How Odd Is This? He Asked To Be My...
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Farage Wants To Repeal Anti-Race Discrimination Laws
http://
Anybody who is still unsure whether to vote for UKIP or not in a few weeks time had better see this.
He wants to repeal anti-race discrimination laws ! This will never happen, of course, because Farage and UKIP will never win a General Election ! But the fact that he has said this, is still atrocious .
My Dad had to put with signs saying " No Blacks, no Irish and no dogs" when he was a young man in post war Britain. If Farage had his way, these signs would appear outside the factory gate, all over again.
A quote from the BBC link :::: When asked if he would retain a ban on discrimination on the grounds of race or colour, he said: "No... because we take the view, we are colour-blind. We as a party are colour-blind."
If anybody else wants a reason that Farage and his Party are constantly exposed to ridicule, they need look no further.
Anybody who is still unsure whether to vote for UKIP or not in a few weeks time had better see this.
He wants to repeal anti-race discrimination laws ! This will never happen, of course, because Farage and UKIP will never win a General Election ! But the fact that he has said this, is still atrocious .
My Dad had to put with signs saying " No Blacks, no Irish and no dogs" when he was a young man in post war Britain. If Farage had his way, these signs would appear outside the factory gate, all over again.
A quote from the BBC link :::: When asked if he would retain a ban on discrimination on the grounds of race or colour, he said: "No... because we take the view, we are colour-blind. We as a party are colour-blind."
If anybody else wants a reason that Farage and his Party are constantly exposed to ridicule, they need look no further.
Answers
Firstly we are not in Canada or Australia, we are in the European Union that has a policy of free movement. Secondly there are areas that would not give an Eastern European or a Muslim or someone who is black a job because they don't feel that the individual is 'right for the job' ie not white anglo. That is wrong and we need to maintain these laws or what will be the...
09:45 Thu 12th Mar 2015
Methyl....you have made some very good points here this evening. Its up to us, and others, to make sure that racism is countered at every available opportunity.
There is far too much non-condoning going on. What Farage has done is his usual media manipulation, as explained by Eddie Mair today on Radio Four.
First, he makes an unbelievable statement, that is effectively blowing a dog whistle. He then, later in the day, retracts part of what he says, under a concerted bombardment by everybody else. His argument, as always, is that he has been "misunderstood" and "misquoted"........yeah right Nige !
But, as he has blown that dog whistle, we end up fire-fighting, instead of addressing the really important issues of the day. Classic Farage diversion tactics.
He has played the race card today and allowed all our closet racists to run to his defence.
You can fool some of the people, some of the time, but Farage will soon discover, that despite his best efforts, you just can't fool all the people, all of the time. He will discover that his attempts to placate the racist element of his Party is confined to just that.....he has reached the limit of his abilities to recruit more racists to his cause.
I have just watched the Politics Show and the Bookies are predicting that UKIP could end up with 3 MP's after the Election, as well as losing one of the seats he hijacked from the Tories.
So in the end all this will just be a lot of hot air, and hot air with a distinctive bad smell to it.
There is far too much non-condoning going on. What Farage has done is his usual media manipulation, as explained by Eddie Mair today on Radio Four.
First, he makes an unbelievable statement, that is effectively blowing a dog whistle. He then, later in the day, retracts part of what he says, under a concerted bombardment by everybody else. His argument, as always, is that he has been "misunderstood" and "misquoted"........yeah right Nige !
But, as he has blown that dog whistle, we end up fire-fighting, instead of addressing the really important issues of the day. Classic Farage diversion tactics.
He has played the race card today and allowed all our closet racists to run to his defence.
You can fool some of the people, some of the time, but Farage will soon discover, that despite his best efforts, you just can't fool all the people, all of the time. He will discover that his attempts to placate the racist element of his Party is confined to just that.....he has reached the limit of his abilities to recruit more racists to his cause.
I have just watched the Politics Show and the Bookies are predicting that UKIP could end up with 3 MP's after the Election, as well as losing one of the seats he hijacked from the Tories.
So in the end all this will just be a lot of hot air, and hot air with a distinctive bad smell to it.
Having read the article it seems that the devil is in the detail. It would depend on what was removed, what replaced, what added. Is the issue one of backing away from an unwise admission of genuine intent, or one of clarifying something that is being misinterpreted ? I'm inclined to suspect that it is more likely to be political mud-slinging by worried supporters of existing major political parties than a foolish attempt to lose votes from concerned voters by UKIP. But in the dirty world of politics who, aside from those involved, can know ?
“No Blacks, no Irish and no dogs"
Only the wording has changed.
http://
Only the wording has changed.
http://
naomi24
You wrote:
"sp, //The law you cite does not exist. //
Well if it doesn't I have no idea why Muslims employed in supermarkets are moved to other areas if they refuse to touch pork or alcohol, or in pharmacies why they may refuse to serve customers GP prescribed birth control. Perhaps you can explain?"
Nothing to do with law.
Absolutely nothing.
You wrote:
"sp, //The law you cite does not exist. //
Well if it doesn't I have no idea why Muslims employed in supermarkets are moved to other areas if they refuse to touch pork or alcohol, or in pharmacies why they may refuse to serve customers GP prescribed birth control. Perhaps you can explain?"
Nothing to do with law.
Absolutely nothing.
@mikey
At the very minimum, Farage is cloth-eared.
--
The Channel 4 programme makers say they have not misrepresented Mr Farage's views.
"He was asked a direct question on whether there would be a law against discrimination on the grounds of race or colour and he replied no," they said.
--
This reappears further down the article, showing the above was an abrupt edit at the word "no", whereas it was "no" (pause) and the "we're colourblind" stuff, which is i) too vague to be a suitable replacement for a law and ii) a contrary position to the "no" answer to a question of "retain a ban on discrimination.
There is no shortage of people out there who habitually use written or verbal double negatives as if they believe that two negatives are additive - making a more emphatic negative.
The rest of the world sees "retain a ban: no" as meaning "we will repeal the ban", with the inference "discrimination will be allowed, once more".
He is able to construct what he says in such a way as to not say certain combinations of words (eg the last phrase there) such that listeners do all the infererring and he can come back later, bleating that he has been "wilfully misinterpreted".
But he leaves us no choice due to all the circumlocution he does. He does not utter outright lies but he makes sure he can back-pedal out of any ill-thought-out piece of off-the-cuff policymaking he comes out with. Comedy gold, it is.
At the very minimum, Farage is cloth-eared.
--
The Channel 4 programme makers say they have not misrepresented Mr Farage's views.
"He was asked a direct question on whether there would be a law against discrimination on the grounds of race or colour and he replied no," they said.
--
This reappears further down the article, showing the above was an abrupt edit at the word "no", whereas it was "no" (pause) and the "we're colourblind" stuff, which is i) too vague to be a suitable replacement for a law and ii) a contrary position to the "no" answer to a question of "retain a ban on discrimination.
There is no shortage of people out there who habitually use written or verbal double negatives as if they believe that two negatives are additive - making a more emphatic negative.
The rest of the world sees "retain a ban: no" as meaning "we will repeal the ban", with the inference "discrimination will be allowed, once more".
He is able to construct what he says in such a way as to not say certain combinations of words (eg the last phrase there) such that listeners do all the infererring and he can come back later, bleating that he has been "wilfully misinterpreted".
But he leaves us no choice due to all the circumlocution he does. He does not utter outright lies but he makes sure he can back-pedal out of any ill-thought-out piece of off-the-cuff policymaking he comes out with. Comedy gold, it is.
-----
The Equality Act 2010, begun under Labour and introduced by the coalition, simplified and strengthened the law
It makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against employees because of race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
There are four main types of racial discrimination: direct, indirect, victimisation and harassment
Positive action is only allowed if a particular racial group suffers a disadvantage, is disproportionately under represented or has needs* that are different from those of other racial groups in the workforce
----
* I think this is the section being applied in the supermarket produce non-handling situation.
In a weird way, a white person making the same refusal to fetch and carry but without the "special need" to fall back on could be regarded as "unequal" (as a person). In reality, of course, they are just being a lazy clod.
Then again, it is hard to get on with a colleague if they get put on "light duties" and especially "higher status" duties by using their "special ability" to avoid touching heavy boxes of pork or wine, on faith grounds.
Sorry if this is off-topic.
The Equality Act 2010, begun under Labour and introduced by the coalition, simplified and strengthened the law
It makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against employees because of race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
There are four main types of racial discrimination: direct, indirect, victimisation and harassment
Positive action is only allowed if a particular racial group suffers a disadvantage, is disproportionately under represented or has needs* that are different from those of other racial groups in the workforce
----
* I think this is the section being applied in the supermarket produce non-handling situation.
In a weird way, a white person making the same refusal to fetch and carry but without the "special need" to fall back on could be regarded as "unequal" (as a person). In reality, of course, they are just being a lazy clod.
Then again, it is hard to get on with a colleague if they get put on "light duties" and especially "higher status" duties by using their "special ability" to avoid touching heavy boxes of pork or wine, on faith grounds.
Sorry if this is off-topic.
As for "under representation", all the Polish worker has to do is find a workplace which is staffed by all British-born workforce and then that section of the 2010 form applies to them.
That is the only situation I can find where Farage's words "employer…no choice but to hire Polish" (applicant) "rather than British" are applicable.
That is the only situation I can find where Farage's words "employer…no choice but to hire Polish" (applicant) "rather than British" are applicable.
Mr Farage's response seems fair enough
“I’m afraid that what this incident has really shown us is that the mainstream establishment, including the press and the media, are perhaps racist themselves. Because when I said “British” they heard “white”, and set a course for the media narrative to pretend I made a distinction between people of different skin colours. This is their own, inbuilt racism. And it’s shameful.”
“I’m afraid that what this incident has really shown us is that the mainstream establishment, including the press and the media, are perhaps racist themselves. Because when I said “British” they heard “white”, and set a course for the media narrative to pretend I made a distinction between people of different skin colours. This is their own, inbuilt racism. And it’s shameful.”
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Crosswords17 mins ago
ChatterBank28 mins ago
Food & Drink39 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.