oafc0000 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) A true multi cultural world would require the west to stop stealing mineral wealth, stop stealing oil wealth, and stop using slave labour in the poorer countries to allow them to bring their living standards up to ours. But of course such a transition would be very painfull for the west, but would lead to a fairer and safer world in my view. WOW!! Finally you speak some sense!! I can go along with this... I totally reject your point that we can not have a multi cultural society. I totally reject any suggestion that a totally white Britain would be a good thing. You say yourself it "works" on a small scale... It either works or it dosent... Its worked in this country fine for goodness knows how many years and I do not see why it can continue to work. Edited November 19, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 A country full of chavs? Not on my watch. National Service/Community Service and the birch; you step out of line? Then be prepared to be knocked back into it, society has gone soft. Sooner we start cleaning our streets of chavs the better, that's the real problem with this country - :censored:ing leeches. I disagree with national service, we have a good army and I have no desire to pollute it with the scrotes that would end up in it. A parallel boot camp run separately along military lines revolving around discipline and contributing to society would be my preferred option so I guess this would be more like community service but with a few more cracks to the head when they step out of line. Having said that, the woolly pinko liberal that I am have difficulty agreeing with the birch, as the saying goes "where there's no sense there's no feeling". I think the formalized punishment of the birch et al wouldn't have the desired effect, it would just be in the words of Porridge "an occupational hazard" and the scrote wouldn't link it to their behaviour overstepping the mark. A rigorous regime of reveille followed by square bashing, assault courses, learning life skills, a trade, numeracy, literacy, respect not respec', tying a knot in it rather than having 4 kids with 4 different mothers/fathers and if they step out of line during the day a Windsor Davies type Sergeant Major gives them a crack immediately is the only way to turn the scrotes into decent citizens with a pride in their community and country through participation rather than a misguided "demz teking ur jerbs nd wimmin" - This would apply to all races, sexes and ages, I have a dream of Windsor Davies giving a crack to anyone who needs it. As for positive discrimination that the thread started about, it does sit uncomfortably. However we do not live in a perfect society and occasionally steps may be taken that will cause short-term pain to achieve a result that has a long term benefit. It isn't like this kind of thing doesn't already go on, I'm sure some people are employed as a result of having Oxbridge rather than Bolton poly on their CV, putting their left foot forward rather than the right..etc..etc.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) This reminds me of a conversation I had with someone at the weekend about different cultures merging. Or not. It strikes me there is a certain class and generation of white folk in this country who are, quietly, passively, racist. Who bitterly complain about immigration, about foreigners taking their jobs, about asians not integrating. Their favourite mantra is often along the lines of, "If they want to come over here they should learn our culture and our customs and live like us, not bring their foreign culture with them." And when this certain class and generation of British white folk gets a little older and decides it's time to spend their nest egg on somewhere nice to retire to, what do they do? I'll tell you what - they buy an apartment on the Spanish coast in a British ghetto where they mix only with other Brits, go to British pubs, eat British food and speak only English. Edited November 19, 2009 by garcon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 it allows employers to employ a woman over a man where everything else is equal The thing is, when hasn't that been the case? Surely it goes without saying? ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 That's why this is probably the most relevant comment in the thread: What I will say is haven't the politicians got better things to do then make up laws that in fact do not require an actual law. That is what stinks about Labour... Legislation for legislation's sake. We've had 12 years of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 This reminds me of a conversation I had with someone at the weekend about different cultures merging. Or not. It strikes me there is a certain class and generation of white folk in this country who are, quietly, passively, racist. Who bitterly complain about immigration, about foreigners taking their jobs, about asians not integrating. Their favourite mantra is often along the lines of, "If they want to come over here they should learn our culture and our customs and live like us, not bring their foreign culture with them." And when this certain class and generation of British white folk gets a little older and decides it's time to spend their nest egg on somewhere nice to retire to, what do they do? I'll tell you what - they buy an apartment on the Spanish coast in a British ghetto where they mix only with other Brits, go to British pubs, eat British food and speak only English. Nail...head...hit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 That's why this is probably the most relevant comment in the thread: Legislation for legislation's sake. We've had 12 years of it. I am glad the comment didn't go over everyone's head... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 That's why this is probably the most relevant comment in the thread: Legislation for legislation's sake. We've had 12 years of it. I am quite taken by the proposal in the Queens Speech to make it the law that the deficit is halved in 4 years (not reduced by 49% or 53.79%, but half). I would have thought that winning an election and instructing your Chancellor to set his Budgests accordingly was a safer way of achieving this than basically putting a post-it note on the fridge door reminding you to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) I am quite taken by the proposal in the Queens Speech to make it the law that the deficit is halved in 4 years (not reduced by 49% or 53.79%, but half). I would have thought that winning an election and instructing your Chancellor to set his Budgests accordingly was a safer way of achieving this than basically putting a post-it note on the fridge door reminding you to do it. I agree... Its why I got annoyed at the conservatives and lib dems for kicking off about MPs expenses not being mentioned... Our political system really is at a low point in history... Edited November 19, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I agree... Its why I got annoyed at the conservatives and lib dems for kicking off about MPs expenses not being mentioned... Our political system really is at a low point in history... You have spectacularly missed the point, the biggest failure is with the voting system! Simon should never have taken it to deadlock and Lucie should still be in the competition! Ooops, sorry, I thought we were talking about something that a large percentage of the voting public have engaged with and many have used their vote for. This is the real problem, people today are more interested bollocks than stuff that actually means anything - thinking makes their brainz hertz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 You have spectacularly missed the point, the biggest failure is with the voting system! Simon should never have taken it to deadlock and Lucie should still be in the competition! Ooops, sorry, I thought we were talking about something that a large percentage of the voting public have engaged with and many have used their vote for. This is the real problem, people today are more interested bollocks than stuff that actually means anything - thinking makes their brainz hertz. Another fantastic point We are on a roll today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I am glad the comment didn't go over everyone's head... Assuming that was aimed at me I'd just like to say that your comment didn't go over my head; I just didn't read your post. And besides, I made my (closely related) point first. That is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Damage Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) Garcon I think your comment on a class of racists is unfair on based on them questioning recent heavy and increaced immigration and the effect on towns and cities across this country. All across this country communities live seperate and that is because BOTH sets are racist towards each other in the way OAFC0000 and co use the word. Too many blame it on the indigenous population and refuse to look at all aspects. As for the rest of the speech from Gordon it was all bollocks as he claims to fix everything his lot took 12 years to ruin. And Cameron, sadly he looks like just another career politician. Personally I think it should be law that all MPs come from the constituency they represent and stop all this parachuting people in to safe seats to get elected for the party and not to represent their communities. Edited November 19, 2009 by Max Damage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Garcon I think your comment on a class of racists is unfair on based on them questioning recent heavy and increaced immigration and the effect on towns and cities across this country. It was pretty much on the money to be frank. All across this country communities live seperate and that is because BOTH sets are racist towards each other in the way OAFC0000 and co use the word. Too many blame it on the indigenous population and refuse to look at all aspects. Use what word ? I really think you need to read up on British history.... As for the rest of the speech from Gordon it was all bollocks as he claims to fix everything his lot took 12 years to ruin. And Cameron, sadly he looks like just another career politician. Gordon has not been PM for 12 years... Personally I think it should be law that all MPs come from the constituency they represent and stop all this parachuting people in to safe seats to get elected for the party and not to represent their communities. So you saying they should have been born in the place ? or they should just have a home in the place they represent ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Damage Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) They should live in and be part of the community they represent. They should not be a senior MP who loses a seat and then suddenly appears on the election list 200 miles away. No he was the chancellor responsible for bankrupting the nation. I note borrowing in October was another £11 billion and that is before you add the PFI debt and the pensions liabilities created through the massive bloating of the public sector. I think Gordon must rank as the worst chancellor ever to have set foot into 11 Downing street and he has followed it up with a display of breathtaking incompetence for his short stay at No10. He spent when he should have saved, he sold when he should have held, he has taxed, taxed, and taxed again. He has raided pensions and totally failed to regulate the UK banks via the FSA he created. As long as the banks paid the tax he didn't care that they had balance sheets of a trillion pounds plus. £2 trillion in the case of RBS although he was not alone in this failure but we were amongst the worst. He did one good thing in allowing the BOE to set rates but then completely ruined it by giving them a strict criteria for setting rates based on inflation figures that did not reflect reality and therefore helped to create the financial mess we are in today. How long will it take to recover? Who knows, but in my view houses have a long way down yet because to reduce this countries debt there is going to be a lot of pain and those in debt could be in big trouble as more jobs get shed in the public and private sectors Edited November 19, 2009 by Max Damage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 They should live in and be part of the community they represent. They should not be a senior MP who loses a seat and then suddenly appears on the election list 200 miles away. Well you the people get to choose who you tick your name against. Choose the local lad come May... I would personally never vote for someone who dose not understand the needs of the local community. Seems pointless. Too many people vote for a party rather than the person. Get what you deserve.... No he was the chancellor responsible for bankrupting the nation. I note borrowing in October was another £11 billion and that is before you add the PFI debt and the pensions liabilities created through the massive bloating of the public sector. I think Gordon must rank as the worst chancellor ever to have set foot into 11 Downing street and he has followed it up with a display of breathtaking incompetence for his short stay at No10. He spent when he should have saved, he sold when he should have held, he has taxed, taxed, and taxed again. He has raided pensions and totally failed to regulate the UK banks via the FSA he created. As long as the banks paid the tax he didn't care that they had balance sheets of a trillion pounds plus. £2 trillion in the case of RBS although he was not alone in this failure but we were amongst the worst. He did one good thing in allowing the BOE to set rates but then completely ruined it by giving them a strict criteria for setting rates based on inflation figures that did not reflect reality and therefore helped to create the financial mess we are in today. How long will it take to recover? Who knows, but in my view houses have a long way down yet because to reduce this countries debt there is going to be a lot of pain and those in debt could be in big trouble as more jobs get shed in the public and private sectors Sine truth and some bollox in all that... But that is a separate debate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 ? This is going to be weird looking but this new bill actually makes it legal for a woman to be appointed over a man provided all other things are equal and women are proportionally under represented for the catchment area. In the past it has technically been illegal- didn't stop it happening though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) This is going to be weird looking but this new bill actually makes it legal for a woman to be appointed over a man provided all other things are equal and women are proportionally under represented for the catchment area. In the past it has technically been illegal- didn't stop it happening though. This is what I dont get about the whole thing... I get two candidates... One a man with a degree from a traditional university and 5 years experience. One a women with a degree from a traditional university and 5 years very similar experience. They are the best two candidates but there is nothing from there CV or interview performance separates them. So I look around the office. 20 males 2 females. So I think another females could really balance things a little around here. So I appoint the women. Now are you telling me at some point that approach was actually illegal ? I see no reason why that as EVER been illegal or why they law even needs to take a stance on it. Its bloody common sense approach in my eyes. Edited November 19, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Damage Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) rudemedic it has been happening based on Race already. The NHS do it and I showed their online document on targeting jobs based on race, colour, gender, sexuality. And then we have this list in the Express from a clearly right wing columnist, some of which I do remember at the time they hit the headlines even though the article is a typical alarmist press story, it still contains factual evidence of racism. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/15991/...-English-people I go to companies in the Birmingham area and I go to some were less than 5% of the workforce is white. Will they be forced to change that based on the racial split in Birmingham? I don't think so and this is why we see a ratcheting up of tensions within the country. Labour are so obssessed with minorities that they are fully prepared to partake in racism to force their will and beliefs on a country. All imho Edited November 19, 2009 by Max Damage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 rudemedic it has been happening based on Race already. The NHS do it and I showed their online document on targeting jobs based on race, colour, gender, sexuality. And then we have this list in the Express from a clearly right wing columnist, some of which I do remember at the time they hit the headlines even though the article is a typical alarmist press story, it still contains factual evidence of racism. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/15991/...-English-people I go to companies in the Birmingham area and I go to some were less than 5% of the workforce is white. Will they be forced to change that based on the racial split in Birmingham? I don't think so and this is why we see a ratcheting up of tensions within the country. Labour are so obssessed with minorities that they are fully prepared to partake in racism to force their will and beliefs on a country. All imho You know damage I love articles like this... Similarly, Birmingham City Council gives £16,000 a year to “black and minority ethnic individuals” in its “Positive Action Traineeship Scheme”, and a £10,000 allowance to clerical trainees from “the Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities”. You tell any average joe the council are spending 16k on anything and they will kick off... £16k is NOTHING... In fact I am actually shocked Birmingham spend so little on such things... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 This is what I dont get about the whole thing... I get two candidates... One a man with a degree from a traditional university and 5 years experience. One a women with a degree from a traditional university and 5 years very similar experience. They are the best two candidates but there is nothing from there CV or interview performance separates them. So I look around the office. 20 males 2 females. So I think another females could really balance things a little around here. So I appoint the women. Now are you telling me at some point that approach was actually illegal ? I see no reason why that as EVER been illegal or why they law even needs to take a stance on it. Its bloody common sense approach in my eyes. Yes technically it was illegal but I'm sure it was very hard to prosecute someone for- as often using situations like your example it makes common sense. Once this bill becomes law it is fully legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Yes technically it was illegal but I'm sure it was very hard to prosecute someone for- as often using situations like your example it makes common sense. Once this bill becomes law it is fully legal. I think your wrong... Can you show me the legal legislation you are referring too.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 So, if most of the women in your office have small tits, and you have two equally well qualified candidates, one who is flat chested and the other who has a great rack, what is the correct course of action? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 So, if most of the women in your office have small tits, and you have two equally well qualified candidates, one who is flat chested and the other who has a great rack, what is the correct course of action? Do you really need to ask Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 So, if most of the women in your office have small tits, and you have two equally well qualified candidates, one who is flat chested and the other who has a great rack, what is the correct course of action? Simple. Pick the feminist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.