Racist Labour to ban Whites from jobs!

[daft fan]

Yep, you've heard right. The anti-British left-wing establishment are to get their way and bring in legislation that will ban white's from certain jobs.

From the Daily Express:

WHITE men could be blocked from jobs and promotions under a so-called equality drive unveiled by Labour today.
Instead women and ethnic minorities will be favoured in the workplace under a new Bill to be revealed by Equalities Minister Harriet Harman.

Critics blasted the measure as an unworkable piece of political correctness that will see good candidates overlooked for jobs in the interests of positive discrimination.

Tory MP Mark Pritchard said: “Everyone supports equal rights, but special rights cause resentment, do nothing for community cohesion and do not tackle racial prejudice. This is another example of political correctness which will not achieve an improvement in equality.”

And John Midgley of the Campaign Against Political Correctness said: “There is nothing positive about positive action or discrimination. It is counter-productive and potentially racist and sexist. This is typical of Harriet Harman, who must be the most politically correct MP.”

Under the new measures, firms will be able to favour the ethnic minority job applicant between two equally qualified candidates.

Officials insist the move is “positive action” rather than discrimination, and say they remain opposed to job quotas for women or ethnic minorities.

Even equality campaigners attacked the measures when they were first announced in March. Katherine Rake of the Fawcett Society, an equal pay pressure group, said: “How you would really hold that up in a court of law is not clear and employers may be reluctant to use it. You are probably talking about a handful of cases.”

Under the measure, companies will also be pressured into publishing clearer details of pay levels in an attempt to curb discrimination in salaries. But businesses are deeply worried about the measure undermining workforce morale and breeding more bureaucracy.

The Bill, which will go through Parliament in the next session, will also outlaw ageism. Ministers want to stop elderly people being patronised by doctors following complaints of pensioners being fobbed off by GPs and denied health, travel and car insurance.

Ms Harman said last week: “The last frontier of equality is ensuring that the growing number of older people in this country don’t face unfair prejudice and discrimination.”

It is thought that the Bill will put ageism on a par with racism. The new legislation is aimed at tackling “harmful” age discrimination and will not ban systems which have benefits for the elderly, such as free bus travel.

Speaking at a trade union conference yesterday, Ms Harman said: “We are committed to equality and to tackling discrimination.

“Equality and an absence of discrimination are the hallmarks of a modern society and a strong economy which can draw on the talents of all.”

Click here for full article. (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/49922/White-men-face-jobs-ban-as-new-law-favours-ethnic-minorities-and-women)

The worrying factor is that this is already taking place in organizations like the Met Police where only ethnic minorities are recruited as part of a racist government drive.

Cops snub army hero for being white! (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article781460.ece)

[Trevortt]

I heard about this, it was also on question time.

Its a bloody disgrace, although it does prove you cannot be racist towards the indigenous person.

If it was the other way around there would no doubt be front news headlines with Muslims and other foreigners paraded down the street shouting death threats.

[Spades]

I heard about this, it was also on question time.

Its a bloody disgrace, although it does prove you cannot be racist towards the indigenous person.

If it was the other way around there would no doubt be front news headlines with Muslims and other foreigners paraded down the street shouting death threats.

This is the thing that makes furious with the left. This kind of discrimination is borderline to the point where something needs to be done otherwise an uprising would entirely warranted. The government needs to remember who gives them their authority.

[JSD]

It's people like the BNP who, unfortunatly, make positive discrimination nessisary.

[Trevortt]

It's people like the BNP who, unfortunatly, make positive discrimination nessisary.

Could you please elaborate on why you think the BNP make the left positivly discriminate!!

[Spades]

It's people like the BNP who, unfortunatly, make positive discrimination nessisary.

Discrimination is NEVER necessary in any form. Positive discrimination is just as bad (imo worse). Why? Because people who share your mentality make programs like affirmative action which are incredibly unfair.

[JSD]

Could you please elaborate on why you think the BNP make the left positivly discriminate!!

Sure. First note that I didn't say "the BNP" i said "people like the BNP." I meant racists as a whole.

As for elaborating, one is statisticly far more likely to be poor if one is of a racial minority. So the goverment is targeting people in these groups to give them some help. There are also policies to help the lower classes but they are rarely given much attention.

The reason the rascists make it even more neccisary is because many people of different races and women do not get jobs they are qualified for despite equality regulations because of institutionlised rascism and sexism.

I happen to be middle class, white and male, so don't benefit from any of these legislation.

[pauli007001]

Those filthy disgusting NULAB commies.How dare they say Blacks and other ethnics are not smart enough to get a job without the government making it law!!@!

[Leviathon]

Let's take a step back here, there's one line in the article that is the fact of the thing, the rest is opinion and as such can be put to one side. The important line is:
Under the new measures, firms will be able to favour the ethnic minority job applicant between two equally qualified candidates.

So, when there are two candidates, equally qualified, the employer "is able" to choose the applicant who is female of from an ethnic minority. Now, the stats show that there is still some discrimination (in favour of white males) in the work place, with most work places having a majority of white males. This is not because somehow white males are more qualified than women or non-whites but is because somewhere along the line there is some discrimination, whether intended or not. This legislation is actually useless IMO but its aim is to correct that discrimination and would hopefully only ever be a short-term thing. It is not "racist" nor "sexist" and is not part of any conspiracy to put down the white male.

btw, this is coming from a white male.

[Leviathon]

Those filthy disgusting NULAB commies.How dare they say Blacks and other ethnics are not smart enough to get a job without the government making it law!!@!

I don't know you so I can't tell if this is sarcasm so excuse me if it is.

NULAB commies? You have got to be taking the ****, new labour is a continuation of the thatcherite ideals of market-place supremacy, about as far from communism as you can get. If NULAB was communist we'd not be living in possibly the most capitalist country in Europe, with a growing inequality gap. And nowhere in the legislation does it say black and other ethnic minorities are not intelligent enough to get jobs for themselves, it recognises that depsite efforts to the contrary there is still some discrimination which they think (incorrectly IMO) by this mild legislation.

[pauli007001]

I don't know you so I can't tell if this is sarcasm so excuse me if it is.

NULAB commies? You have got to be taking the ****, new labour is a continuation of the thatcherite ideals of market-place supremacy, about as far from communism as you can get. If NULAB was communist we'd not be living in possibly the most capitalist country in Europe, with a growing inequality gap. And nowhere in the legislation does it say black and other ethnic minorities are not intelligent enough to get jobs for themselves, it recognises that depsite efforts to the contrary there is still some discrimination which they think (incorrectly IMO) by this mild legislation.

Yeah it is sarcasm,and i feel very strongly about equality,any law stating that one group should be favoured over another is in my mind designed to be divisive.
A little story might work here,in Boston a white man taking the police aptitude test had to score 99% a black75%.Kathleen O Toole when she was commisioner of police in Boston standardised the score,all had to acheive the same result.The self proclamed Black leaders were up in arms(Al sharpton and that type,jesse Jackson etc).When the new tests were implemented what happened........an increase in Black applicants many of whom scored as high or higher as their white counterparts,result a higher number of black cops in boston reducing the feeling that the police are racist to people in the black community and also reducing the resentment of whites rejected from applying on race grounds,Harmonising is what it was,all are equal and seen to be equal!!!

[Marxist Nutter]

Yeah it is sarcasm,and i feel very strongly about equality,any law stating that one group should be favoured over another is in my mind designed to be divisive.
A little story might work here,in Boston a white man taking the police aptitude test had to score 99% a black75%.Kathleen O Toole when she was commisioner of police in Boston standardised the score,all had to acheive the same result.The self proclamed Black leaders were up in arms(Al sharpton and that type,jesse Jackson etc).When the new tests were implemented what happened........an increase in Black applicants many of whom scored as high or higher as their white counterparts,result a higher number of black cops in boston reducing the feeling that the police are racist to people in the black community and also reducing the resentment of whites rejected from applying on race grounds,Harmonising is what it was,all are equal and seen to be equal!!!

Agree with your sentiments; but if we should take into account equality of opportunity. Some tests are culturally biased. However the answer is not to have separate scoring systems; but to perhaps look at how we can make testing more fair for everybody!

[pauli007001]

Agree with your sentiments; but if we should take into account equality of opportunity. Some tests are culturally biased. However the answer is not to have separate scoring systems; but to perhaps look at how we can make testing more fair for everybody!

In a test with only one correct answer,ie square peg in round holeor mechanical comprehension how does culture or race come into it?
On the equalised boston police test,the test remains the same,the pass rate is equallized99% for all,and as i said before more blacks are scoring 99% because more blacks are applying because they are treated as equals(an idea hated by Sharpton,jackson and those other black supremacists)!

[Marxist Nutter]

In a test with only one correct answer,ie square peg in round holeor mechanical comprehension how does culture or race come into it?
On the equalised boston police test,the test remains the same,the pass rate is equallized99% for all,and as i said before more blacks are scoring 99% because more blacks are applying because they are treated as equals(an idea hated by Sharpton,jackson and those other black supremacists)!

well it comes into it because of language and cultural differences. Unfamiliarity with common use of language or from 'seeing the world' in a different way. Many philosophers think that language constructs our reality, so a different language can mean a totally different perception of the test itself, even the idea that there may be only one correct answer or what is meant by an answer itself. Now granted this may only come into play where there are huge cultural differences and maybe not in this case. And yes I realise that this is rather an abstract line of argument; but I am trying to answer the question as best I can.

The other (more directed at your example) point is that a police force should represent (to at least some extent) the people it polices. Now right or wrong, a black person may just feel more comfortable talking to a black police officer. If more black cops helps the community feel better then you can understand (maybe not agree; but understand) why people may take measures to help black people become police officers.

[pauli007001]

well it comes into it because of language and cultural differences. Unfamiliarity with common use of language or from 'seeing the world' in a different way. Many philosophers think that language constructs our reality, so a different language can mean a totally different perception of the test itself, even the idea that there may be only one correct answer or what is meant by an answer itself. Now granted this may only come into play where there are huge cultural differences and maybe not in this case. And yes I realise that this is rather an abstract line of argument; but I am trying to answer the question as best I can.

The other (more directed at your example) point is that a police force should represent (to at least some extent) the people it polices. Now right or wrong, a black person may just feel more comfortable talking to a black police officer. If more black cops helps the community feel better then you can understand (maybe not agree; but understand) why people may take measures to help black people become police officers.

If you cant speak the language of the land you choose to live in,you stop being an immigrant wishing to be a productive member of a culture,you become an invader wishing to destroy that culture!
Immigration,Yes,cultural annhiliation no!I believe in UNICULTURALISM,assimilate or leave,it is called respect!

[Marxist Nutter]

If you cant speak the language of the land you choose to live in,you stop being an immigrant wishing to be a productive member of a culture,you become an invader wishing to destroy that culture!
Immigration,Yes,cultural annhiliation no!I believe in UNICULTURALISM,assimilate or leave,it is called respect!

What the hell are you The Borg? :D

It's not a matter of speaking the language, many can, but are going to have understandable difficulty, in some cases. In another thread (drugs) you were very clear about the evils of criminality. Many cultures don't even have the concepts of good and evil, for example. It's more than just learning the language. What about refugees and people fleeing for their lives. You are always talking about equality of opportunity, that's exactly what I'm arguing for, here.

[Spades]

Let's take a step back here, there's one line in the article that is the fact of the thing, the rest is opinion and as such can be put to one side. The important line is:


So, when there are two candidates, equally qualified, the employer "is able" to choose the applicant who is female of from an ethnic minority. Now, the stats show that there is still some discrimination (in favour of white males) in the work place, with most work places having a majority of white males. This is not because somehow white males are more qualified than women or non-whites but is because somewhere along the line there is some discrimination, whether intended or not. This legislation is actually useless IMO but its aim is to correct that discrimination and would hopefully only ever be a short-term thing. It is not "racist" nor "sexist" and is not part of any conspiracy to put down the white male.

btw, this is coming from a white male.

Stats HA. Statistics don't tell you everything and in this instance I wouldn't rely on them. There could many reasons on why there are more white males (Although isn't Britain like 90 perc white? so where are these 'stats' of yours). It is racist and sexist and the fact that you cannot admit it is a embarassing. It discriminates against white male EVEN if the aim is to be a positive one it STILL IS DISCRIMINATING.

[Leviathon]

Stats HA. Statistics don't tell you everything and in this instance I wouldn't rely on them. There could many reasons on why there are more white males (Although isn't Britain like 90 perc white? so where are these 'stats' of yours). It is racist and sexist and the fact that you cannot admit it is a embarassing. It discriminates against white male EVEN if the aim is to be a positive one it STILL IS DISCRIMINATING.

Discrimnination is: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice"

This is not treatment on race or sex rather than merit but only when merit is equal, now IMO the measure is useless, since when have two people been exactly equal in merit? But, all it is supposed to do is help reverse some negative trends, frankly even if you want to cal it discrimination it won't change my view, the effect is intended to be positive though as I've said I don't think it will have any effect beyond alienating some white males.

[pauli007001]

What the hell are you The Borg? :D

It's not a matter of speaking the language, many can, but are going to have understandable difficulty, in some cases. In another thread (drugs) you were very clear about the evils of criminality. Many cultures don't even have the concepts of good and evil, for example. It's more than just learning the language. What about refugees and people fleeing for their lives. You are always talking about equality of opportunity, that's exactly what I'm arguing for, here.

If they want it come and get it but at least make an effort to fit in,not run around demanding we change the way we do this or change that,to do that is bloody rude and in that case go back to where you came!Who cares about your life if you care not for anothers!

[Trevortt]

Discrimnination is: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice"

This is not treatment on race or sex rather than merit but only when merit is equal, now IMO the measure is useless, since when have two people been exactly equal in merit? But, all it is supposed to do is help reverse some negative trends, frankly even if you want to cal it discrimination it won't change my view, the effect is intended to be positive though as I've said I don't think it will have any effect beyond alienating some white males.

Discrimination

To treat one particular group of people less favourably than others because of their race, colour, nationality, or ethnic or national origin. The law in Britain recognises two kinds of racial discrimination: direct and indirect. Direct discrimination occurs when race, colour, nationality, or ethnic or national origin is used as an explicit reason for discriminating. Indirect discrimination occurs when there are rules, regulations or procedures operating, which have the effect of discriminating against certain groups of people. This may happen in subtle ways. For example, staff at a shop in Blackburn had to wear a uniform skirt, but an Asian woman worker refused for religious reasons. A tribunal found the shop guilty of indirect discrimination, because a large number of Asian women would not be able to comply with the rule.

[Leviathon]

Discrimination

To treat one particular group of people less favourably than others because of their race, colour, nationality, or ethnic or national origin. The law in Britain recognises two kinds of racial discrimination: direct and indirect. Direct discrimination occurs when race, colour, nationality, or ethnic or national origin is used as an explicit reason for discriminating. Indirect discrimination occurs when there are rules, regulations or procedures operating, which have the effect of discriminating against certain groups of people. This may happen in subtle ways. For example, staff at a shop in Blackburn had to wear a uniform skirt, but an Asian woman worker refused for religious reasons. A tribunal found the shop guilty of indirect discrimination, because a large number of Asian women would not be able to comply with the rule.

Thanks Trevor, any point to that or do you juts like defining words?

[Trevortt]

Thanks Trevor, any point to that or do you juts like defining words?

I was defining what discrimination means since you decided the pull out the part where it states it also involves race and sex.

Discrimnination is: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice"

This is not treatment on race or sex rather than merit but only when merit is equal, now IMO the measure is useless, since when have two people been exactly equal in merit? But, all it is supposed to do is help reverse some negative trends, frankly even if you want to cal it discrimination it won't change my view, the effect is intended to be positive though as I've said I don't think it will have any effect beyond alienating some white males.

[Leviathon]

I was defining what discrimination means since you decided the pull out the part where it states it also involves race and sex.

"Category" includes sex and race, I made no attempt to try and say discrimination is not to do with race and sex. What I said was that this law treats people on merit first, then on race and sex so is not discrimination exactly.

To the author of the thread: what the hell is with the title? It's a blatant lie.

[Spades]

Discrimnination is: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice"

This is not treatment on race or sex rather than merit but only when merit is equal, now IMO the measure is useless, since when have two people been exactly equal in merit? But, all it is supposed to do is help reverse some negative trends, frankly even if you want to cal it discrimination it won't change my view, the effect is intended to be positive though as I've said I don't think it will have any effect beyond alienating some white males.

Your explanation doesn't explain how this is not positive discrimination since the measure is targeting white males which discriminates both on race and sex and does not evaluate anyones merit. The fact that your for this form discrimination just shows how truly misguided you are and that you have a weak sense of fairness and justice

[Leviathon]

Your explanation doesn't explain how this is not positive discrimination since the measure is targeting white males which discriminates both on race and sex and does not evaluate anyones merit. The fact that your for this form discrimination just shows how truly misguided you are and that you have a weak sense of fairness and justice

It does evaluate merit, that is the first thing an employer must do, the legislation only comes into effect when there are two people of equal merit (which I concede is a hypothetical concept only) and this can be seen quite clearly even from the biased article.

[pauli007001]

It does evaluate merit, that is the first thing an employer must do, the legislation only comes into effect when there are two people of equal merit (which I concede is a hypothetical concept only) and this can be seen quite clearly even from the biased article.

If merit must first be evaluated why are advertisements BLATENTLY stating that they are exempted vacancys and will accept applications from the Black and asian communities only,for evidence read your local govnts or NHS jobs bullitin and see the words,they are pretty much as i have stated,police FARCES also make simelar racist advertisements!NO WHITES NEED APPLY!I suppose that is not racist in the eyes of a lefty soft soaping liberal who hates him/herself because of something he never did!!!!!!!

[Spades]

It does evaluate merit, that is the first thing an employer must do, the legislation only comes into effect when there are two people of equal merit (which I concede is a hypothetical concept only) and this can be seen quite clearly even from the biased article.

So White males get the boot or a lesser chance of acquiring a job (In a counry where 90 perc of the population is white?) In other words job hunting becomes even harder because employers are suppose to higher non-white workers of equal merit before the white mal. Sounds fair doesn't it (Note: Sarcasm).

Btw, being a white male doesn't mean that your in the targeted group of this legislation. Only white males who don't have jobs will be affected and I'm guessing you have a job don't you. So when this legislation passes you'll get that altruistic feeling of helping others but you tell yourself that it is fair to ignore the blatant discrimination.

[Leviathon]

If merit must first be evaluated why are advertisements BLATENTLY stating that they are exempted vacancys and will accept applications from the Black and asian communities only,for evidence read your local govnts or NHS jobs bullitin and see the words,they are pretty much as i have stated,police FARCES also make simelar racist advertisements!NO WHITES NEED APPLY!I suppose that is not racist in the eyes of a lefty soft soaping liberal who hates him/herself because of something he never did!!!!!!!

Before i tackle the point I'll makes two corrections. First, I do not hate myself nor my colour nor my nationality. Second, I am not a liberal I am a socialist. This law though, which is the subject of this thread does evaluate merit first, any evidence of "racist" hiring I will need to see first or can do nothing but discount it as rumour.

[Leviathon]

So White males get the boot or a lesser chance of acquiring a job (In a counry where 90 perc of the population is white?) In other words job hunting becomes even harder because employers are suppose to higher non-white workers of equal merit before the white mal. Sounds fair doesn't it (Note: Sarcasm).

Btw, being a white male doesn't mean that your in the targeted group of this legislation. Only white males who don't have jobs will be affected and I'm guessing you have a job don't you. So when this legislation passes you'll get that altruistic feeling of helping others but you tell yourself that it is fair to ignore the blatant discrimination.

I'm currently in the middle of my time at college and have no paying job, I don't support this legislation as it's a useless gesture that will do nothing but alienate further working class white males. However, if you have the merit to earn a job according to thise legislation you will get it whether or not you are white, asian, black etc... I hate repeating myself but here goes, you will only lose out when your merit is equal to that of a minority or female candidate, and in this case it could be argued that hiring a minority or female candidate provides diversity to the workforce making it more productive thus making the candidate a better one. I'm not saying i agree but this has been atken way out of proportion in the press and this thread.

[Trevortt]

I hate repeating myself but here goes, you will only lose out when your merit is equal to that of a minority or female candidate, and in this case it could be argued that hiring a minority or female candidate provides diversity to the workforce making it more productive thus making the candidate a better one. I'm not saying i agree but this has been atken way out of proportion in the press and this thread.

I disagree, why bother having legislation put into place if they are not going to abide by it.

There was a story in a local paper (i'll find the link) where it was advisiting for black & asian only job applicants, is this not racist in your eyes?

What about the white man?

[Leviathon]

I disagree, why bother having legislation put into place if they are not going to abide by it.

There was a story in a local paper (i'll find the link) where it was advisiting for black & asian only job applicants, is this not racist in your eyes?

What about the white man?

What you say sounds racist to me, I'll need to wait for your link and the individual situation first but at first glance I'd say I will probably agree with you on that.

[Trevortt]

What you say sounds racist to me, I'll need to wait for your link and the individual situation first but at first glance I'd say I will probably agree with you on that.

I am still searching for the lnk but i came across this..

Recruitment Job Posting for Ethnic Minority (http://www.ethnicjobsite.co.uk/)

imagine the uproar if, whitesonlyjobsite.co.uk or nativebritishjobsonly.co.uk existed?

[Marxist Nutter]

I am still searching for the lnk but i came across this..

Recruitment Job Posting for Ethnic Minority (http://www.ethnicjobsite.co.uk/)

imagine the uproar if, whitesonlyjobsite.co.uk or nativebritishjobsonly.co.uk existed?

Checked out the link and I'm afraid it fails to prove your point. It is an agency that caters for ethnic minorities, granted; however all the jobs (that I saw) listed were open to anyone no matter what their ethnic background - even whites.

[GETUPTA SINGH]

This article should read .......... government wants most whites to vote BNP. So much for living in a meritocracy:mad:

[Trevortt]

This article should read .......... government wants most whites to vote BNP. So much for living in a meritocracy:mad:

This government is anything but meritocracy.

[Leviathon]

This article should read .......... government wants most whites to vote BNP. So much for living in a meritocracy:mad:

Who said we're living under a meritocracy, unless merit means "total wealth accumulated" then you'll never get a capitalist meritocracy.

[Leviathon]

This government is anything but meritocracy.

Yeah, these damned minorities coming over here, taking our jobs, running our government.:rolleyes:

[Spades]

Yeah, these damned minorities coming over here, taking our jobs, running our government.:rolleyes:

Giving Preference to any group for any job is discriminatory. '

"provides diversity to the workforce making it more productive thus making the candidate a better one."

Proof? Because this statement is pure idiocy. Show me where it shows that the workforce becomes more productive and that having two people of equal merit and picking the candidate based on race/gender is not discriminatory. You sir are extremely silly.

Its not being taken out of proportion. This isn't just something you let slide by. This is a big deal. I hate it when the left is caught doing something undefendably stupid and their response is that 'its taken out of proportion.'

[pauli007001]

Before i tackle the point I'll makes two corrections. First, I do not hate myself nor my colour nor my nationality. Second, I am not a liberal I am a socialist. This law though, which is the subject of this thread does evaluate merit first, any evidence of "racist" hiring I will need to see first or can do nothing but discount it as rumour.

You are telling me that you have never seen the term"Exempted vacancy" on a job advertisement?
Go and look in your paper,or in the Job center(local govnt and NHS are very fong of the exempted vacancy clause).Another question,has the exempted vacency clause ever been used to favour whites?NO?Would it be fair to say then that the RR act favours non whites,if favouring one group over another is racist,dosnt that say that all who adhere to this law are racist?Is racism possible when the victim is white?Do blacks need extra assistance to get a career ?Why?Are they not just as smart,motivated and educated as whites?This law/act is as racist againdt blacks as it is whites,which leads back to my age old opinion that Racism is an invention of the LEFT wing liberal organisations who desire to divide and conquor the masses,create an envitonment where all hate eachother and engage in racism,and whilst they concentrate on that,let us strike!

[Leviathon]

Giving Preference to any group for any job is discriminatory. '

"provides diversity to the workforce making it more productive thus making the candidate a better one."

Proof? Because this statement is pure idiocy. Show me where it shows that the workforce becomes more productive and that having two people of equal merit and picking the candidate based on race/gender is not discriminatory. You sir are extremely silly.

Its not being taken out of proportion. This isn't just something you let slide by. This is a big deal. I hate it when the left is caught doing something undefendably stupid and their response is that 'its taken out of proportion.'

Labour hasn't been "left" for a long time. Anyway, what I said was "it could be argued..." This thread's title is "racist labour to ban whites from jobs" and yet the legislation does nothing of the sort. Whites are not going to be banned from jobs as a result of the legislation and you BNP guys make out like this is some terrible thing when infact it's just new labour speak which means nothing. The final fact is this: if you're qualified for the job you apply to you will get it all the same.

[Leviathon]

You are telling me that you have never seen the term"Exempted vacancy" on a job advertisement?
Go and look in your paper,or in the Job center(local govnt and NHS are very fong of the exempted vacancy clause).Another question,has the exempted vacency clause ever been used to favour whites?NO?Would it be fair to say then that the RR act favours non whites,if favouring one group over another is racist,dosnt that say that all who adhere to this law are racist?Is racism possible when the victim is white?Do blacks need extra assistance to get a career ?Why?Are they not just as smart,motivated and educated as whites?This law/act is as racist againdt blacks as it is whites,which leads back to my age old opinion that Racism is an invention of the LEFT wing liberal organisations who desire to divide and conquor the masses,create an envitonment where all hate eachother and engage in racism,and whilst they concentrate on that,let us strike!

You must've been smoking some strong sh*t to get that paranoid, jeez. Do you really think the government is organised enough (never mind the ridiculous notion of the argument) to dleiberately try and create a society "where all hate eachother and engage in racism" and keep it secret? they can't even keep hold of some disks so this seems highly unlikely. This legislation only allows for people of equal merit to be chosen by race or sex, not for jobs to be advertised for non-white males only. I haven't seen any job advertised which excludes white males but I'll have a look and come back to you, I don't support racism of any kind.

[Trevortt]

Labour hasn't been "left" for a long time.

Labour isn't right wing neither, you saying its a middle wing?

[Leviathon]

Labour isn't right wing neither, you saying its a middle wing?

Otherwise known as the centre, yes. It has pursued (but no longer it seems) some moderate prgressive reform in increasing funding of public services and welfare, the minimum wage was a good move, but it remains capitalist and continues the Thatcherite tradition of absolute faith in the free market.

[Trevortt]

Otherwise known as the centre, yes. It has pursued (but no longer it seems) some moderate prgressive reform in increasing funding of public services and welfare, the minimum wage was a good move, but it remains capitalist and continues the Thatcherite tradition of absolute faith in the free market.

Apparently, Denis McShane of New Labour said ("off the record") regarding an EU Referendum - "we can't let ordinary people have a say, they would bring back hanging and deport immigrants". This speaks volumes about their patronising authoritarian attitude, does it not?!

[Leviathon]

Apparently, Denis McShane of New Labour said ("off the record") regarding an EU Referendum - "we can't let ordinary people have a say, they would bring back hanging and deport immigrants". This speaks volumes about their patronising authoritarian attitude, does it not?!

Yes it does, you're completely right on that.

[pauli007001]

Labour hasn't been "left" for a long time. Anyway, what I said was "it could be argued..." This thread's title is "racist labour to ban whites from jobs" and yet the legislation does nothing of the sort. Whites are not going to be banned from jobs as a result of the legislation and you BNP guys make out like this is some terrible thing when infact it's just new labour speak which means nothing. The final fact is this: if you're qualified for the job you apply to you will get it all the same.

How can a white apply for a job that states clearly on the Advertisement that applications are invited from the black and M E community(yes you can apply but have a better chance of finding rocking horse crap than getting an interview,also a possible black ball on all applications to that organisation in future!So yes when many Police forces in the UK have decided only Blacks and Asians may apply,whites are in fact banned from applying,despite a twist of words on your part it is true!

[Leviathon]

How can a white apply for a job that states clearly on the Advertisement that applications are invited from the black and M E community(yes you can apply but have a better chance of finding rocking horse crap than getting an interview,also a possible black ball on all applications to that organisation in future!So yes when many Police forces in the UK have decided only Blacks and Asians may apply,whites are in fact banned from applying,despite a twist of words on your part it is true!

Let's just take it away from the police for a second. This legislation, taken apart from any anecdotal evidence, states only what I have said: that in cases of equal merit an employer may give the job to a minority or female. As to your anecdotal evidence I still haven't seen any, I'm perfectly willing to accept they exist and I'll tackle them when I see them but please show me some!

To the police, they should not be hiring on race, this we agree on, but they should be trying to get many more applicants from minority communities. It is vital that the police represents the community and the only fair way of doing this is to encourage applicants from the minorities more and then choose from the applicants on merit-ultimately leading to a more diverse police force. If you can show me proof of the police hiring on race I will agree that it is wrong.

[Trevortt]

Let's just take it away from the police for a second. This legislation, taken apart from any anecdotal evidence, states only what I have said: that in cases of equal merit an employer may give the job to a minority or female. As to your anecdotal evidence I still haven't seen any, I'm perfectly willing to accept they exist and I'll tackle them when I see them but please show me some!

To the police, they should not be hiring on race, this we agree on, but they should be trying to get many more applicants from minority communities. It is vital that the police represents the community and the only fair way of doing this is to encourage applicants from the minorities more and then choose from the applicants on merit-ultimately leading to a more diverse police force. If you can show me proof of the police hiring on race I will agree that it is wrong.

BBC in push to hire ethnic minorities - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1580065/BBC-in-push-to-hire-ethnic-minorities.html)

There it is then, the answer to this debate..targets...the government wants more ethnic workers so has implemented some form of taget system ie minimum 10 white, 10 black, 10 asian etc. What a load of BS.

Seems like the merit legislation has been thrown out of the window, although i know that the left will refuse to accept this, i may aswell talk to a brick wall, i'll get more sense from that.

==========================================

White candidates should be barred from standing for Parliament - says Labour report

White candidates should be barred from standing for Parliament in up to eight constituencies in order to get more black and Asian MPs elected, says a controversial report commissioned by Labour’s deputy leader, Harriet Harman.

Positive discrimination is illegal in the UK, but the report concludes that, without a change in the law allowing parties to impose all-black shortlists, it would take more than 75 years for Britain’s ethnic make-up to be fairly reflected at Westminster.

Harman is understood to be still considering the report’s findings in detail, but has expressed personal support for a change. However, Vaz is lobbying Harman for the measure to be included in a bill on equality issues later this year - meaning it could be on the statute book by 2009. ‘She is the person who has a huge history of supporting these issues,’ he added.

Woolley said that a change in the law could help the Tories by putting David Cameron’s A-List - a pool of candidates, many of them women or from ethnic minorities, singled out for the fast track to the irritation of some white men - on a firm legal footing.

The full story may be found here: here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/10/harrietharman.labour).

WELL WELL WELL. If labour does allow this. THEN SURELY they have to morally agree with BNP membership rules, which state members and political candidates must be WHITE. No longer can they slur the BNP as being racist in this aspect as Labour and the Conservatives will be even more racist by using positive discrimination to select their candidates. At least the BNP tells you what they are about. Unlike labour and the conservatives who would literaly sell every last one of our souls to Satan, if they thought they would get in.

[Marxist Nutter]

BBC in push to hire ethnic minorities - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1580065/BBC-in-push-to-hire-ethnic-minorities.html)

There it is then, the answer to this debate..targets...the government wants more ethnic workers so has implemented some form of taget system ie minimum 10 white, 10 black, 10 asian etc. What a load of BS.

Seems like the merit legislation has been thrown out of the window, although i know that the left will refuse to accept this, i may aswell talk to a brick wall, i'll get more sense from that.

There is little to be gained from mud slinging against the left. I am a lefty yes, but I always try to give everyone's post due care and thought and would never dismiss your points out of hand.... With regard to your points on this matter, for me it is a question of how do we achieve equality of opportunity. This is a pre-requisite for your merit argument (in my view, at least). 'Positive' discrimination is one answer to this problem, and in my own view a very flawed one. However the question now becomes: How do we achieve equality of opportunity?

[Trevortt]

There is little to be gained from mud slinging against the left. I am a lefty yes, but I always try to give everyone's post due care and thought and would never dismiss your points out of hand.... With regard to your points on this matter, for me it is a question of how do we achieve equality of opportunity. This is a pre-requisite for your merit argument (in my view, at least). 'Positive' discrimination is one answer to this problem, and in my own view a very flawed one. However the question now becomes: How do we achieve equality of opportunity?

We don't put targets into place for a start, this is just going to seperate everyone not that, this has not already happened with the forcing of immigration and all.

Equal opportunity. Equality would mean forcing people to do things they do not want in order to achieve sameness amongst all....aka communism.

[Marxist Nutter]

We don't put targets into place for a start, this is just going to seperate everyone not that, this has not already happened with the forcing of immigration and all.

Equal opportunity. Equality would mean forcing people to do things they do not want in order to achieve sameness amongst all....aka communism.

No not sameness, not communism, just everyone having the same opportunities. A level playing field so your concept of merit would be fair. Why do you equate this with communism??

[pauli007001]

Let's just take it away from the police for a second. This legislation, taken apart from any anecdotal evidence, states only what I have said: that in cases of equal merit an employer may give the job to a minority or female. As to your anecdotal evidence I still haven't seen any, I'm perfectly willing to accept they exist and I'll tackle them when I see them but please show me some!

To the police, they should not be hiring on race, this we agree on, but they should be trying to get many more applicants from minority communities. It is vital that the police represents the community and the only fair way of doing this is to encourage applicants from the minorities more and then choose from the applicants on merit-ultimately leading to a more diverse police force. If you can show me proof of the police hiring on race I will agree that it is wrong.

You dont read the papers?Not long ago a soldier who had served in Iraq was refused an interview because the force,cant recall which one was only hiring from the Black and minority ethnic communities.In Febuary according to the Observer the government voiced an opinion that whites should be barred from standing for election,All Black shortlists were again a featured idea of the government(Feb 10 2008,observer)!

[pauli007001]

There is little to be gained from mud slinging against the left. I am a lefty yes, but I always try to give everyone's post due care and thought and would never dismiss your points out of hand.... With regard to your points on this matter, for me it is a question of how do we achieve equality of opportunity. This is a pre-requisite for your merit argument (in my view, at least). 'Positive' discrimination is one answer to this problem, and in my own view a very flawed one. However the question now becomes: How do we achieve equality of opportunity?

What is positive about discrimination,where is it equal?If one can positivly discriminate one way it should be allowed the other!
Merit and on merit only should people be hired for a job.All in the UK have the same oppurtunities,how does favoring one group equalise in any way,it would be racist against whites,sam as if i were to start a company and refuse to hire any blacks,that would be racist against blacks,am i right?Or is anti white racism no big deal,perhaps whites are unimportant or just deserve to be discriminated against and not listened to because of whatever crazed lunatic guilt legislation the unions have driven through parliment?

[Marxist Nutter]

What is positive about discrimination,where is it equal?If one can positivly discriminate one way it should be allowed the other!
Merit and on merit only should people be hired for a job.All in the UK have the same oppurtunities,how does favoring one group equalise in any way,it would be racist against whites,sam as if i were to start a company and refuse to hire any blacks,that would be racist against blacks,am i right?Or is anti white racism no big deal,perhaps whites are unimportant or just deserve to be discriminated against and not listened to because of whatever crazed lunatic guilt legislation the unions have driven through parliment?

Please note 'positive' was in quotation marks. Can you explain what in my post led you believe I was in favour of 'positive' discrimination. Apart from assuming that I must be coz I'm a lefty?

[Leviathon]

You dont read the papers?Not long ago a soldier who had served in Iraq was refused an interview because the force,cant recall which one was only hiring from the Black and minority ethnic communities.In Febuary according to the Observer the government voiced an opinion that whites should be barred from standing for election,All Black shortlists were again a featured idea of the government(Feb 10 2008,observer)!

That I will agree is completely wrong and unethical.

[pauli007001]

That I will agree is completely wrong and unethical.

So now you agree!!!
the only thing now is you have left yourself open to accusations of racism or white supremacy or even BNP membership from the hard core PC gangsters on this forum!Good luck!:D

[Leviathon]

So now you agree!!!
the only thing now is you have left yourself open to accusations of racism or white supremacy or even BNP membership from the hard core PC gangsters on this forum!Good luck!:D

Lol, I wonder what a "PC gangster" looks like.:D

[Lorence]

Forgive me if I struggle to grasp the concept that a party where well over 90% of the MPs are white, are racist... against whites?
This implies they hate their parents, children, brothers and sisters, it is plain stupid to call the labour party racist.

Secondly you forgot to mention that they are sexist, against men. Despite the fact that the labour party has never had a female leader, but obviously regarding the policy of affirmative action the men in the labour party (again a vast majority) clearly hate themselves and one another.

Lastly the New Labour party we see today is far from left wing. They have continued the same neo-conservative policies that Thatcher created in the late 70's and have privatised public services with far more vigour than even Thatcher would have dared to.

To conclude you, my friend, are a very misguided induvidual.

[pauli007001]

Forgive me if I struggle to grasp the concept that a party where well over 90% of the MPs are white, are racist... against whites?
This implies they hate their parents, children, brothers and sisters, it is plain stupid to call the labour party racist.

Secondly you forgot to mention that they are sexist, against men. Despite the fact that the labour party has never had a female leader, but obviously regarding the policy of affirmative action the men in the labour party (again a vast majority) clearly hate themselves and one another.

Lastly the New Labour party we see today is far from left wing. They have continued the same neo-conservative policies that Thatcher created in the late 70's and have privatised public services with far more vigour than even Thatcher would have dared to.

To conclude you, my friend, are a very misguided induvidual.

Perhaps you should look to other posts i have made regarding the issue of racism and why white labour politicos enforce anti white rules.Look at how the race relations act is designed to give extra rights to one group and take away from another,it is not equality when one is lowered in order to raise another!!
Neo conservative policies(trying to link the tories with the other neos i guess(neo Nazis)yeah seen that before,you think the mere proles are actually that stupid?Thatcher was a Traditional conservative,in the same style as Churchill,or do you also regard churchill as a nazi!

[Leviathon]

Forgive me if I struggle to grasp the concept that a party where well over 90% of the MPs are white, are racist... against whites?
This implies they hate their parents, children, brothers and sisters, it is plain stupid to call the labour party racist.

Secondly you forgot to mention that they are sexist, against men. Despite the fact that the labour party has never had a female leader, but obviously regarding the policy of affirmative action the men in the labour party (again a vast majority) clearly hate themselves and one another.

Lastly the New Labour party we see today is far from left wing. They have continued the same neo-conservative policies that Thatcher created in the late 70's and have privatised public services with far more vigour than even Thatcher would have dared to.

To conclude you, my friend, are a very misguided induvidual.

And you, my friend, are very welcome on this site.:D Seriously though you are completely right, the almost laissez-faire approach which has been allowed to continue under labour has caused the current crisis and the idea of sexist and racist labour party defies logic like you say.