[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally Posted by angus58

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJNvJXjZpvk
Out of her own mouth - spin it how your like it is quite clear what she is saying, despite the usual politician's dissembling and disingenuity.

And how bloody dare you insinuate that I would read anything the vile BNP might have published? I'm interested in facts, and what I see and can hear for myself as in this case, not the propoganda distributed by fascists and extreme socialists.

By the way, you appear to have bypassed the point about her being a massive snob, since she clearly doesn't see any problem sending her son to a private school to avoid him coming in contact with common people, black and white.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YPJ0...eature=related

I dont have an issue with you calling her a massive snob, she is one! I took issue with you suggesting that she said black people should be exempt from job losses or that white people should lose jobs first. She said nothing of the sort, she made a valid point that current policy would see a DISPROPORTIONATE amount of minorities (and women) losing jobs and the public sector should be mindful of that...if your having trouble grasping that thats your look out

[Angus]

Originally Posted by NettoSuperstar!

I dont have an issue with you calling her a massive snob, she is one! I took issue with you suggesting that she said black people should be exempt from job losses or that white people should lose jobs first. She said nothing of the sort, she made a valid point that current policy would see a DISPROPORTIONATE amount of minorities (and women) losing jobs and the public sector should be mindful of that...if your having trouble grasping that thats your look out

I'm not the one having trouble grasping the facts of what she said! What does her "suggestion" to local councils about "being mindful" about who they sack mean in your world? Why should local councils have to "be mindful" whether a black person is sacked over a white person if the white person has been in post longer? The principle of last in, first out should apply as it does in every other field of employment - the public sector is no different, and those employed in the public sector, black or white, should expect no special treatment. We're talking about equality of treatment here, not bending the rules to fulfil quotas to satisfy some cockeyed notion of political correctness. This stupid woman signifies everything that is wrong with the muddleheaded, politically correct madness that has seeped into every area of our everyday lives but which, by some happy chance, never affects those who so rigorously enforce it.

She has rightly been castigated for making a racist comment, and certainly not for the first time. She has a reputation for doing so, apart from her also being a massive snob, who looks down her nose at certain sections of the black community she considers not good enough to mix with her precious son.

God forbid that a white MP had suggested that local councils "be mindful" about sacking white workers. Can you imagine the fall out from that happening? If YOU can't grasp that, then that's not my problem

[Angus]

Funny that, but not surprising to me that no-one seems able to explain what the comment about "being mindful" is supposed to mean, if not to take into consideration the colour of the person being sacked/made redundant. THAT is why she is being accused of racism, because she IS a racist.

Black workers have no more right to protection of their jobs than white workers or any other ethnicity for that matter. Normal rules of "last in, first out" should always apply. Positive discrimination is no different from any other kind of discrimination, and the fact this labour bitch is even suggesting it is absolutely disgraceful, blatantly unfair, undemocratic AND racist.

I will assume from the deafening silence on this thread that those seeking to defend her comments, CANNOT.

[keithafc]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Unless I'm mistaken she says be mindful of gender and ethnic origin. By mentioning gender does that means she's sexist too?

People have, as usual, completely over reacted to a single comment.

Be mindful? The sooner this country gets away from this nonsense about black or whites and focuses on HUMAN beings. I don't care what colour you are. People always have this mentality that the biggest racists will come from white people.

Its utter nonsense. People should NOT bring colour into it when talking about the loses of jobs. Its as simple as that. I don't care if your pink, black, blue or red. A job loss is a job loss.

People seriously need to move on from this nonsense about skin colour.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally Posted by angus58

I'm not the one having trouble grasping the facts of what she said! What does her "suggestion" to local councils about "being mindful" about who they sack mean in your world? Why should local councils have to "be mindful" whether a black person is sacked over a white person if the white person has been in post longer? The principle of last in, first out should apply as it does in every other field of employment - the public sector is no different, and those employed in the public sector, black or white, should expect no special treatment. We're talking about equality of treatment here, not bending the rules to fulfil quotas to satisfy some cockeyed notion of political correctness. This stupid woman signifies everything that is wrong with the muddleheaded, politically correct madness that has seeped into every area of our everyday lives but which, by some happy chance, never affects those who so rigorously enforce it.

She has rightly been castigated for making a racist comment, and certainly not for the first time. She has a reputation for doing so, apart from her also being a massive snob, who looks down her nose at certain sections of the black community she considers not good enough to mix with her precious son.

God forbid that a white MP had suggested that local councils "be mindful" about sacking white workers. Can you imagine the fall out from that happening? If YOU can't grasp that, then that's not my problem

Oh for gods sake...she said to be mindful of monitoring things are in proportion to the wider population....key word there PROPORTION, nothing about sacking white workers over black workers! I dont think theres anyway other than looking at current policy, no council is going to start sacking white people in order to get balance and thats not what anyone is suggesting, they might just need to look at a FAIRER way of doing things based on merit and not who came in first

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by angus58

Funny that, but not surprising to me that no-one seems able to explain what the comment about "being mindful" is supposed to mean, if not to take into consideration the colour of the person being sacked/made redundant. THAT is why she is being accused of racism, because she IS a racist.

Black workers have no more right to protection of their jobs than white workers or any other ethnicity for that matter. Normal rules of "last in, first out" should always apply. Positive discrimination is no different from any other kind of discrimination, and the fact this labour bitch is even suggesting it is absolutely disgraceful, blatantly unfair, undemocratic AND racist.

I will assume from the deafening silence on this thread that those seeking to defend her comments, CANNOT.

She says the progress black and ethnic minorities have made in employment are relatively recent which is true, hence the larger proportion of whites among older public sector workers. What she said wasn't anti-meritocratic or racist, because it isn't for lack of merit that it took black employees a longer time to make inroads. It's purely a matter of redressing an imbalance for which racism was the original catalyst.

The last thing this country wants to risk is further alienating ethnic minorities by kicking them out of jobs that they had to fight harder and longer for just because of their skin colour. There is more than a grain of truth to what she said about the cuts potentially setting back race relations a generation.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

She says the progress black and ethnic minorities have made in employment are relatively recent which is true, hence the larger proportion of whites among older public sector workers. What she said wasn't anti-meritocratic or racist, because it isn't for lack of merit that it took black employees a longer time to make inroads. It's purely a matter of redressing an imbalance for which racism was the original catalyst.

The last thing this country wants to risk is further alienating ethnic minorities by kicking them out of jobs that they had to fight harder and longer for just because of their skin colour. There is more than a grain of truth to what she said about the cuts potentially setting back race relations a generation.

Totally irrelevant - if they were last in they should be first out - that's the way it is, and it doesn't matter if they're black, white, yellow, male or female - any form of positive discrimination is racist. To actually sack white workers who have been in post longer and may be more experienced, and who also have to pay their mortgages, feed and clothe themselves and their families etc, to make way for ethnic workers so that some arbitrary quota can be fulfilled and a few more boxes can be ticked, is a disastrous step backwards in terms of race relations - if she can't see that she is even more stupid than I thought she was. This country already bends over backwards not to upset other cultures - where will it all end? For example, should councils "be mindful" about muslims,jews, asians, eastern europeans, gays, women, disabled people etc etc. How will that actually work in practice? Who gets to decide which section of the community have been the most hard done by throughout the centuries?

The more that the politically correct brigade attempt to redress the balance, the more THEY promote resentment, civil unrest and injustice. Why meddle with a perfectly fair and reasonable way of dealing with redundancies and sackings - LAST IN, FIRST OUT, simple, concise and fair.

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by angus58

Totally irrelevant - if they were last in they should be first out - that's the way it is, and it doesn't matter if they're black, white, yellow, male or female - any form of positive discrimination is racist. To actually sack white workers who have been in post longer and may be more experienced, and who also have to pay their mortgages, feed and clothe themselves and their families etc, to make way for ethnic workers so that some arbitrary quota can be fulfilled and a few more boxes can be ticked, is a disastrous step backwards in terms of race relations - if she can't see that she is even more stupid than I thought she was. This country already bends over backwards not to upset other cultures - where will it all end? For example, should councils "be mindful" about muslims,jews, asians, eastern europeans, gays, women, disabled people etc etc. How will that actually work in practice? Who gets to decide which section of the community have been the most hard done by throughout the centuries?

But she isn't proposing we set arbitrary quotas and she is not saying black workers ought to be given priority. I don't see how you could take that from what she said. Perhaps there is no measure that could be taken, realistically, to deal with the way black workers will be at a disadvantage, but I think it is naive to think that the public sector job cuts won't harm race relations in the long term. It seems inevitable to me and it will be a crippling setback for the socio-economic position of black and ethnic minorities.

The more that the politically correct brigade attempt to redress the balance, the more THEY promote resentment, civil unrest and injustice. Why meddle with a perfectly fair and reasonable way of dealing with redundancies and sackings - LAST IN, FIRST OUT, simple, concise and fair.

I think it has its advantages and disadvantages. Aside from the race relations issue, it causes inertia in the jobs market and undermines social mobility at large. I think it has a lot to answer for regarding the appalling level of youth unemployment in the UK. But I recognise how important it is to give serious consideration to staff who have worked for an organisation for decades. There is no easy answer.

[AfroMullet]

Originally Posted by InOne

She is the type that thinks people today should apologize for the slave trade.

You should.

And she isnt racist, she hates on her own kind too, the sell out.

I say, Affirmative Action FTW.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by AfroMullet

You should.
And she isnt racist, she hates on her own kind too, the sell out.

I say, Affirmative Action FTW.

Why?

[InOne]

Originally Posted by AfroMullet

You should.

And she isnt racist, she hates on her own kind too, the sell out.

I say, Affirmative Action FTW.

Why? If we keep having to apologise how would we ever move on?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by AfroMullet

You should.

And she isnt racist, she hates on her own kind too, the sell out.

I say, Affirmative Action FTW.

How on earth do you figure that?

Unless this was a sarcastic post, which I doubt.

Should 'we' apologize forever for something 'we' didnt actually do.

By we I mean the current generation.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

How on earth do you figure that?

Unless this was a sarcastic post, which I doubt.

Should 'we' apologize forever for something 'we' didnt actually do.

By we I mean the current generation.

Perhaps we should demand an apology from Italy for the enslavement of Britain by the Romans; or the Israelites should demand restitution from the Egyptians for their enslavement? How about the role of African kings in the enslavement and selling on of their own people to Europeans for money and arms? People need to study the history of slavery to include ALL races and their involvement in the trade throughout history.

At some point in history nearly every nation has been conquered and/or enslaved by another nation. Slavery is iniquitous and abhorrent and is now IN THE PAST. I refuse to be held responsible for the sins of my forefathers - nor should I be asked to apologise for events that happened centuries ago. There were as many homegrown slaves in Britain in serfdom who were literally "owned" by wealthy landowners during the middle ages. Slavery is not something that just happened to Africans.

Slavery was made illegal in England in 1772, and throughout the British Empire in 1833 with the Abolition of Slavery Act. Surely it's time to move on.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

How on earth do you figure that?

Unless this was a sarcastic post, which I doubt.

Should 'we' apologize forever for something 'we' didnt actually do.

By we I mean the current generation.

I guess the argument goes that a lot of the prosperity this country has enjoyed, and the reason for our country being the power it is was partly built on the back on slavery, and our generation should acknowledge that and show some remorse for that.

I dont necessarily agree, like Angus said if we are to apologise then surely the Romans should too, and even the Africans for their part in slavery, but I can see where people are coming from when they say we should.

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I guess the argument goes that a lot of the prosperity this country has enjoyed, and the reason for our country being the power it is was partly built on the back on slavery, and our generation should acknowledge that and show some remorse for that.

Whatever benefits anyone enjoyed from the slave trade were regretted enough when something called the 'abolitionist movement' showed up and not only did they promptly put an end to that practice they soundly defeated slave-trading not just in the UK, the colonies, the USA but they went ahead and put an end to it everywhere on the planet!

Yes, most of the people who halted slavery were 'white people' from Christian churches organizations and movements but the fact is that the vast majority of people (of any stripe) promptly agreed with them too.

So you don't get more 'regret' than that. You can't get anymore regret than a nation who spots it, condemns it, promptly fights it until it is abolished and then bans it from happening again.

In the USA the 'apology' is quite stunning. thousands of tombstones of the men who died abolishing slavery in what became a civil war. I don't know what more regret you can get but men died for the cause.

But some things do become silly if we continue categorizing people into racial groups and then making them answer for what others in their 'race' did,
and,
as an example I just don't see where it becomes any kind of sense to ask Jews in the UK to 'apologize' because some Jews made big business in slave trading buying and shipping and selling etc.
Yes, I suppose in some way that wealth dispersed among other Jews (who may not have condoned anything),
but,
what are we supposed to do here? find a long gone Jewish slave-trade investor.. then calculate how he made x-pounds.. then calculate the earnings he made on that.. then calculate how much dispersed among Jews (family or friends) then trace their lineages showing how it enriched them....
...and eventually make Benjamin Cohen apologize on air?
Vanessa Feltz and Sharon Osbourne do a little apology advert between segments?
Stacy Solomon releases an apology video and would she give money to the black contestants as 'reparations'?
Half the money for the contestants who are half-black and half-white?

At some point you accept that Jewish slave-traders and Caucasian ones and the Black slave traders made money,
HOWEVER,
they were stopped, defeated and their earnings from that ended.
Now move on.
We won. We triumphed over them and now we don't need to go find their ancestors and calculate wealth % and make them apologize for something they too despise.