One law for all in the UK?

verloren

spen666 wrote:

I think you will find we did not "own" any country.


Being a member of the Commonwealth gives us no ability to change what is happening in that country. It is not ruled by us directly or indirectly or did it not get independence many years ago?

Depends on how you define "own" I suppose - the fact that they got independence from us tells me that we owned the country the same way as the rest of the Empire.

Naturally we have no control there, and not a lot of influence, but to say that it's got nothing to do with us is factually incorrect.

il_principe

spen666 wrote:

verloren wrote:

spen666 wrote:

At least the ones in luton are protesting about something that has a connection with the UK. I object to a foreign mob coming here and being allowed to disrupt our way of life to protest about something that has no connection with the UK.

I think you'll find Spen, that many of the protesters are British citizens who have relatives in Sri Lanka or just give a to$$ about the plight of those in their cultural homeland. Not, as you so deftly put it, "a foreign mob." Besides which, even if they are foreign they are welcome to protest in this country, perhaps it's not safe for them to do so Sri Lanka. Would you put an end to the protest regualrly held outside the Zimbabwe High Commission? Many protesting there are unable to do the same in Zimbabwe without fear of persecution, by your logic we should arrest them if they dare "disrupt our way of life." In my book that makes Britain no better than Mugabe.

bigmat

DonDaddyD wrote:

spen666 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

....

I used the Klu Klux Klan and National Front (both groups shaped around prejudice/racism) as examples to highlight the point at which we stop and say "hang on that's just not right".

Yes every one has the right to free speech but at what point does that right intrude on the safety of others?

The values of the BNP, any way you dress it up in a political suit, is that of prejudice so save me the sanctimony and condescending posts. You're speaking as if the existence of the BNP is OK. Its 2009 not 1969, belief's based on prejudice and a lack of understanding are not OK, not tolerated nor should they be. If the BNP got into power would that be OK Spen666?

The right to free speech is often misused to spread hate and misinformation so save me that shite.

If you're advocating the BNP's right to exist then lets not speak on the matter anymore.

+1

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

The values of the BNP, anyway you dress it up in a political suit if that of prejudice so save me the sanctimony, you're speaking as if the existence of the BNP is OK. The right to free speech is often misused to spread hate and misinformation so save me that shite.

If you're advocating the BNP's right to exist then lets not speak on the matter anymore.

+1

The same applies to those idiotic protesters in Luton. In my book they were inciting hatred (quite apart from directing their abuse at the wrong people - i.e soldiers not politicians).

cee

snipped my own quotes for sanity....

DonDaddyD wrote:

If we follow this logic, is it ok then to grant the BNP, Klu Klux Klan, National Front the right to march? Surely the right to march should be dependant on the cause and ideology of the group being supported and not the fact that "Others have a right so why don't we?"

so who decides which causes and ideologies are OK?

Outrageous, why? Isn't there a law or something that states that Doctors, Police, teachers etc and generally those charged with the responsiblity of handling someone elses life are expected to be impartial and fair.

As AT said, the list did not only indicate those members who were part of organisation where memberhip of the BNP was banned....they pretty much included folks from all walks of life.

For years people have complained about the racist UK institutions (namely the police force) finally some of them have been outed. OK it was intrusion. I still say 'Chapeaux!' If the races were reversed and it outed ethnic minorities as racists I'd still say 'Chapeaux!'

I also think it was interesting recently hearing the 'British Jobs for British people' debacle...to me, that is almost as bad as some of the BNP's policies on immigration and members of our elected governemt supported it!

passout

If I'm honest I distrust anyone who waves a banner for almost any reason - haven't they got anything better to do? Funnily enough I think one of the Beatles once said something like that. Protesters have the right to do so course but I I'm not going to listen their arguments or mix with them socially. They are revolting and as far as forming my opinion goes they are wasting their time. I am so bored with leftie, anti-establishment, ill though through environmental & political clap trap. I'm sure they only go to show how 'right on' they are whilst smoking drugs. It's the police who have my sympathies.

Except for the countryside alliance of course - they wear tweed and shoot foxes so I view them as 'anti-protestors'.

.......and no I don't read The Mail (The Telegraph actually).

cee

DonDaddyD wrote:

Yes every one has the right to free speech but at what point does that right intrude on the safety of others?

There are massive problems with the philosophical 'No Harm' principle. Turns out after analysis that it is almost impossible to determine that point. *NB I am not a philosophosophosopher...my girlfriend is and she like to talk to me about these things...I oly remember the salient point that this doesn't work in reality. Other please feel free to correct on this.

The values of the BNP, any way you dress it up in a political suit, is that of prejudice so save me the sanctimony and condescending posts. You're speaking as if the existence of the BNP is OK. Its 2009 not 1969, belief's based on prejudice and a lack of understanding are not OK, not tolerated nor should they be. If the BNP got into power would that be OK Spen666?

The right to free speech is often misused to spread hate and misinformation so save me that shite.

If you're advocating the BNP's right to exist then lets not speak on the matter anymore.

DDD...I totally agree that the right to free speech is often used as a shield to hide behind when spreading hate. I wish it wasn't so, but if I want the right to believe my own beliefs, I surely must respect that right of others.

I absolutely do not advocate the BNP, or any other racist organisation or individual, but to quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

. Of course she was paraphrasing Voltaires attitude of

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too

always_tyred

Mmmm - that's not what I indicated, actually, Cee. I suggested that the list was not accurate, i.e. that there were people on the list who had nothing to do with the BNP. I am managing to contain my sympathy for the rest of them.

Who decides which ideologies are okay? Well, that's complex and I'm not a sociologist. However, in a multicultural society, I would suggest that ideologies that tolerate the existence of other ideologies is a good starting point.

Think of it like making the first cut in a pile of 100 CV's. Its hard to decide which one person gets the job, but pretty easy to sift out the first 50 who won't.

cee

Always Tyred wrote:

Mmmm - that's not what I indicated, actually, Cee. I suggested that the list was not accurate, i.e. that there were people on the list who had nothing to do with the BNP. I am managing to contain my sympathy for the rest of them.

Who decides which ideologies are okay? Well, that's complex and I'm not a sociologist. However, in a multicultural society, I would suggest that ideologies that tolerate the existence of other ideologies is a good starting point.

Think of it like making the first cut in a pile of 100 CV's. Its hard to decide which one person gets the job, but pretty easy to sift out the first 50 who won't.

apologies if i misquoted you.....saying that the list was not accurate and even potentially contained people with nothing to do with the BNP is enough for me to call the outing of the list outragoues.

I agree that ideally, in a place where many ideologies exist, the ones which tolerate others IS a good starting point, but I think that we are now saying we do not tolerate other people ideologies....even if they are the ideoligies of snakes in trousers

Good debate so far.....no personal prodding or flaming

DonDaddyD

cee wrote:

snipped my own quotes for sanity....

DonDaddyD wrote:

If we follow this logic, is it ok then to grant the BNP, Klu Klux Klan, National Front the right to march? Surely the right to march should be dependant on the cause and ideology of the group being supported and not the fact that "Others have a right so why don't we?"

so who decides which causes and ideologies are OK?

I think the focus should be on what is the purpose of freedom of speech and the right to protest.

As AT said, the list did not only indicate those members who were part of organisation where memberhip of the BNP was banned....they pretty much included folks from all walks of life.

I don't care, the BNP is a political group born out of prejudice towards those from other ethnicities. I have no sympathy for people who support that party.

I also think it was interesting recently hearing the 'British Jobs for British people' debacle...to me, that is almost as bad as some of the BNP's policies on immigration and members of our elected governemt supported it!

I think that some of the British based companies that have, for example, call centers in India need to bring them back to the UK for nothing less than economic purposes and quality of service purposes.

If a person has come over here on a visa and got a top city job, then fair play to them. Why hate their success that they had the guile, talent and determination to achieve.

passout

Total free speech is the only viable answer but it must go hand in hand with a robust and healthy democracy. One where any issues relating to minorities are dealt with honestly and transparently. Yes, this will lead to problems but transparency, belief in justice & the system would counter act much of this. At least this approach engages the population and treats the public like adults...rather than politicians filtering information which clearly hasn't worked. If we had had an honest debate about the role of Muslims in British society, say 10 years ago, that particular situation would be much better today in my opinion. Instead the lack of such a debate led to the further growth of the BNP. Fear & hate fills the gap left by ignorance & confusion.

robmanic1

passout wrote:

Total free speech is the only viable answer but it must go hand in hand with a robust and healthy democracy. One where any issues relating to minorities are dealt with honestly and transparently. Yes, this will lead to problems but transparency, belief in justice & the system would counter act much of this. At least this approach engages the population and treats the public like adults...rather than politicians filtering information which clearly hasn't worked. If we had had an honest debate about the role of Muslims in British society, say 10 years ago, that particular situation would be much better today in my opinion. Instead the lack of such a debate led to the further growth of the BNP. Fear & hate fills the gap left by ignorance & confusion.

Case solved, nothing more to see here.

+1

always_tyred

Mmmm - that's not what I indicated, actually, Cee. I suggested that the list was not accurate, i.e. that there were people on the list who had nothing to do with the BNP. I am managing to contain my sympathy for the rest of them.

Who decides which ideologies are okay? Well, that's complex and I'm not a sociologist. However, in a multicultural society, I would suggest that ideologies that tolerate the existence of other ideologies is a good starting point.

Think of it like making the first cut in a pile of 100 CV's. Its hard to decide which one person gets the job, but pretty easy to sift out the first 50 who won't.

cee

hey DDD...maybe my point about the British Jobs for British Workers was unclear....i am not sure if your response showed that my comment was understood.

I think we are in agreement that if someone comes into the country on a legit work visa/permit, they should not be prejudiced against in the selection process for a job because they are not a british national. The selection process whould be based on skill and suitability for the job

DonDaddyD

cee wrote:

hey DDD...maybe my point about the British Jobs for British Workers was unclear....i am not sure if your response showed that my comment was understood.

I think we are in agreement that if someone comes into the country on a legit work visa/permit, they should not be prejudiced against in the selection process for a job because they are not a british national. The selection process whould be based on skill and suitability for the job

What you are talking about is if an illegal immigrant fled his war torn country, where his Mum was raped until she died and his father was forced to watch until he died. They fled that country, entered England illegally and attempted to work and lead a reasonable life.

Tough one.

Its too easy to blanket them. There are some illegal immigrants who are Doctors etc and want nothing but to lead a peaceful life, working in a job that pays cash in hand.

There are others that don't want to live within the system and live the 'western dream' by any means necessary.

cee

DonDaddyD wrote:

What you are talking about is if an illegal immigrant fled his war torn country, where his Mum was raped until she died and his father was forced to watch until he died. They fled that country, entered England illegally and attempted to work and lead a reasonable life.

Tough one.

Its too easy to blanket them. There are some illegal immigrants who are Doctors etc and want nothing but to lead a peaceful life, working in a job that pays cash in hand.

There are others that don't want to live within the system and live the 'western dream' by any means necessary.

sorry. still not what i meant.....i agree that is a very difficult one and probably one that I would not enjoy working out the best course of action for.

I was always talking about workers with valid permits/visa i.e in the oil refiners italian contractor debacle, where a british contract agency lost the contract don't... know why... and it was awarded to an italian company who employed majority italian staff. all had valid UK work visa/permits, but members of our own government said that jobs in britain should go to british citizens first.

cee

however. end of day for me huzzah

passout

The recent protests re Italian workers was interesting. The EU plan was that we'd all become European citizens and forget national boundaries - doesn't matter who works where kind of thing. This can work to a point - when times are good. Nowadays though all that is out the window and it's 'back where you came from mate'. It shows just how overly optimistic the European dream was. Of course Yugoslavia was an even clearer reminder - only the US and UK bothered to do anything as the genocide took place, as per normal.

In short nationalism is alive and well and the credit crunch will only make it worse. The economic crisis has already been linked to the new wave of violence in Northern Ireland and I think that we will see more nationalism and more civil unrest generally. if you look at what's happening it's clearly a theme.

Dust off the water cannon boys....

jimmypippa

DonDaddyD wrote:

cee wrote:

hey DDD...maybe my point about the British Jobs for British Workers was unclear....i am not sure if your response showed that my comment was understood.

I think we are in agreement that if someone comes into the country on a legit work visa/permit, they should not be prejudiced against in the selection process for a job because they are not a british national. The selection process whould be based on skill and suitability for the job

What you are talking about is if an illegal immigrant fled his war torn country, where his Mum was raped until she died and his father was forced to watch until he died. They fled that country, entered England illegally and attempted to work and lead a reasonable life.

+1

DonDaddyD

@Cee, why didn't you just say the foreign football manager theory....

passout wrote:

The recent protests re Italian workers was interesting. The EU plan was that we'd all become European citizens and forget national boundaries - doesn't matter who works where kind of thing. This can work to a point - when times are good. Nowadays though all that is out the window and it's 'back where you came from mate'. It shows just how overly optimistic the European dream was. Of course Yugoslavia was an even clearer reminder - only the US and UK bothered to do anything as the genocide took place, as per normal.

In short nationalism is alive and well and the credit crunch will only make it worse. The economic crisis has already been linked to the new wave of violence in Northern Ireland and I think that we will see more nationalism and more civil unrest generally. if you look at what's happening it's clearly a theme.

Dust off the water cannon boys....

Nationalism isn't all bad and its tricky, there is nothing wrong being proud of your country and wanting the best for your country. Humans after all are by nature social beings and have an instinctive tribe mentality.

However, a lot of people misinterpret Nationalism as racism and prejudice. While others (BNP and others) use it to promote racism and prejudice.

From an economic stand point, in some ways I do think close the borders and start thinking 'near shore' or even 'on shore' buisness development as oppose to 'off shore'. From a business, economic and social development stand point there is nothing wrong in creating jobs for people living legally in Britain. Its how you go about it.

That said....

An increased sense of nationalism and the credit crunch will be brilliant for English football. Hopefully it'll give more young talented English (but often cost prohibitive) footballers the opportunity to make it to a top club. No one would be complaining then.

robmanic1

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think we are in agreement that if someone comes into the country on a legit work visa/permit, they should not be prejudiced against in the selection process for a job because they are not a british national. The selection process whould be based on skill and suitability for the job

What you are talking about is if an illegal immigrant fled his war torn country, where his Mum was raped until she died and his father was forced to watch until he died. They fled that country, entered England illegally and attempted to work and lead a reasonable life.

Tough one.

Not really tough, let them in. If they have a genuine claim. Just make sure for every genuine case we allow in we send at least 2 worthless scumbags of our own back in their place. Not only will this increase the UK's skills base but also solve the overcrowding in prisons problem.
Oversimplified I know, but I'm a simple man...

cee

DonDaddyD wrote:

@Cee, why didn't you just say the foreign football manager theory....
.

because i have never heard of a foreign football manager theory until now!

Cycling Dave

At least the ones in luton are protesting about something that has a connection with the UK. I object to a foreign mob coming here and being allowed to disrupt our way of life to protest about something that has no connection with the UK. i object even more so when we are not allowed to protest in this country- eg the example I game, about things that do affect us

Were the 5000 all "foreigners" grandad or were they UK citizens?

Do you really mean that the protesters are disrupting "our way of life" or that they disrupted your commute for about 5 minutes?

The other question is whose way of life? Up here I didn't notice the fuss.

Cycling Dave

I see DDD's point about the dangers of total free speech, but I think that (as with the holocaust denying chap in Austria a couple of years ago) I think that preventing them from speaking and airing their views gives them validation, paradoxically, they use that in a "you can't handle the truth" kind of way.

I think the best way to deal with and defeat the BNP is to get the man Griffin, or one of his cohorts, onto question time or other debate shows and challenge him to a reasoned debate. He and his ideology would be exposed as shallow, hateful and ludicrous.

I can understand the fear of the ideology, but it's one which we have to brave.

I will concede that as a white male I have never been on the receiving end of racism, so naturally find it easier to adopt a more liberal stance.