad and whoever said it still a xenophobic jerk, but at the end of the day I’ll still get served in the restaurant full of other white blokes, I’ll still return to my job full of white blokes, and then I’ll go home and watch tv shows full of white blokes.

Coming from a majority, it can be easy to forgot that all of the above can’t be taken for granted for a lot of minorities.

I’m not saying you don’t have a legitimate case, you do. There are plenty of instances of where authorities have been slow to react or failed to react because the victim was a member of the majority, but that doesn’t mean things aren’t different based on the skin colours of the oppressor and the victim.

Orlanth wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Calling an Indian a "Paki" is like calling an Israeli Jew a "rag head".

In the US that term isn't used for Jews but Arabs. We have other exciting names for Jews.

I was explaining to you the irony, and why it was doubly offensive. I could of said Calling an Indian a "Paki" is like calling an Arab a "yid'..

"There I learned that an ethnic minority could not be racist as racism is only possible if you are part of the political majority, an ethnic could be discriminatory, but this was a lesser offence than racism"

There are a few african americans who remain in power pecause of racism. Members of the New black panters are as much reviled by blacks as the klan is by whites.

"Likewise women cannot be sexist, only men."

We all agree that new age feminism is sexist. With that whole "Slavery of marrige" thing. Every guy I know got drug up the alter.

Men just don't stand up to it as much as women. I think clubs should have a guys night like they do a ladies night. Where we got in free and the girls had to pay.

A minority May have a skill set that can be used, I.E. able to translate or go under cover. Or People in that part of town may be more willing to trust a member of thier own race more, as sad as that is.

"Also as a white male I am likely to be institutionally racist, and I should confess and be forgiven."

Man I wish the only stereotype I had to deal with was that . Yes, It is a stereotype, and must be proven wrong like all stereotypes, only you can do that by proving you are not what people think.

Part of the charm of those sorts of events is that they show in stark focus what it feels like to be stereotyped against. As a while male, I pretty much always feel defined by my skills, my personality, etc. and not by my race or sex. That's not as true for women and minorities, and part of a good "Sensitivity training" should be to expose us honkies to what it's like to be prejudiced against because of your race. I'd hate to sit through it as much as anybody, but if you take how you felt during that seminar and realize that's how minorities feel often, it's a bit unsettling.

sebster wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:This line of discussion is so going to get some alerts going.

JD21290's grandmother can be left out of the discussion about the BNP without risk of affecting the basic direction of argument.

I'm not sure that's true. Maybe because it's more likely to lead to a flame war she could be left out of the discussion, but I think it's a pretty good insight into the bizarre kinds of rationalisations that go on to justify racist thought.

...
...
...
.

I agree with what you are saying.

My viewpoint as a moderator is that illustrating the argument with close relatives of board members is likely to cause a breach of the peace. I know it was JD who brought his grandmother into the topic, but even so.

Everyone knows someone who says, "I'm not a racists, but..." and those kind of anecdotes can be used to illustrate points without the risk of angering a board member.

When stuff like this rears it's ugly head I always take comfort in a comment made by Majot Roy Farren in his book The Winged Dagger. He passes comment on his return to Greece towards the end of WWII, when there was all the troubles and expresses his sorrow about the situation. He ends his description of his visit by saying this could never happen in Britain because the British are too stubborn to be pushed in any one direction. With this I have to agree strongly. We have our pockets of idiots, but as a whole the great British public don't like or support extremes. This is why the facists or communists never realy took hold in the 20's/30's/40's.

It kind of feels like we might, but we seem to reach a peak and then say"we've made our point" and it settles down again.

Speaking of illegal immigrants, John Howard (the previous Aussie PM, FYI) decided:
"I'm not going to let these refugees in MY country! I'll lock them up in a detention centre! Everyone wins!"
and spent 13 years or so in office completely ignoring Australia's Aboriginal community so he could concentrate on locking up refugees from war-torn areas.

ungulateman

PS: This is a slightly exaggerated account, and isn't completely accurate. I try.

People are gaks - that means you can have perfectly good policy and it can be ruined by gakky little council workers running it.

Sexism / Racism are totally different. Women make up around 50% of the population, and nearly always get custody, are actually less likely to be attacked by a stranger etc, it's hard to credit.

JD21290 does have valid ideas (although they may have been expressed a little clumisly.

Racism/positive discrimination etc. has gone way too far and many people who 'play the race card' do so becuase our dumbass government allows it.

I've come across many instances in the last year within my job.

1)an (asian) lad was summond to a meeting to find out about some trouble caused at a party in halls of residence. He accused the instituion of being racist and only called him for a meeting because of his skin colour (other people invovled were not asked for a meeting). he was then carefully explained to that he was asked to attend a meeting as the others involved all lived in halls and were dealt with on the dy of the event, but as this lad was a non-resident he wasn't easy to get hold of hence the meeting. he still acussed of racism.

Same with someone being removed from the course. They were unfit to practise but acussed the place of racism even though there was plenty of evidence to the actual reason for removal.

When training our student members (racism comes up all the time) the question is often raised that should the BNP be banned from speaking on site, as they are offensive to the LGBT, disabled etc. groups. As a trainer I also point out the other side of the argument, why ban one why not ban all political groups. The response back is usually aong the lines of the others don't offend me, to which I point out that recent governments have increased tuition fees by 200% with them trying to raise them again in the next couple of years by another 200%+ (from £1000 to £7-£10K!) POinting out that this affects not just certain student groups but all the room tends to go a little quiet, yet the conversation always heads back to BNP - students simply feel uneasy to speak against 'major' parties for some reason.

And positive racsim is also present but is actually 'legal'. Although the instituion is not allowed to offer a 'coloured/black' person a space that a 'white' person is more qualified for, they do and are allowed to target ethnic groups in particular with marketing materials. To me that is just as bad, it's just legal to do that, and as far a equal opportunities go....that's a whole other debate.

The BNP do have some very good points (to clarify I'm not and never would be a supporter!) but express them badly with many bad points. I know of a chap who votes BNP, despite the fact that if they got into power he would be one of the first people to be banned from entering the country. When we ask him why he says he thinks that the party is the best for the country. He's not racist, he's black and does come from a very dangerous country himself, and recognises that in essence britain is not a multiculteral country yet we try to be. It's good to live with other cultures but if they come to our country then they should be prepared to live our way of life. I'm not saying drop their own culture or belifs etc, but should fit into our schools etc. Yes we should welcome and ensure they are included that's only human, but when it goes as far as not being allowed to wear a cross, or having muslim schools who last week among other things have banned monopoly because it's too different from their culture it's going a bit too far. When I was at school we were encourage to play it as it helped develop maths skills, and were also encouraged to where our religious symbols as it promoted understanding. What is the world coming to?

A pedantic point here, but I think a valid one - there isn't a "rise" of anything going on. The bigotry and lumpen stupidity on which the likes of the BNP feed is not a new or even a growing phenomenon, it's just the same old default setting for much of the population. I grew up in a foul place where these attitudes are commonplace, and indeed seen as a virtue. If anyone should challenge these attitudes they are seen as suspicious, untrustworthy, even foolish. They come under the heading of “common sense”, a phrase I detest to this day – everyone knows they aren’t like us, everyone knows they are lazy/dirty/criminal/etc. It was a regular cause of grim humour to see the indigenous vermin gathered outside the local shop, generally looking to hurt anyone or anything that crossed their line of sight and all the while complaining about how they had no opportunities in life and everything was given to “them”. Apparently it never crossed their minds that they were doing this outside a grocery shop that was derelict until an Asian family bought it, and open for business about 15 hours a day; and the reason that same family bought a couple more shops in the area was, obviously, because of all the special perks “they” are given, and not because they work bloody hard and invest in their own future, bringing their children up to do the same, while the “local” kids are sat outside throwing bottles at passing cars (and their parents are in the pub complaining about how the country is going to the dogs).

The point being that the likes of the BNP and their predecessors don’t need to create these attitudes, or even wait for a “rise” in them. They are out there just waiting to be tapped by those with the will to do so. This is a horrible fact, but it is a fact. And when people turn to these parties, they generally seem to do so with a clear conscience. They honestly perceive themselves as oppressed in some way, discriminated against (in spite of all the evidence), and they seek redress. If a strong man comes along to offer them answers which not only address their concerns but flatter and glorify them in the process, then they will feel quite justified in supporting him. As Primo Levi warned, “A would-be tyrant is waiting in the wings, with beautiful words on his lips.” Even more depressing, is the line from “Hannah and her Sisters” – “…puzzled intellectuals declaring their mystification over the systematic murder of millions. The reason they can never answer the question 'How could it possibly happen?' is that it's the wrong question. Given what people are, the question is 'Why doesn't it happen more often?' ”

covenant84 wrote:JD21290 does have valid ideas (although they may have been expressed a little clumisly.

Racism/positive discrimination etc. has gone way too far and many people who 'play the race card' do so becuase our dumbass government allows it.

I've come across many instances in the last year within my job.

1)an (asian) lad was summond to a meeting to find out about some trouble caused at a party in halls of residence. He accused the instituion of being racist and only called him for a meeting because of his skin colour (other people invovled were not asked for a meeting). he was then carefully explained to that he was asked to attend a meeting as the others involved all lived in halls and were dealt with on the dy of the event, but as this lad was a non-resident he wasn't easy to get hold of hence the meeting. he still acussed of racism.

Same with someone being removed from the course. They were unfit to practise but acussed the place of racism even though there was plenty of evidence to the actual reason for removal.

This means nothing. He was simply a fool trying to play the race card. Had he succeeded then your point might be valid. I'm willing to bet he didn't though.

covenant84 wrote:When training our student members (racism comes up all the time) the question is often raised that should the BNP be banned from speaking on site, as they are offensive to the LGBT, disabled etc. groups. As a trainer I also point out the other side of the argument, why ban one why not ban all political groups. The response back is usually aong the lines of the others don't offend me, to which I point out that recent governments have increased tuition fees by 200% with them trying to raise them again in the next couple of years by another 200%+ (from £1000 to £7-£10K!) POinting out that this affects not just certain student groups but all the room tends to go a little quiet, yet the conversation always heads back to BNP - students simply feel uneasy to speak against 'major' parties for some reason.

Ok I do agree with this to an extent. I would certainly never call for the BNP to banned. However there is no doubt in my mind that the BNP's arguments are very much classifiable as hate speech and on that basis an institution has the right to deny them a platform on their turf. There is a world of difference between " I disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" and "Hello Mr Fascist have a Megaphone and Soapbox on me".

covenant84 wrote:Yes we should welcome and ensure they are included that's only human, but when it goes as far as not being allowed to wear a cross, or having Muslim schools who last week among other things have banned monopoly because it's too different from their culture it's going a bit too far. When I was at school we were encourage to play it as it helped develop maths skills, and were also encouraged to where our religious symbols as it promoted understanding. What is the world coming to?

Hmm no offense but I'd take any "Its PC gone mad" story with a pinch of salt if I where you. Most of these stories are very on sided, with circumstances taken out of context and drummed up to create resentment. A bit like the farcical banning Christmas stories that are trotted out year after year by the Daily Mail. All total Tosh. If this Muslim schools banning monopoly story is literally true I'll eat my hat.

Context is amazing. Everytime I see this thread I think "yea I can't stand French banks either, but I never thought they were that bad." Open the thread and lo and behold we're talking about something completely different...

Sexiest hero: Britain is a very tolerant, racially diverse and well intergrated country. Don't let this tiny band of morons cloud your judgement of this country. They tend to only exist in sinkhole council estates (equivilant to the projects), and I doubt you'd want to spend to much time there anyway.

I should qualify all I write by stating from the off that I'm a wooly liberal, I read the Guardian and everything, so if that affects what you think of my opinion, then so be it.

Immigration is NOT A PROBLEM in Britain. As people have said before, there are 4.1m immigrants in Britain, and 5.6m Britons living abroad, and not all the people who come to Britain are unskilled manual labourers, look at the amount of doctors we have imported from abroad, immigration benefits Britain. It also makes it an exciting place to live, and makes London especially the vibrant mix of cultures it is today. I bloody love it. As for the 'preserving British culture' argument, that's just crap. Britain's culture has always evolved and changed with new people coming to our shores, and it's not like our history will be forgotten. It's filled with far too many terrible, and wonderful deeds for that.

Britain isn't broken. PC hasn't gone mad. The sky isn't falling in. People have said the same ill-informed gak for generations, we need to be the one to finally rise above this and see it for the loathsome, brainless, reactionary drivel it is.

BTW, Covenant84, you really need to have words with your mate, the BNP's prime aim is for an all white Britain, seems a bit like a turkey voting for Christmas, and anyway, these thugs need to lose every vote they get.

Oh, about the banning of Cruciform Jewelry in school and the workplace.

My Auntie, despite being in her early 50's, is STILL a Trolley Dolly with British Airways. And guess what, no member of staff is allowed to wear jewelry beyond wedding rings. So that daft old mare who claimed she was asked to remove her cross and cried to the Papers was talking out of her arse.

Same in schools. I worked in a school. No Pupil was allowed to wear jewelry, regardless. Again, it just takes a couple of moron parents on the make to call the Scum and sell the story as a case of 'Pc Gone Mad In a Handcart on the way to hell, you couldn't make it up'.

Amazing. They seem to think that they'll rise out of the lower classes if they somehow get rid of immigrants...

Kilkrazy wrote:I agree with what you are saying.

My viewpoint as a moderator is that illustrating the argument with close relatives of board members is likely to cause a breach of the peace. I know it was JD who brought his grandmother into the topic, but even so.

Everyone knows someone who says, "I'm not a racists, but..." and those kind of anecdotes can be used to illustrate points without the risk of angering a board member.

Fair enough, I'll let it go.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Amazing. They seem to think that they'll rise out of the lower classes if they somehow get rid of immigrants...

Lumpenproletariat

The thing about "positive racism" and the idea the undeserving minorities are taking jobs from more qualified whites is a bit of an exaggeration and also completely misses the reality of the situation. The argument against it is that it is unfair and that hiring should be based on merit but I'll let you in on the secret: it's almost never been merit based. It's always been who you know. It's the reason why George Bush got into Yale with about a C average in High School when A students got turned away.

Ahtman wrote:The thing about "positive racism" and the idea the undeserving minorities are taking jobs from more qualified whites is a bit of an exaggeration and also completely misses the reality of the situation. The argument against it is that it is unfair and that hiring should be based on merit but I'll let you in on the secret: it's almost never been merit based. It's always been who you know. It's the reason why George Bush got into Yale with about a C average in High School when A students got turned away.

For some reason I don't think the jobs the immigrants are taking are the kind of jobs where its important "who you know".

Probably one of the ones they didn't eat.

This doesn't smack of racism so much as it does simple idiocy.

http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/

Isn't Microsoft getting into heat for announcing layoffs while requesting increased H1B visas? I seem to recollect that burbled up recently.

Microsoft recently announced a plan to lay off about 8,000 staff.

I don't know anything about their recruitment policy.

ShumaGorath wrote:For some reason I don't think the jobs the immigrants are taking are the kind of jobs where its important "who you know".

I have no doubt. I wasn't talking about the illegal immigrant job part of the conversation; in fact I didn't mention illegal immigrants at all. That is one part of this discussion and one my of which my point was not addressing, as others have already addressed it.

one of the problems in the current job market is that there are plenty of people, but sometimes not enough with the right skills. If you can't find a person with a certain skill set, but can import one, what exactly is a company to do?

I thin the idea that there is a limited pool of jobs that will run out is wrong. If more people are working, the economy does well and more businesses open up meaning more jobs

Precisely.

And I love it when the Daily slow, Nazi and Menace all run headlines claiming 'ALL NEW JOBS WENT TO IMMYGRUNTS!'

Utter utter crap, lets face it. Where did they get the information from? My mate is about to start doing his LARPing weapon commercially (got backing and everything, just needs to prove he can fulfil orders) so thats at least one job that hasn't gone to a foreigner.....and I worked for a Whisky Company, who needed an additional worker, so thats another job that didn't go to a foreigner....

And the absolute worst thing is when they gibber on about Gordon Brown being unelected, and claim a Scotsman shouldn't be heading Westminster. WHy not? Scotland was run from Westminster for decade after decade, and John Major wasn't elected for his first term?

Polonius wrote:one of the problems in the current job market is that there are plenty of people, but sometimes not enough with the right skills. If you can't find a person with a certain skill set, but can import one, what exactly is a company to do?

Retrain one of the several thousand you are about to let go.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:one of the problems in the current job market is that there are plenty of people, but sometimes not enough with the right skills. If you can't find a person with a certain skill set, but can import one, what exactly is a company to do?

Retrain one of the several thousand you are about to let go.

Only if it's cheaper than bringing in foreign talent. I think that the government should be re-training those workers, which is what government is better at doing, leaving the business to do what it's best at: making money.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Oh, about the banning of Cruciform Jewelry in school and the workplace.

My Auntie, despite being in her early 50's, is STILL a Trolley Dolly with British Airways. And guess what, no member of staff is allowed to wear jewelry beyond wedding rings. So that daft old mare who claimed she was asked to remove her cross and cried to the Papers was talking out of her arse.

Same in schools. I worked in a school. No Pupil was allowed to wear jewelry, regardless. Again, it just takes a couple of moron parents on the make to call the Scum and sell the story as a case of 'Pc Gone Mad In a Handcart on the way to hell, you couldn't make it up'.

That story really really wound me up. The policy on jewelery was clear and had naff all to do with religion. It could have been any kind of pendant and the same rule would apply. But as soon as the Daily Fail saw a chance to prey on middle England's persecution complex they leaped at the chance. It was a gross misrepresentation of the facts and outright shoddy journalism. I even remember reading a letter in Daily Express a few days later about an Atheist plot to ban anyone (thats right anyone) from waering a cross. What exactly is wrong with these people??!!!

Richard Littlejohn keeps saying "You couldn't make it up", which is ironic because that's precisely what he does. Every sodding week!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Precisely.

And the absolute worst thing is when they gibber on about Gordon Brown being unelected, and claim a Scotsman shouldn't be heading Westminster. WHy not? Scotland was run from Westminster for decade after decade, and John Major wasn't elected for his first term?

Don't get me started on this! It a cheap way of having a crack at the Government. I think about 1/3 of the PM's over the last 100 years have come to office this way. Most of them were Tories. If your going to attack the government at least do so on the grounds of their genuine flaws as opposed to this half arsed crap which only shows your own ignorance of the system.

Oh and anyone on a message board who thinks misspelling a party name or politicians name (Such as Nu-liebore, Nu_laba or Tony Bliar) represents a genuine intelligent argument they should have their hands cut off!

Greebynog wrote:Sexiest hero: Britain is a very tolerant, racially diverse and well intergrated country. Don't let this tiny band of morons cloud your judgement of this country. They tend to only exist in sinkhole council estates (equivilant to the projects), and I doubt you'd want to spend to much time there anyway.

I should qualify all I write by stating from the off that I'm a wooly liberal, I read the Guardian and everything, so if that affects what you think of my opinion, then so be it.

Immigration is NOT A PROBLEM in Britain. As people have said before, there are 4.1m immigrants in Britain, and 5.6m Britons living abroad, and not all the people who come to Britain are unskilled manual labourers, look at the amount of doctors we have imported from abroad, immigration benefits Britain. It also makes it an exciting place to live, and makes London especially the vibrant mix of cultures it is today. I bloody love it. As for the 'preserving British culture' argument, that's just crap. Britain's culture has always evolved and changed with new people coming to our shores, and it's not like our history will be forgotten. It's filled with far too many terrible, and wonderful deeds for that.

Britain isn't broken. PC hasn't gone mad. The sky isn't falling in. People have said the same ill-informed gak for generations, we need to be the one to finally rise above this and see it for the loathsome, brainless, reactionary drivel it is.

BTW, Covenant84, you really need to have words with your mate, the BNP's prime aim is for an all white Britain, seems a bit like a turkey voting for Christmas, and anyway, these thugs need to lose every vote they get.

Oh and here's a good thing to show anyone you know who brings up the subject of PC brigade. Courtesy of that most respected journal of opinion, Viz.

Its the importation of that foreign talent if you've laid off people that is the problem.

There was a time when corporate culture would not permit that for US companies. That has changed. That has changed in my lifetime.

Ironically, this is why guys like me advocate government acting as a safety net for people, not corporations. It allows both groups to do what they're good at. Government is good at taking money and giving it to people, while corporations should focus on buying low, selling high, and making money for their shareholders.

Well I think there's a dispute about whether government is good at that, but thats another thread.

Doesn't this lead to the extreme corporatist vision though Polonius-privatizing profit but socializing the costs? If there were an environmental spill it would be the company's problem to fix. This is another type of spill.

Government also decides who enters and who doesn't-therefore definitely has a role in deciding if letting in that cheap/qualified labor is a good thing or not.

Oh wow all kinds of interesting topics here and viewpoints to explore but no time.

Frazzled wrote:Isn't Microsoft getting into heat for announcing layoffs while requesting increased H1B visas? I seem to recollect that burbled up recently.

Yes. Microsoft says why hire an American software engineer for $70,000 when you can get one from India for $30,000?

Kilkrazy wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:I always thought If america got too bad I'd move to England I always had the image of it being a really tolerant place.

Mostly it is.

The BNP is a tiny minority partywhich has failed to get more than a few local councillors elected.

However, there is a strand of racism in any country, inflamed by the kind of "Foreigners are coming to steal our jobs and women" headlines in the right wing gutter press. Funnily enough, these are middle class papers more than the traditional working class papers.

...

In a time of economic hardship these kind of pressures will get stronger and racism is likely to increase.

How do you figure Nazism began, then?

Economic Hardship, Unemployment, what began tiny...

sA

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:one of the problems in the current job market is that there are plenty of people, but sometimes not enough with the right skills. If you can't find a person with a certain skill set, but can import one, what exactly is a company to do?

Retrain one of the several thousand you are about to let go.

Only if it's cheaper than bringing in foreign talent. I think that the government should be re-training those workers, which is what government is better at doing, leaving the business to do what it's best at: making money.

I actually think companies should put a bit of effort into the economy, instead of expecting everything to be done for them by the govt. or the workers. We get nothing in the UK except "School leavers should be this, or School leavers should be that... We need another government subsidy..."

Get an effing grip, companies. You exist for the benefit of people, not the other way round.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

And the absolute worst thing is when they gibber on about Gordon Brown being unelected, and claim a Scotsman shouldn't be heading Westminster. WHy not? Scotland was run from Westminster for decade after decade, and John Major wasn't elected for his first term?

Nice bit of misrepresentation there. The main complaints in the Daily Mail and Express regarding Gordon Browns Scottishness is how he changes his opinions depending which side of the border he is on. He supported student grants for Scots, paid for through central taxation, but votes against them for English and Welsh students.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Get an effing grip, companies. You exist for the benefit of people, not the other way round.

I wouldn't say that. Companies exist for the benefit of themselves and their shareholders and whilst its right there are regulations in place to protect employees from being treated like total dirt they certainly don't exist for the benefit of the people. Its at best a mutually beneficial relationship exchanging labor for money.

and I speak as someone who has just found out his job is to be offshored! Whilst on a personal level that what has happened is disgraceful I wouldn't presume to claim that the company exist to benefit me.

Frazzled wrote:Well I think there's a dispute about whether government is good at that, but thats another thread.

Doesn't this lead to the extreme corporatist vision though Polonius-privatizing profit but socializing the costs? If there were an environmental spill it would be the company's problem to fix. This is another type of spill.

Government also decides who enters and who doesn't-therefore definitely has a role in deciding if letting in that cheap/qualified labor is a good thing or not.

Oh wow all kinds of interesting topics here and viewpoints to explore but no time.

Environmental spills are negligence. Laying off redundant workers and hiring useful ones is good business. I think that business should do that, and I think you and I have different enough ideas about immigration that we probably won't agree, but having any expectation for corporations outside of what's best for the bottom line isn't just naive, it's asking the board of directors to renege in their fiduciary duties.

olympia wrote:Yes. Microsoft says why hire an American software engineer for $70,000 when you can get one from India for $30,000?

Nah, the issue was visas, which means bringing in foreign staff to work in the US and paying US rates. This is done because the company is after specific expertise, or the absolute elite, brainiest folk around.

The issue of shipping departments overseas to pay lower wages is different.

LuciusAR wrote:

That is genius.

LuciusAR wrote:
That story really really wound me up. The policy on jewelery was clear and had naff all to do with religion.

Maybe if you were les angry you would have read ther article better, in whatever source you read it.

The challenge was not over jewellery but over religious exemption. British Airways had a strict dresscode and understandably so. No shawls allowed, but a hijab or turban was ok, because it was a religious item and was therefore exempt. When a Christian wore a cross (Catholics and high anglicans are the main denominations that do) it fell foul of the no jewellery part of the dress code. From then on it became a simple case of unfair treatment.

LuciusAR wrote:
It could have been any kind of pendant and the same rule would apply.

Yes because there isnt a religious exemption for a pendant.

LuciusAR wrote:
It was a gross misrepresentation of the facts and outright shoddy journalism.

Daily Mail made a meal of this, but the core of the case was sound. If dresscode is variable for some religions it should be variable accross the board.
You simply rejected the article because you have a hate on for the source. That is bad political thinking sir, all the papers string a line sometimes, and they all have their bias. The Daily Mail now gets more fingerpointing than the Sun and the Mirror combined, which I find rather puzzling actually.

LuciusAR wrote:
Don't get me started on this! It a cheap way of having a crack at the Government. I think about 1/3 of the PM's over the last 100 years have come to office this way. Most of them were Tories. If your going to attack the government at least do so on the grounds of their genuine flaws as opposed to this half arsed crap which only shows your own ignorance of the system.

Oh really, which third of [evil] Tory Prime Minsters [sinisterly] rose to power this way?

LuciusAR wrote:
Oh and anyone on a message board who thinks misspelling a party name or politicians name (Such as Nu-liebore, Nu_laba or Tony Bliar) represents a genuine intelligent argument they should have their hands cut off!

There was an army recruitment poster from the 70's which showed the four basic rights of the British people that the army defended by defending the borders. Yes, its army recruiting and thereby propoganda but, its interesting which rights were pointed out.

Freedom of expression
Freedom to vote
Freedom of faith and consceince
and Freedom to lampoon the government

The Freedom to lampoon the government looked out of place but it is more important than it looks. Blair is a good example, who had quote a 'Charles the first complex' and tolerated little critique. Prescott was even worse, it's not just them, many politicans and civil servants tend to be like that, they are tempted to believe they are above the law after they have held power for a while. It is part of the ugly deep inside of human nature.

Do you still beleive Tony Bliar over the Iraq WMD dossier? Which is where he got the name. If you do you will be pretty much alone.

Orlanth wrote:

Maybe if you were les angry you would have read ther article better, in whatever source you read it.

The challenge was not over jewellery but over religious exemption. British Airways had a strict dresscode and understandably so. No shawls allowed, but a hijab or turban was ok, because it was a religious item and was therefore exempt. When a Christian wore a cross (Catholics and high anglicans are the main denominations that do) it fell foul of the no jewellery part of the dress code. From then on it became a simple case of unfair treatment.

The difference is that a hijab or a turban at all times are a requirement of their respective religions so there is a case for a exemption to be made. The wearing of a cross is not, therefore no need for a exemption. It was nothing more than professional victimization on the woman's part and whipping up middle England hysteria on behalf of the papers.

Orlanth wrote:

Yes because there isnt a religious exemption for a pendant.

Nor should there be. My last Census form said I was a Jedi, (I was only 18 at the time, don't judge me!) this doesn't give me the right to turn up for a work wearing a light saber and them scream persecution when I'm told I cant.

Orlanth wrote:

Daily Mail made a meal of this, but the core of the case was sound. If dresscode is variable for some religions it should be variable accross the board.

See my point above.

Orlanth wrote:
You simply rejected the article because you have a hate on for the source. That is bad political thinking sir, all the papers string a line sometimes, and they all have their bias. The Daily Mail now gets more fingerpointing than the Sun and the Mirror combined, which I find rather puzzling actually.

I certainly don't. The Daily Mail thoroughly deserves the majority of the fingerpointing aimed at it. It is manipulative, one sided and far more interested in pushing Paul Dacres agenda than in reporting the news. I actually think its one of the most dangerous publications in the country. The Sun and Mirror are Red Tops and no one takes them seriously as a reputable journal of opinion. Its only interested in Sport, Titillation and cheap sensationalist stories.

The Mail on the other had takes itself far to seriously and ever worse its writers actually listened to in some cirlces. Hence it needs taking down a peg or 2.

I don't agree with anything just because the Mail says it. I disagree with the mail because a huge amount of its content is inaccurate and designed specifically to fuel the mobs persecution complex.

Orlanth wrote:
Oh really, which third of [evil] Tory Prime Minsters [sinisterly] rose to power this way?

You seem to have missed the point. I'm not calling the Tories evil. I'm just pointing out the flaw in the argument of calling Brown unelected as if its some sort of Evil Labour conspiracy. If fact, its perfectly legitimate and many PM's (from both parties) have come to office in this manner. John Major and Winston Churchill are 2 examples of the top of my head.

I'm not sure of the exact figures but my point still stands.

Orlanth wrote:
There was an army recruitment poster from the 70's which showed the four basic rights of the British people that the army defended by defending the borders. Yes, its army recruiting and thereby propoganda but, its interesting which rights were pointed out.

Freedom of expression
Freedom to vote
Freedom of faith and consceince
and Freedom to lampoon the government

The Freedom to lampoon the government looked out of place but it is more important than it looks. Blair is a good example, who had quote a 'Charles the first complex' and tolerated little critique. Prescott was even worse, it's not just them, many politicans and civil servants tend to be like that, they are tempted to believe they are above the law after they have held power for a while. It is part of the ugly deep inside of human nature.

Do you still beleive Tony Bliar over the Iraq WMD dossier? Which is where he got the name. If you do you will be pretty much alone.

Ermm ok. Perhaps I should rephrase my point. Sarcasm clearly doesn't come across well via the net.

My point is that people who use these phrases (Nu-liebore, Nu_laba, Mc Broon or Tony B-liar) are usually just an attempt to score points on the cheap. If you have a point to make then make sensibly it without resorting to bad puns. It just lowers the point being made to the level of school ground taunting and cheapens the credibility of the entire debate.

As to the hand being cut off, that was just a comical reference meaning they the couldn't type again and pollute the discussion further. It was being used for comic exaggeration, nothing more.

And for the record no I don't believe Tony Blair on the issue of WMD's, lets face it, apart from Melanie Phillips does anyone believe there were WMD's in Iraq? However I can only state this with the benefit of hindsight. I don't believe Blair deliberately mislead anyone, he simply used poor intelligence and, as a result, dew poor conclusions.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=502

Immigration is a good thing. Go to a place like Japan, that although I love in many ways, has very little immigration, and you see the drawbacks quickly.

Regarding the WMDs, a lot of people who should have known, such as the UN Weapons Inspectorate, said there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion.

They based their judgement on known factors such as the amount of weapons and equipment in the 90s, shelf life time of weapon components, and inspection reports.

Their advice was ignore by Blair and Bush, who quite obviously had decide to attack Iraq and needed a pretext. Hence the obvious fabrications of the 'dodgy dossier', the 45 minutes claim and the Nigerian Yellowcake shipments.

Anyway that's OT.

LuciusAR wrote:
The difference is that a hijab or a turban at all times are a requirement of their respective religions so there is a case for a exemption to be made. The wearing of a cross is not, therefore no need for a exemption. It was nothing more than professional victimization on the woman's part and whipping up middle England hysteria on behalf of the papers.

I can think of numerous biblical references as to why this person might feel obliged to wear a cross. Chritianity in its core form has no ritual strictures except for Communion and Baptism, however some have grown over time such as Quaker dress, wearing of hats in church. All based on various passages in scripture. The wearing of crosses is tradition rather than law, but is usually worn on the understanding that it is an open and undeniable expression of Christian identity. As Jesus commands his followers never to deny him, and to be transparent over who they are always many Christians wear a cross in order to put this point clearly, even in situations where they are forbidden to evangelise. The logic being, I cannot preach to the passengers therefore to keep the commandment I must wear a christian icon openly to show my true allegiance.

Some denominations take cross wearing seriously. Traditions are important, strictly speaking the Hadith where the dress code restrictions in Islam orginate is Islamic tradition rather than law as Islamic law begins and ends with the Koran. However Hadith traditions are in practice laws.

LuciusAR wrote:
Nor should there be. My last Census form said I was a Jedi, (I was only 18 at the time, don't judge me!) this doesn't give me the right to turn up for a work wearing a light saber and them scream persecution when I'm told I cant.

Flippancy will not help on such delicate issues. Putting Jedi on a census form is just a lot of fun, but ultimately its cosplay rather than religion no matter how many people join in the joke on the census forms.
One might ardently and legally found the Church of the Holy Dildo, but lines would be drawn on wearing icons of the faith.

Also some restrictions still apply to major established faiths. Sieks have a religious exemption for the daggers all male members of the faith must wear, and it is one of the few bypasses towards restrictions on carrying knives in general society. Even though Siekism is a major religion this is not acceptable on an aircraft.

Kilkrazy wrote:Regarding the WMDs, a lot of people who should have known, such as the UN Weapons Inspectorate, said there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion.

They based their judgement on known factors such as the amount of weapons and equipment in the 90s, shelf life time of weapon components, and inspection reports.

Their advice was ignore by Blair and Bush, who quite obviously had decide to attack Iraq and needed a pretext. Hence the obvious fabrications of the 'dodgy dossier', the 45 minutes claim and the Nigerian Yellowcake shipments.

Anyway that's OT.

I know I'm in danger of moving this more OT, but something did come to mind whilst reading this. How frustrating is it that a known crook gets away with their actions due to the lack of evidence, the people involved (the police & victims) have plenty of circumstantial evidence, but no real proof. When this happens everyone spouts off that it's crazy that this person got away with it, we all know they did it. I mean isn't OJ an example of this, or what about the people who are too afraid to leave their homes due to harressment (but can't prove it) or the cars vandalised by a group of kids, but again evryone knows they did it, but have no solid proof.

So surely if you were the aggrieved victim or a member of the victims family wouldn't you be happy if some "evidence" came to light that could prove your case. You could argue that case for WMD was a similar thing. The West knew he was up to something, it was obvious, but there was no solid proof, but then came a report that appeared to provide the evidence needed.

Just a thought.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Well I think there's a dispute about whether government is good at that, but thats another thread.

Doesn't this lead to the extreme corporatist vision though Polonius-privatizing profit but socializing the costs? If there were an environmental spill it would be the company's problem to fix. This is another type of spill.

Government also decides who enters and who doesn't-therefore definitely has a role in deciding if letting in that cheap/qualified labor is a good thing or not.

Oh wow all kinds of interesting topics here and viewpoints to explore but no time.

Environmental spills are negligence. Laying off redundant workers and hiring useful ones is good business. I think that business should do that, and I think you and I have different enough ideas about immigration that we probably won't agree, but having any expectation for corporations outside of what's best for the bottom line isn't just naive, it's asking the board of directors to renege in their fiduciary duties.

Actually thats not a correct statement. True accidental spills are accidents. Most pollution is calculated pollution as a by product of their operations. This pushes the costs onto the society unless that society forces those costs back onto the Company (in this circumstance via regulation and law suit). It could be argued that the social costs of layoffs could be redressed in similar manner. IE you can make your layoffs, but you also bear the costs of retraining.

Orlanth wrote:

LuciusAR wrote:
The difference is that a hijab or a turban at all times are a requirement of their respective religions so there is a case for a exemption to be made. The wearing of a cross is not, therefore no need for a exemption. It was nothing more than professional victimization on the woman's part and whipping up middle England hysteria on behalf of the papers.

I can think of numerous biblical references as to why this person might feel obliged to wear a cross. Chritianity in its core form has no ritual strictures except for Communion and Baptism, however some have grown over time such as Quaker dress, wearing of hats in church. All based on various passages in scripture. The wearing of crosses is tradition rather than law, but is usually worn on the understanding that it is an open and undeniable expression of Christian identity. As Jesus commands his followers never to deny him, and to be transparent over who they are always many Christians wear a cross in order to put this point clearly, even in situations where they are forbidden to evangelise. The logic being, I cannot preach to the passengers therefore to keep the commandment I must wear a christian icon openly to show my true allegiance.

Some denominations take cross wearing seriously. Traditions are important, strictly speaking the Hadith where the dress code restrictions in Islam orginate is Islamic tradition rather than law as Islamic law begins and ends with the Koran. However Hadith traditions are in practice laws.

Orlanth is indeed correct. There sects that require certain forms of dress, crosses, etc. as a definite religious requirement. Its no different.

Speaking of religious exemptions, Orlanth and I in agreement-Seventh Sign? Its all starting to add up...

And back to the storm in the Teacup created by The Daily Mail and it's various contempariries.

British Airways offered a very pleasent compromise of 'just don't have it on show, okay?' and little Miss Persecution-Complex decided this was not on and in fact the entire company was run by Muslims out to eat her children.

But then, the right wing gutter press are hardly noted for letting facts get in the way of a damned good scare monger.

Another example? In Britain, we have the Measles Mumps Rubella immunisation for all young children. Now, out of the entire medical profession, 1 Doctor. Count em, 1. Heather Mill can count it on her legs...1.. mentioned there could be a link to Autism. Rightwing Press grabs hold of it and makes out that having had the jab when I was a wean, it's a bloody miracle I'm not Autistic, because it always causes it. And Cancer. And might well turn me into a Gay Black Arab to boot!.

Even when the aforementioned Doctor completed his research and retracted his statement, they had the terrified Middle England by the throat, and weren't about to let go.

Responsibility? Not in a million years.

Of course in this case she isn't actually required to wear a cross at all.

She chose to and then tried, please excuse the pun, to portray herself as some form of martyr.

I was always tickled by the complete omission ( ..with the Mail it's so tempting to write "emission" instead) of the fact that

She was convinced that BA was anti-Christian, and nothing would dissuade her from that opinion, despite the company jumping through hoops trying to accommodate the many and varied religious demands being placed on it. Indeed, there is a BA Christian Fellowship group that did not support Eweida's fight, and confirmed that BA was already "making available facilities, time, work spaces, intranet use and supporting Christian charitable activities throughout the world"

It's probably also a bad idea to tell your gay co-workers that "it's not too late to be redeemed."

Indeed.

And just to illustrate how cheap the cheap shots are in this....

It was a Conservative Government that killed off most Industry in Britain, and then left the populations of areas dependant on said method of employment to rot.

And now apparently it's entirely Labour's fault.....

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

British Airways offered a very pleasent compromise of 'just don't have it on show, okay?' and little Miss Persecution-Complex decided this was not on and in fact the entire company was run by Muslims out to eat her children.

But then, the right wing gutter press are hardly noted for letting facts get in the way of a damned good scare monger.

So she wanted to wear a cross. What is this to you, or them? Miss Persecution-Complex indeed, you make it sound like she wanted to stab passengers with it.
Well the thread is about 'Rise of Hate', at least you are on topic.
Cut with the rabies please, she was expressing her faith in a non violent unhostile and unobtrusive way. Others can so why can't she, it is a simple matter of equality.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Another example? In Britain, we have the Measles Mumps Rubella immunisation for all young children. Now, out of the entire medical profession, 1 Doctor. Count em, 1. Heather Mill can count it on her legs...1.. mentioned there could be a link to Autism. Rightwing Press grabs hold of it and makes out that having had the jab when I was a wean, it's a bloody miracle I'm not Autistic, because it always causes it.

Surprise, surprise - HUGE increase in measles cases in the UK.

Wouldn't it be nice if the scaremongering press acknowledged what they've done here?

In a more on-topic vein, local news last night carried a story that Nick Griffin, the odious leader of the BNP, might be able to get a seat in the European parliament by standing here in the North-West region in the June elections - they estimate he'd need 8% of the total vote to get a seat, thanks to proportional representation. This is appalling. Considering that the voter turnout for European elections is so dismal, and that it's a certainty that every BNP supporter who can vote WILL vote, I fear the worst. I admit freely that I have never voted in a European election, but I damn well will next time. I just need to assess my tactical voting options, to give me the best chance of keeping this foul merchant out of parliament. (Just look at him - don't you just know that he dreams of torchlight parades, being addressed as "Leader", and having ranks of strapping young men in uniform looking up at him adoringly as he demonstrates the triumph of his will?)

Don't worry. Kilroy-Silk also went to Europe and succeeded only in getting told off time and again, and otherwise achieved precisely nothing.

Orlanth. She was free to wear it, but not to display it. But of course, the persecution complex continues. And how do you work out I have taken the side of fact, and not wild speculation, out of hate for anything?

The story was embellished beyond belief, she has been proven to be a bit of a nutter, and facts were willfully ignored by the press.....

The fact she could not display a cross but others could display religious headgear is prima facae discrimination. Its all or none, and again - who exactly did it offend?

It's not about causing offence. It's about company rules and regulations as I said. It could have been a Crucifix, a Star of David, a Buddhist symbol, whatever, British Airways Staff are NOT to wear Jewelery at work, Religious Symbol or not. Female Sikh employees may wear there bracelets, as long as they are not on show. Same with aforementioned necklace. She flouted the rule and had it on display despite being asked, then told, not to.

This is why she was asked to remove it, or cover it up. Not because it might offend someone of a differing Religion.

Then no one else can wear religious clothing or any other item. Too bad so sad.

And that will get you hammered in the US by the awesome power of the EEOC for discrimination. I'm betting there's something like that in the UK.

She took it court, and was laughed out.

She took it to European Court of Human Rights. Was laughed out. Again.

Linky linky to original report. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6051486.stm

And the eventual result. http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/01/09/43844/cross-row-british-airways-check-in-clerk-loses-religious-discrimination-case.html

European Court of Human Rights-

Never trust a supranational organization for, well anything.

No different to your Supreme Court really.

Oh wayyyyyy different.

SCOTUS has to abide by the Constitution (ok I know that seems like a techicality depending on what amendment). Its actually appointed by people we vote for.

I thought it was appointed by Senate and that? Or does the voting body only get to nominate, the, erm, nominees.

You know the Judges for the ECHR are apointed by the elected members of the European parliment right ?

Appointed by the Pres (elected) with the advice and consent of the Senate (elected despite jerrymandering)

More importantly (kicks the spolitght on) do you agree or disagree with this statement?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/230909.page#583106

I can just imagine the Dakka Gang in the post Zombie/apocalypse government meltdown. KillKrazy and Reds8n leading a ragtag fleet, running point with their premium bats (ok maybe Killkrazy has procured a nice Katana by now in which case-HE'S IN CHARGE), with Greeby and WhatWhat shepherding English Dakka newbs to the Safety Zone (Mexico), and bringing up the rear an Ale guzzling, bagpipe dragging, golf club wielding Mad Dog Grotsnik shouting incomprehensible Scot/British soccer hooligan slang.

reds8n wrote: You know the Judges for the ECHR are apointed by the elected members of the European parliment right ?

Are they themselves elected?

I didn't. Embarassingly, I'm not that up on the workings of Europe.

I mean, take the Euro. All the media tell is it's either good or bad, same with Politicians. They never bother to say why.

The European Parliament (Europarl or EP) is the only directly elected parliamentary institution of the European Union (EU). Together with the Council of the European Union (the Council), it forms the bicameral legislative branch of the Union's institutions and has been described as one of the most powerful legislatures in the world.[1] The Parliament and Council form the highest legislative body within the Union. However their powers as such are limited to the competencies conferred upon the European Community by member states. Hence the institution has little control over policy areas held by the states and within the other two of the three pillars of the European Union. The Parliament is composed of 785 MEPs (Member of the European Parliament), who serve the second largest democratic electorate in the world (after India) and the largest trans-national democratic electorate in the world (342 million eligible voters in 2004).[2][3][4]

It has been directly elected every five years by universal suffrage since 1979. Although the European Parliament has legislative power that such bodies as those above do not possess, it does not have legislative initiative, as most national EU parliaments do,[5] but it does in a de facto capacity (see Powers and functions below).[6] While it is the "first institution" of the European Union (mentioned first in the treaties, having ceremonial precedence over all authority at European level[7]), the Council has greater powers over legislation than the Parliament where codecision procedure (equal rights of amendment and rejection) does not apply. It has, however, had control over the EU budget since the 1970s and has a veto over the appointment of the European Commission.[5]

So.. as much as any of our glorious overlords can be said to be.

I'm sure there's the usual horsetrading, backroom deals etc etc over which judge gets appointed, from memory there's no actual restriction on nationality, so a German member could elect/nominate a French judge or whatever.

Oh, and I'm English, even in an apocalypse scenario I would not be running. Perhaps a brisk stroll or moderate increase in one's gait, but running is only performed by those wearing shorts. I am forbidden to do this as it constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment for any bystanders, not to mention the reflected light blinds plane pilots. PLus all the tourists think the cliffs of Dover are suddenly moving.

cool.

Well..yes and no, but that's a whole other barrel of kettles of fish. Or something.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Orlanth. She was free to wear it, but not to display it. But of course, the persecution complex continues. And how do you work out I have taken the side of fact, and not wild speculation, out of hate for anything?

Well from your choice of wording throughout it is clear you are not looking at this case dispassionately.

A more current example from this page you claimed the case was 'laughed out of court', it was eventually lost yes, but laughed out of court has certain tone to it and generally refers to when a judge or jury dismisses a case out of hand. You have no evidence for this whatsoever, the slant you add is an emotive one, not a logical one. There is a difference between a case lost and a case with zero credibility. Even Tony Blair asked BA not to fight this case, and there was a lot of sympathy for the plaintiff.

As far as the case was concerned it is transparent it was fought on the wrong grounds, because compromises were offered before the incident resulting in her suspension a good lawyer (I am sure BA has a few of those) could argue that it was not discrimination against her. The real issue was a lack of equality, something subtly different, discrimination by application of different standards. In this she was right, but the law covers this issue differently than direct religious discrimination. She could not prove that BA was attacking Christians per se, which sadly is the standpoint she brought the case forward on.

In any case BA changed its policy towards wearing religious iconography. This defused any claim of discrimination and achieved the primary equality goal, and likewise showed that change was needed and the prior system was unfair. Again proof that there was to some extent a case to answer.

Fair enough it looks like we aren't going to agree on this one.

To me its a simple matter.

1) Essential religious wear. Ok
2) Non essential religious wear. Can be worn but cannot be on display.

Seem like a perfect acceptable compromise from BA to me. The woman's response was simply Sour Grapes.

But I'd like to get back to the primary discussion at hand. So I'm drawing a line under this one. Can we please get back to the subject of the rise far right politics?

Point, we agree to disagree.

This is getting too far from BNP to really belong as part of the topic anymore.

Oh, and I'm English, even in an apocalypse scenario I would not be running. Perhaps a brisk stroll or moderate increase in one's gait, but running is only performed by those wearing shorts. I am forbidden to do this as it constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment for any bystanders, not to mention the reflected light blinds plane pilots. PLus all the tourists think the cliffs of Dover are suddenly moving.

I mean moving in a brisk skirmish formation.
Dakka Men don't run for no steenkin Zombies...

I worry that the BNP is gaining in popularity, but it seems like politics overall is lurching only slightly rightwards (and here in the US, it's actually gone the other way now that the Democratic Party is in power). I'm more concerned about Far-Right politicians who were or are actually in governments like the late Jörg Haider of Austria, or Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, or even Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. They scare me more than the BNP simply because they already seem to have populist support.