BNP membership list forced closure

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257505/BNP-closed-new-members-judge-deems-application-criteria-racist.html#


The British National Party was today barred from taking new members after its amended rules of application were deemed to be still racist. Judge Paul Collins declared the far right group's membership rules illegal, and said the party was 'likely to commit unlawful acts of discrimination within the Race Relations Act'. The BNP had agreed to remove its whites-only policy following a legal challenge by the government's Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The party had previously stipulated that only 'indigenous caucasians' and people from ethnic groups 'emanating from that race' could join. But it scrapped that clause - after months of delay - at an extraordinary general meeting in February. However, the EHRC decided to challenge the new rules, claiming that they still amounted to indirect racism.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/12/article-1257505-08B1E870000005DC-691_468x312.jpg



The party had previously stipulated that only 'indigenous caucasians' and people from ethnic groups 'emanating from that race' could join. But it scrapped that clause - after months of delay - at an extraordinary general meeting in February. However, the EHRC decided to challenge the new rules, claiming that they still amounted to indirect racism. Sitting at Central London County Court, Judge Collins issued an injunction ordering the group to comply with race equality laws. He said: 'The membership list will have to be closed until then.' The hearing had been told that, under the new rules, applicants would be subject to a two-hour home visit by BNP officials.

Robin Allen QC, representing the EHRC, said that could operate as a form of indirect discrimination. 'One way the provisions could operate would be to intimidate someone who wanted to join the party,' he said. Speaking after the judgment, BNP leader Nick Griffin said the decision had 'opened a very dangerous door'. 'It is a huge change to the unwritten constitution of Britain,' he said. 'They are claiming that they have been granted the right to interfere in what a party believes but the only people who have the right to judge are the electorate.' He said the ruling was 'more than symbolic', adding: 'It has given an organ of the state the power to interfere in the aims and objectives of any political party.'
The Lib/Lab/Con elite will stop at nothing to stop the British National Party, although if they an ounce of brain cells in them they would realise that the more they do things like this (state control), the BNP will just grow. They call the BNP rascist and the UAF calls the BNP fascist, yet the Lib/Lab/Con all have candidate shortlists based on race/gender/sexuality and the UAF wants the BNP to be banned as a political party. I would question who are the real rascists and fascists? - they are all just as bad as the BNP as they also have policies based on the colour of your skin/who you are.

Meanwhile they say 'indirect discrimination' yet the BPOA (Black Police Officers Association) has a name which does exactly that.

Thoughts?

[Jordy]

Waste of money and time. No matter how you change the rules, these people are racists at the end of the day, and just because you change their membership policies, it won't make them more or any less racist. It's a complete waste of the judicial systems time and anyone who is complaining about them. Non-Caucasians don't want to join the party and never will.

The other political parties should sort themselves out and try to rival them, there is clearly a problem if the BNP are getting votes and it needs to be addressed.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Waste of money and time. No matter how you change the rules, these people are racists at the end of the day, and just because you change their membership policies, it won't make them more or any less racist. It's a complete waste of the judicial systems time and anyone who is complaining about them. Non-Caucasians don't want to join the party and never will.

The other political parties should sort themselves out and try to rival them, there is clearly a problem if the BNP are getting votes and it needs to be addressed.

They would never conform to popular opinion to prevent the British National Party from gaining ground. They would rather ban the BNP than actually conform to populist opinion. I believe Frank Field (a Labour MP) has actually come out now and said that our cities are like tinderboxes waiting to spark because of uncontrolled immigration we have experienced under this Labour government. A man with his head screwed on it seems which is a rarity in the field of Labour MPs.

[Black_Apalachi]

Why don't they just say; 'Only people of 100% British decent may join'? This mentions nothing about race so surely can't be deemed racist. if anyone argues, they could just say; well black people can join, as long as they are 100% British. Obviously this would render their whole group pointless given that even within the white population of the UK, a very high proportion of it are of Irish descendancy.

[Catzsy]

Why don't they just say; 'Only people of 100% British decent may join'? This mentions nothing about race so surely can't be deemed racist. if anyone argues, they could just say; well black people can join, as long as they are 100% British. Obviously this would render their whole group pointless given that even within the white population of the UK, a very high proportion of it are of Irish descendancy.

Okay so what is 100% British and how do you prove it? They either open their doors to all or they don't IMO.
Substituting a 2hour home visit is mindless and just shows them putting up two fingers to the law. Before you say anything, Dan, The Black Police Association has no bar to anyone joining apart from them being Policeman of course.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Okay so what is 100% British and how do you prove it? They either open their doors to all or they don't IMO.
Substituting a 2hour home visit is mindless and just shows them putting up two fingers to the law. Before you say anything, Dan, The Black Police Association has no bar to anyone joining apart from them being Policeman of course.

Niehter does the BNP under its new rules, it simply states a 2 hour visit would be nessacery. They say the 2 hour visit is to put people off joining, well the word Black Police Officers Association puts white people off joining which is pretty damn obvious especially concerning the word Black is used. More to the point; the Conservatives and Labour both have candidate shortlist policies based on race/sexuality and gender. For one of the main parties to call the BNP rascist is quite frankly the height of hypocrisy.

One rule for the three main parties, another for the BNP - that is not fair or just, we are supposed to live in a democracy.

[Catzsy]

Niehter does the BNP under its new rules, it simply states a 2 hour visit would be nessacery. They say the 2 hour visit is to put people off joining, well the word Black Police Officers Association puts white people off joining which is pretty damn obvious especially concerning the word Black is used. More to the point; the Conservatives and Labour both have candidate shortlist policies based on race/sexuality and gender. For one of the main parties to call the BNP rascist is quite frankly the height of hypocrisy.

One rule for the three main parties, another for the BNP - that is not fair or just, we are supposed to live in a democracy.


LOL:) I agree the name puts people off joining but they can freely join the association. A 2 hour home visit is ludricrous and shows contempt for the law - they either have free entry or they don't. Having a shortlist for candidates has absolutely nothing to do with the argument as anybody is free to join all those parties which is the one and only issue here. The reason they have shortlists whether I agree with them or not is make parliament a bit more representative of society. That is the only reason. Your defence of the BNP amuses me tbh and please dont say that it will make them more appealing - yes probably to a few of the uninformed and ignorant but no one else.

[-:Undertaker:-]

LOL:) I agree the name puts people off joining but they can freely join the association. A 2 hour home visit is ludricrous and shows contempt for the law - they either have free entry or they don't. Having a shortlist for candidates has absolutely nothing to do with the argument as anybody is free to join all those parties which is the one and only issue here. The reason they have shortlists whether I agree with them or not is make parliament a bit more representative of society. That is the only reason. Your defence of the BNP amuses me tbh and please dont say that it will make them more appealing - yes probably to a few of the uninformed and ignorant but no one else.

Yes it does, just like they are saying that the BNP proposal for a 2 hour meeting is to put people off. You say its contempt for the law when it clearly is not - a two hour meeting to visit prospective BNP members is not avoiding the law in anyway. As for the candidate shortlists;- it has everything to do with this issue. Yourself, the Courts, the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats all say that the BNP is rascist for having a membership policy based on race (fair point) - but you convientley miss out the fact that your own party and the other two main parties also have policies which prevent people from running in an election to become a candidate because of the colour of their skin. You say it is to make parliament representative of the wider public (ethnic minorities) and fair point again (although I believe people should be picked based on what they've done, not who they are). The BNP point out on the other hand with exactly the same logic as your own that their party is to represent the 'native British people' (white people).

Quite honestly I will defend them to the hilt against people like yourself who totally ignore the hypocrisy of both your own party and of your own stance on the issue. You cant have it both ways; either you disagree with the concept of dividing/electing/choosing people by the colour of their skin/their sexuality or gender or you agree with it - which one is it then?

While I do not think any job/membership/position should be decided on race/seuxality or gender - I wont stand by while people like yourself support it within your own ranks yet when the British National Party do it, its outrage because I dislike hypocrisy if i'm quite honest. Instead of hiding behind party political banners, actually either come and and admit they are all as bad as eachother on this issue or at least admit that you agree with the idea of membership/elecotoral candidate selection based on the colour of somebodies skin (in which case you would have to explain why it is fine and dandy for discrimination to take place against white people but not black people).

[Black_Apalachi]

Okay so what is 100% British and how do you prove it? They either open their doors to all or they don't IMO.
Substituting a 2hour home visit is mindless and just shows them putting up two fingers to the law. Before you say anything, Dan, The Black Police Association has no bar to anyone joining apart from them being Policeman of course.

Nationality of your (great-) grandparents. If they were all British-born then you're in. However what I meant about it rendering their group pointless was getting at the fact that a huge proportion (if not the majority) of British citizens have some Irish descendancy (even if it's just one great-grandparent). If they went this extreme about deportation, my parents are Limerick and Waterford so personally I'd be ******! :L

[Catzsy]

Yes it does, just like they are saying that the BNP proposal for a 2 hour meeting is to put people off. You say its contempt for the law when it clearly is not - a two hour meeting to visit prospective BNP members is not avoiding the law in anyway. As for the candidate shortlists;- it has everything to do with this issue. Yourself, the Courts, the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats all say that the BNP is rascist for having a membership policy based on race (fair point) - but you convientley miss out the fact that your own party and the other two main parties also have policies which prevent people from running in an election to become a candidate because of the colour of their skin. You say it is to make parliament representative of the wider public (ethnic minorities) and fair point again (although I believe people should be picked based on what they've done, not who they are). The BNP point out on the other hand with exactly the same logic as your own that their party is to represent the 'native British people' (white people).

Quite honestly I will defend them to the hilt against people like yourself who totally ignore the hypocrisy of both your own party and of your own stance on the issue. You cant have it both ways; either you disagree with the concept of dividing/electing/choosing people by the colour of their skin/their sexuality or gender or you agree with it - which one is it then?

While I do not think any job/membership/position should be decided on race/seuxality or gender - I wont stand by while people like yourself support it within your own ranks yet when the British National Party do it, its outrage because I dislike hypocrisy if i'm quite honest. Instead of hiding behind party political banners, actually either come and and admit they are all as bad as eachother on this issue or at least admit that you agree with the idea of membership/elecotoral candidate selection based on the colour of somebodies skin (in which case you would have to explain why it is fine and dandy for discrimination to take place against white people but not black people).

You cannot see the point between being free to join a party and having a shortlist. There is a great deal of difference. It is nothing to do with discrimination against white people as historically parliament has been made up of almost all white males which is not representative of our society. Shortlists are more commonly for females anyway so why you keep just mentioning 'black' people I don't know as it is more common for women to be on the shortlist. As I said before there is no bar to membership of the parties/associations which is the actual issue here.


You say its contempt for the law when it clearly is not - a two hour meeting to visit prospective BNP members is not avoiding the law in anyway.

I think you will find that it is indeed unlawful as the Judge himself said it was indirectly racist which is against the law:


The judge, Paul Collins, ordered the BNP to remove two clauses from its constitution as they were indirectly racist towards non-white would-be members.

The party also remains banned from signing up new recruits until it satisfies Collins it has changed the constitution, although it said last night that applications to join were being processed again.

You can defend the BNP stance all you like but the main political parties are only trying to redress the balance of decades of citizens who have, themselves, been discriminated against as they are not male and white to reflect a cross section of society. It is called positive discrimination for a reason.
How would you reflect a representative parliament? What's your answer to this age old problem?

[Oleh]

My local BNP MP is a very nice person (known him for a while)

He only opposes those who dont work and just take advantage of our state
Those who dont like our laws
Those who dont like our beliefs and holidays

to be honest that isnt racist at all, BNP is a very good party depending on how you look at it, My auntie is black and she's very good friends with our local MP (hes irish)

[Catzsy]

My local BNP MP is a very nice person (known him for a while)

He only opposes those who dont work and just take advantage of our state
Those who dont like our laws
Those who dont like our beliefs and holidays

to be honest that isnt racist at all, BNP is a very good party depending on how you look at it, My auntie is black and she's very good friends with our local MP (hes irish)

There are no BNP MPs' :S The MP for Rotherham is:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/denis_macshane/rotherham

Perhaps he is a local councillor and is a moderate. Doesn't mean that there are not racist people in the BNP though. I think that's pretty well established.

[Jordy]

My local BNP MP is a very nice person (known him for a while)

He only opposes those who dont work and just take advantage of our state
Those who dont like our laws
Those who dont like our beliefs and holidays

to be honest that isnt racist at all, BNP is a very good party depending on how you look at it, My auntie is black and she's very good friends with our local MP (hes irish)lol when you start saying "Some of my friends are black..." or "My auntie is black" you're clearly a racist as no one else says that, other than racists of course. Sean Lock sums it up best for me "I'm a murderer and some of my friends are alive".

Sadly the BNP's manifesto isn't based around who works and who doesn't, it's based on peoples skin colour. And I'm pretty sure the BNP don't like our laws either, hence why they're trying to be elected?

[-:Undertaker:-]

You cannot see the point between being free to join a party and having a shortlist. There is a great deal of difference. It is nothing to do with discrimination against white people as historically parliament has been made up of almost all white males which is not representative of our society. Shortlists are more commonly for females anyway so why you keep just mentioning 'black' people I don't know as it is more common for women to be on the shortlist. As I said before there is no bar to membership of the parties/associations which is the actual issue here.Yes there is a difference in the actual membership/shortlist, but thats the only one. I'm sorry but it boils down to this very simple question; do you or do you not support having membership/candidates picked based on the colour of their skin or other factors such as their sexuality. From your reply, I gather that you do. Quite honestly you are just as bad as the British National Party if that is the case and you are in no position (neither are the main parties) to criticise the BNP.

It is wrong to decide on race, because thats genuine racism.


I think you will find that it is indeed unlawful as the Judge himself said it was indirectly racist which is against the law:It is only 'indirectly racist' because it is the BNP, why are the Tories, Labour and the Liberal Democrats all not in court also over their membership shortlists? - I wonder, could it possibly be because its a witchunt between one group of people who judge based on the colour of their skin against another group which uses the same idealogy only its not politically correct to do so.


You can defend the BNP stance all you like but the main political parties are only trying to redress the balance of decades of citizens who have, themselves, been discriminated against as they are not male and white to reflect a cross section of society. It is called positive discrimination for a reason.
How would you reflect a representative parliament? What's your answer to this age old problem?I will defend the BNP stance because the more I see people such as yourself asking for 'positive discrimination' to be brought in (which is racism but worded more nicely) I will continue to point out that you are as bad as the BNP itself. What is my answer to parliament? - here is my simple answer and its an answer most people would agree with and is an answer which is based on fairness and common sense; elect/choose people based on what they can do, not who they are.

That is how you get an elected parliament which is based on fairness and a parliament which is not based on who you are, but what you can do.

[jrh2002]

I think these bullying tactics are just gaining the BNP a lot more support and although membership has stopped it is reported their donation increases is more than covering lost revenue through membership.

I put it to you that this labour government is racist and sexist :o Us English are getting a rough ride while Scotland gets free Uni and the Welsh free perescriptions (last i knew) All the money that pays for their perks are out the same pot all UK tax payers pay in to :o Surely we should all get these benefits free or none of us should? Businesses are being forced to take on more women / foreigners and non whites to fit in with guidlines set out and even the threat of prosecution :s Surely you take on the best person for the job no matter what? So when people are being treated like 2nd class citizens it does push them further and further to the right and I blame labour for that.

The country is a total mess and labour must go so that will make me vote Conservative as they are the only real opposition to get this bunch of liars and con artists out. I do know many people so fed up they are going to vote BNP as a protest vote just to show how sick they are of both big parties and hoping they get a few seats in parliment. If the conservatives do get in and we are still going down like we are now then next time I will make a protest vote.

Take a look at France and Holland and how well their far right are doing as there seems to be a lot of support coming for them and I think that is because people are totally fed up with the EU forcing all their legislation on them.

We have people in parliment to represent the country but they dont even listen to a word we say :s They treat us like little kids and make petty decisions on our behalf :s They banned smoking in pubs etc and killed the pubs and clubs but then they still allow in in the parliment bars etc and also prisons. (I dont smoke but if a smokey pub bothered me then I dont have to go in) They are going to put the minimum price on booze (already happened in Scotland) instead of getting tough on the people causing trouble when drunk (They wonder why lots of people now use drugs........ they are so much cheaper than drinking thats why (I dont do drugs either but do like a few beers ;). We have government adverts on TV all the time telling us what we should and should not do and to be honest the more I get told the less I take notice.

We have a local BNP councillor who got in of what used to flip flopp between labour and conservatives and the whole place has been shaken up and the amount of things that they have achieved in the community that the others have been promising for years is outstanding. This person will be hot favorite to be re-elected and not because all the voters are racist but because of the benefit for the local community.

In the european elections I will vote for the biggest party in my area that wants to pull the UK out of the EU :) Be it UKIP, The BNP or somebody else. Once we get out of the EU which is costing us billions a year as well as forcing all these stupid rules and regulations on us we can get back to trying to bring the country back to life. Would voting BNP in the european elections make me a racist if it was the only party in my area saying they were going to take us out of the EU?

I take people as I find whatever race or religeon they are and thats the way to be :) But I dont mix my words with anybody if thats needed. The BNP has quite a few good policies which could be adopted by other parties. Go and ask the hard working people who have lived in the UK for at least 10 years but originate from abroad and they will tell you just how bad it has got and they wont be shouted down as racists like I would be for giving my opinion on my own country where I was born and paid lots of taxes (Question time a couple of months back was great when the asians were bringing the subject up and couldnt be shouted down)

[Catzsy]

Yes there is a difference in the actual membership/shortlist, but thats the only one. I'm sorry but it boils down to this very simple question; do you or do you not support having membership/candidates picked based on the colour of their skin or other factors such as their sexuality. From your reply, I gather that you do. Quite honestly you are just as bad as the British National Party if that is the case and you are in no position (neither are the main parties) to criticise the BNP.


It is wrong to decide on race, because thats genuine racism.

It is only 'indirectly racist' because it is the BNP, why are the Tories, Labour and the Liberal Democrats all not in court also over their membership shortlists? - I wonder, could it possibly be because its a witchunt between one group of people who judge based on the colour of their skin against another group which uses the same idealogy only its not politically correct to do so.

I will defend the BNP stance because the more I see people such as yourself asking for 'positive discrimination' to be brought in (which is racism but worded more nicely) I will continue to point out that you are as bad as the BNP itself. What is my answer to parliament? - here is my simple answer and its an answer most people would agree with and is an answer which is based on fairness and common sense; elect/choose people based on what they can do, not who they are.

That is how you get an elected parliament which is based on fairness and a parliament which is not based on who you are, but what you can do.


No it boils down to one simple question as far as you are concerned and I totally disagree with you for the reasons that I have already pointed out above. I support getting a parliament that
fairly represents society which means getting the best people from all backgrounds. Positive discrimination was only ever employed to defeat racism and sexism not the other way around and again I say that the BNP is free to field whatever candidates they want but not all UK citizens are not free to join their political party so there is a great deal of difference.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No it boils down to one simple question as far as you are concerned and I totally disagree with you for the reasons that I have already pointed out above. I support getting a parliament that
fairly represents society which means getting the best people from all backgrounds. Positive discrimination was only ever employed to defeat racism and sexism not the other way around and again I say that the BNP is free to field whatever candidates they want but not all UK citizens are not free to join their political party so there is a great deal of difference.

You've worded it nicely but really it boils down to the fact you support racism towards white people in the name of 'equality' and you've just said it yourself before you get defensive. Not all UK citizens are entitled to run as a candidate for the Conservatives, Labour or the Liberal Democrats either because of the colour of their skin (being white). That is racism, its not positive discrimination although the ruling elite may deem it so because it sounds socially acceptable then. If you want to judge people or bar people because of the colour of their skin, be it black/brown/green/white then you are racist. If you treat somebody different because of the colour of their skin then you are racist.

You think it is ok to be racist against one group of people, yet it totally not ok to be racist to another group. In blank terms; racism. I hear you attend anti-BNP rallies? - quite frankly I hope you dont to call the BNP racist when you yourself now appear to advocate racism or as you prefer to call it 'positive discrimination'. It is the height of being hypocritical quite frankly; just like the UAF who call the BNP facists yet call for the BNP to be banned. Ermmmm hello? can they not see the hypocrisy in that?

Obviously not. You are all as bad as eachother.

[Catzsy]

I find that reply quite offensive tbh to be called a racist. I don't judge anybody by the colour of their skin and have never attacked you so personally. I have attended one anti BNP rally as I do think they are racist however I do not think you are racist for supporting what you see as their 'rights'. I have as much right to my opinion that positive discrimination is not racist as your right to think it is however I do not get personal with you and call you a hypocrite.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I find that reply quite offensive tbh to be called a racist. I don't judge anybody by the colour of their skin and have never attacked you so personally. I have attended one anti BNP rally as I do think they are racist however I do not think you are racist for supporting what you see as their 'rights'. I have as much right to my opinion that positive discrimination is not racist as your right to think it is however I do not get personal with you and call you a hypocrite.

I could say I find it offensive that you support electing/choosing people because of their race and not their ability.

You have just said yourself that you support banning white people from candidate shortlists (not them exact words but worded to say that) to achieve what you call a 'fairer parliment' despite the fact that fairness means everyone can run for something and are not judged on who they are. If I called for black people to be banned from the buses, from standing as an MP for my party or from standing in parliament, what would that make me? - a racist. You say supporting peoples rights; the BNP see themselves as defending the British (white) rights of the people here. You are both as bad as eachother.

The BNP judge on the race of a person.
The Labour Party judge on the race of a person.
The Conservative Party judge on the race of a person.
You advocate judging on the race of a person.

Ask yourself; what does that make you all?

[Catzsy]

I could say I find it offensive that you support electing/choosing people because of their race and not their ability.

You have just said yourself that you support banning white people from candidate shortlists (not them exact words but worded to say that) to achieve what you call a 'fairer parliment' despite the fact that fairness means everyone can run for something and are not judged on who they are. If I called for black people to be banned from the buses, from standing as an MP for my party or from standing in parliament, what would that make me? - a racist. You say supporting peoples rights; the BNP see themselves as defending the British (white) rights of the people here. You are both as bad as eachother.

The BNP judge on the race of a person.
The Labour Party judge on the race of a person.
The Conservative Party judge on the race of a person.
You advocate judging on the race of a person.

Ask yourself; what does that make you all?

Postitive discrimination only relates to women shortlists and is an exception of the Sexual discrimination Act - it is in force until 2030. It is therefore lawful having been passed by parliament. There are no 'black' only shortlists so there is no race issue so only the BNP judge on the race of a person. Having said that yes I do support a more fair representation of all minorities in parliament - this does not make me a racist. What does this make us all? I do not know who us all are?

[luce]

Why care if their membership polices are too racist they are a racist party so if their entrance terms are racist does it come as a surprise?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Postitive discriminiation only relates to women shortlists and is an exception of the Sexual discrimination Act - it is in force until 2030. It is therefore lawful having been passed by parliament. There are no 'black' only shortlists so there is no race issue so only the BNP judge on the race of a person. Having said that yes I do support a more fair representation of all minorities in parliament - this does not make me a racist. What does this make us all? I do not know who us all are?

It may be lawful but it is still not fair and is discriminatory. How can you say you support a fair parliament when the whole idea and notion of fairness is for somebody to be elected based on not who they are and the colour of their skin, but on their personal qualities and their determination and thought? - The black only shortlists are an issue as they do exist and they are a race issue, you are banning people from running because they are a certain colour of skin. I find it the upmost of being hypocritical when you slam the British National Party for racism yet support judging people/electing people based on the colour of their skin or what sex they were born.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4368035.stm - Labour impose 'coincidental' black shortlist in a 55% black/asian area.
http://www.poptel.org.uk/scgn/archive/articles/0710/p5.html - Labour MP Diane Abbott calls for all-black shortlists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/409665.stm - Yet more racism from the main parties and MPs including the 'equality' chief.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7230771/David-Cameron-in-row-over-black-and-gay-candidates.html - Cameron with his black, woman and gay only shortlists.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3341874.ece - Harriett Harman, the Chairman of the Labour Party wants compulsory all-black shortlists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7265221/David-Cameron-I-will-impose-all-women-shortlists.html - Cameron again with his all-woman shortlists.

If you support banning people of a certain colour skin from standing then you are a racist.
If you support banning people of a certain gender from standing then you are a sexist.

If I called for black people not to be allowed on certain buses, what would you call me?

[Catzsy]

Your first exmple is from 2005
Your second example is just a call from one MP with no date
Your third example is from 1999
Your fourth example might have some credence but is only one.
Your fifth example is from 2008 and since then it has been decided that there is
not going to be all black shortlists.
All women short-lists are perfectly lawful.

So in the last 11 years - is that all the examples you can find to back up your theories?

What have you got against Parliament being represented by a cross section of the population?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Your first exmple is from 2005
Your second example is just a call from one MP with no date
Your third example is from 1999
Your fourth example might have some credence but is only one.
Your fifth example is from 2008 and since then it has been decided that there is
not going to be all black shortlists.
All women short-lists are perfectly lawful.

So in the last 11 years - is that all the examples you can find to back up your theories?

What have you got against Parliament being represented by a cross section of the population?

The press are not going to keep reporting events that occured many years ago are they? - thats like me saying that because the Treaty of Nice is no longer reported on, it must not exist/has been abolished since. They are not theories, they are fact. Cameroin recently started aswell to which many Tories such as myself are truly against - we are not against it being represented by a cross section so do not make it seem that I am. If a black candidate is better than a white candidate then I would suggest they be elected to stand and so forth. You dont get far in life if you expect everything to be given to you on a plate because of who you are. You do not make decisions based on the colour of somebodies skin, you make it on what their ability is. If you make that decision based on the colour of somebodies skin then you are a racist.

I will ask again; If I called for black people not to be allowed on certain buses, what would you call me?

[Catzsy]

The press are not going to keep reporting events that occured many years ago are they? - thats like me saying that because the Treaty of Nice is no longer reported on, it must not exist/has been abolished since. They are not theories, they are fact. Cameroin recently started aswell to which many Tories such as myself are truly against - we are not against it being represented by a cross section so do not make it seem that I am. If a black candidate is better than a white candidate then I would suggest they be elected to stand and so forth. You dont get far in life if you expect everything to be given to you on a plate because of who you are. You do not make decisions based on the colour of somebodies skin, you make it on what their ability is. If you make that decision based on the colour of somebodies skin then you are a racist.

I will ask again; If I called for black people not to be allowed on certain buses, what would you call me?

Well I suggest you check the dates of your examples and find some ones that have been reported recently. I haven't answered your question as it is flippant & downright silly and has absolutely nothing to do with parliamentary selection and the answer is obvious. As I said to you in a previous post there are no black short lists but it's not as if even if they were selected that it is going to make a great deal of difference for many years to come (Some have estimated, including the Fabian Society) that with subconscious discrimination that it could take 75 years. Currently women make up nearly 20 per cent of MPs in the House of Commons. This compares with women Members making up nearly half (46.7 per cent) of the Welsh Assembly, and 34.8 per cent of the Scottish Parliament. To reflect society, the House of Commons would need about 200 more women MPs (more than two and a half times as many). The fact of under-representation is clear. There are currently 15 non-white MPs: there would be 60 if the House of Commons was to reflect proportionately the ethnic mix of the country.

[jrh2002]

I think the BNP has a number of racists in the party but I think that can be said for ALL the parties no matter what they say. There will be a number of people in the BNP who are not racists jsut like other parties. There are people who are racist who support all parties.

I get quite annoyed when the BNP have one of their marches which are perfectly legal and been agreed to by the police etc and then all of a sudden these so called anti racism protestors appear hurling lots of abuse and anything they get to hand and then its on the news that the BNP caused all this trouble :s The anti racism rent a mob groups are perfectly entitled to march and make their point but hijacking planned BNP events which then get reported blaming the BNP is wrong. I did watch a documentry on the BNP and quite clearly there were a load of thick racist old bags who had no idea about any policies. I guess its up to the party to clear them out over time but as they are villified more and more the more people have sympathy for them including more racists. Take a look at some of the BNP policies and if a major party stole the good ones they would surely get elected on them but all the big parties are to scared and politically correct to dare.

The English Defence League is the one to watch out for as most the hard line racists are in that after leaving the BNP and the reason they have left is because they tried using the BNP as a replacement for the National Front.

As for discrimination I think the word speaks for itself and adding the word positive to it is a disgrace. The cream rises to the top be it man, woman, black, white, brown, yellow, short, tall, fat, thin. I have read about many forms of positive discrimination over the years and the main culprits are government, councils and anything in the public sector. The may not advertise directly for 10 disabled, 12 women and 14 black people to help fill 40 positions and even if there were 40 white british men better qualified only 4 would get in as the other 36 places were given by positive discrimination. To get a job at my local council people joke that you need to be a black one legged lesbian :o but there is an element of truth in it and the more it goes on as well as this social engineering the more people get fed up and turn to the BNP or worse.

Take a look here to see what we have to contend with
http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=5145524

If I had say a high street shop I find it so wrong I can be told who I can and cant employ. To be honest it does annoy me that much I could find myself ignoring the better applicants because they fall into the category of who I am expected to employ :o so maybe these government policies are pushing hard working people towards racism without them even realising? I could have a step on my shop and then I suddenly get told I must get a disabled ramp for my customers :s of course you would help them up and down your step but once I get told what I must do I would want to put another step in :o Its one thing the public sector doing as they are told but I think its totally wrong a private firm can be told what to do. I think the same goes with the BNP membership :o they are a recognised legal political party and I think the huge fuss being made by other parties is because they are trying to scare people from voting for them but they should realise the more they go on about them and jumping on them the more sympathy they are getting. I think the BNP have some great policies http://bnp.org.uk/policies/ but as said before I am going to vote conservative just to get this shower of **** out of power but would probably go UKIP if they had any chance of winning.

I would never write an advert offering a job asking for a white english male and would take the best applicant whoever they are.
We have stories like this one http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258818/Racism-storm-38-000-Indians-job-ad.html on a daily basis.
Heres another http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257784/Biggest-Asda-meat-supplier-excludes-English-speakers-instructions-given-Polish.html
I think its got to the point where these people think they can do what they please due to our rediculous laws.
Its got to a point where black and foreign people seem to think they cant be racist as they are not white :s Only men can be sexist :o You cant look at a disabled person without discriminating against them and your a cave man when you pull faces at homosexuals with their tongues down eachh others throats during the day in the city center. You cant look down on people on benefits even though you know the ones who think its a career choice :o Single mothers can farm babies and keep getting our cash thrown at them.......

I have friends from every minority as well as ones all over the world (Yes I travel and not including ppl I know off the internet) and we can all make jokes about ourselves, each other, religion, disability and just about anything and we all get on great but then there are these people who seek to be offended by just about everything and then the government pamper to them. I can also be outspoken and say what I like when I like and the people who know me love that about me and the people who do get offended can get stuffed. I am a white english working male in my own country and I feel like an outcast and everybody is againt me :o Maybe I should become a muslim and improve my rights by 100%. Its not just me who feels like this so all these do gooders better do something about it before people take to the streets like they are doing in other european countries. I am afraid the UK is sinking and bankrupt and cant wait to see what will happen when all the immigrants skip back home with their sacks full of gold and the UK becomes a 3rd world country lol dont worry I am going with them :p

Labour keep going on about the tory lord who was not paying uk taxes on his overseas earnings lol can you blame him? why the hell would you pay this lot tax you did not have to just for it to be wasted.

Forgive any errors as I cant be bothered to check it and if you pick up on any errors I may sue you for discrimination ;)

[HotelUser]

I think the BNP has a number of racists in the party but I think that can be said for ALL the parties no matter what they say. There will be a number of people in the BNP who are not racists jsut like other parties. There are people who are racist who support all parties.

I get quite annoyed when the BNP have one of their marches which are perfectly legal and been agreed to by the police etc and then all of a sudden these so called anti racism protestors appear hurling lots of abuse and anything they get to hand and then its on the news that the BNP caused all this trouble :s The anti racism rent a mob groups are perfectly entitled to march and make their point but hijacking planned BNP events which then get reported blaming the BNP is wrong. I did watch a documentry on the BNP and quite clearly there were a load of thick racist old bags who had no idea about any policies. I guess its up to the party to clear them out over time but as they are villified more and more the more people have sympathy for them including more racists. Take a look at some of the BNP policies and if a major party stole the good ones they would surely get elected on them but all the big parties are to scared and politically correct to dare.

The English Defence League is the one to watch out for as most the hard line racists are in that after leaving the BNP and the reason they have left is because they tried using the BNP as a replacement for the National Front.

As for discrimination I think the word speaks for itself and adding the word positive to it is a disgrace. The cream rises to the top be it man, woman, black, white, brown, yellow, short, tall, fat, thin. I have read about many forms of positive discrimination over the years and the main culprits are government, councils and anything in the public sector. The may not advertise directly for 10 disabled, 12 women and 14 black people to help fill 40 positions and even if there were 40 white british men better qualified only 4 would get in as the other 36 places were given by positive discrimination. To get a job at my local council people joke that you need to be a black one legged lesbian :o but there is an element of truth in it and the more it goes on as well as this social engineering the more people get fed up and turn to the BNP or worse.

Take a look here to see what we have to contend with
http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=5145524

If I had say a high street shop I find it so wrong I can be told who I can and cant employ. To be honest it does annoy me that much I could find myself ignoring the better applicants because they fall into the category of who I am expected to employ :o so maybe these government policies are pushing hard working people towards racism without them even realising? I could have a step on my shop and then I suddenly get told I must get a disabled ramp for my customers :s of course you would help them up and down your step but once I get told what I must do I would want to put another step in :o Its one thing the public sector doing as they are told but I think its totally wrong a private firm can be told what to do. I think the same goes with the BNP membership :o they are a recognised legal political party and I think the huge fuss being made by other parties is because they are trying to scare people from voting for them but they should realise the more they go on about them and jumping on them the more sympathy they are getting. I think the BNP have some great policies http://bnp.org.uk/policies/ but as said before I am going to vote conservative just to get this shower of **** out of power but would probably go UKIP if they had any chance of winning.

I would never write an advert offering a job asking for a white english male and would take the best applicant whoever they are.
We have stories like this one http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258818/Racism-storm-38-000-Indians-job-ad.html on a daily basis.
Heres another http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257784/Biggest-Asda-meat-supplier-excludes-English-speakers-instructions-given-Polish.html
I think its got to the point where these people think they can do what they please due to our rediculous laws.
Its got to a point where black and foreign people seem to think they cant be racist as they are not white :s Only men can be sexist :o You cant look at a disabled person without discriminating against them and your a cave man when you pull faces at homosexuals with their tongues down eachh others throats during the day in the city center. You cant look down on people on benefits even though you know the ones who think its a career choice :o Single mothers can farm babies and keep getting our cash thrown at them.......

I have friends from every minority as well as ones all over the world (Yes I travel and not including ppl I know off the internet) and we can all make jokes about ourselves, each other, religion, disability and just about anything and we all get on great but then there are these people who seek to be offended by just about everything and then the government pamper to them. I can also be outspoken and say what I like when I like and the people who know me love that about me and the people who do get offended can get stuffed. I am a white english working male in my own country and I feel like an outcast and everybody is againt me :o Maybe I should become a muslim and improve my rights by 100%. Its not just me who feels like this so all these do gooders better do something about it before people take to the streets like they are doing in other european countries. I am afraid the UK is sinking and bankrupt and cant wait to see what will happen when all the immigrants skip back home with their sacks full of gold and the UK becomes a 3rd world country lol dont worry I am going with them :p

Labour keep going on about the tory lord who was not paying uk taxes on his overseas earnings lol can you blame him? why the hell would you pay this lot tax you did not have to just for it to be wasted.

Forgive any errors as I cant be bothered to check it and if you pick up on any errors I may sue you for discrimination ;)



In a perfect world I think whoever's better suited for the job should be given the position. Unfortunately it's not a perfect world we live in, which is why (the Canadian government, anyway) gives companies benefits for being equal opportunity employers. What's not fair is that companies and corporations do go out of their way to hire minorities of the work force for the PR. Then again, the minorities do make less money on average than the majority so I guess there's a bit of corruption in any aspect of this.

The BNP was built upon xenophobic and racist ideas. Typically rejection of a political party altogether based on several traits of the party itself is stupid. However in this case I'm going to go ahead and share my distaste for the BNP because of their absurd outlooks on what is right and what is fair. That's why I have absolutely no negative thoughts about BNP protesting. To be frank, I would of thought Nick Griffins views on the Holocaust and homosexuality would of been enough to make any sensible voter scream and run in the opposite direction.

[jrh2002]

In a perfect world I think whoever's better suited for the job should be given the position. Unfortunately it's not a perfect world we live in, which is why (the Canadian government, anyway) gives companies benefits for being equal opportunity employers. What's not fair is that companies and corporations do go out of their way to hire minorities of the work force for the PR. Then again, the minorities do make less money on average than the majority so I guess there's a bit of corruption in any aspect of this.

The BNP was built upon xenophobic and racist ideas. Typically rejection of a political party altogether based on several traits of the party itself is stupid. However in this case I'm going to go ahead and share my distaste for the BNP because of their absurd outlooks on what is right and what is fair. That's why I have absolutely no negative thoughts about BNP protesting. To be frank, I would of thought Nick Griffins views on the Holocaust and homosexuality would of been enough to make any sensible voter scream and run in the opposite direction.

You are spot on about Nick Griffin and for any chance of the party moving forward he needs to be replaced as their leader (lots of their own party agree)
To me my country is number one and that means the working uk citizens coming first for once. We know there are racists in the party but as I said they are hard line are disgruntled that the party is not how they hoped and moving on nastier things.

We need to scrap all tax on earnings up to 15k a year but then put the VAT up on everything so that even the benefit lay abouts also have to contibute. I say we stop giving them money and open the school kitchens early in the morning and then the evening and feed them all there.

We need out the EU as they are pushing all these crazy laws on us like banning vegetables that are not the correct shape (even though they taste the same) Throwing 1000's of fish back in the sea that are dead so you are not over your fishing quota :s what a waste :s all pushing the prices and believe it or not every other european country I have been to only use the good EU laws for their own benefit and ignore the rest but not the UK we follow them to the lettter.... As for the few countries paying inn to the EU and the majority taking out shows what a con it really is.

Take a look at these BNP policies
http://bnp.org.uk/policies/

A lot of their policies make sense and surely looking after your own country is number one? look at Australia for example.
Unless a bigger party is going to adopt some of those policies then the more people who are totally disgusted at seeing how the UK has gone over the last 10 years only have parties like the BNP to turn to.

As said before I will vote Conservative at the general election and then the party who has the best chance of winning in my area who wants us out of the EU be that UKIP or the BNP in the european elections. The EU is crippling us and getting out of that to me comes well before me caring about the chance of me upsetting the politically correct brigade.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well I suggest you check the dates of your examples and find some ones that have been reported recently. I haven't answered your question as it is flippant & downright silly and has absolutely nothing to do with parliamentary selection and the answer is obvious. As I said to you in a previous post there are no black short lists but it's not as if even if they were selected that it is going to make a great deal of difference for many years to come (Some have estimated, including the Fabian Society) that with subconscious discrimination that it could take 75 years. Currently women make up nearly 20 per cent of MPs in the House of Commons. This compares with women Members making up nearly half (46.7 per cent) of the Welsh Assembly, and 34.8 per cent of the Scottish Parliament. To reflect society, the House of Commons would need about 200 more women MPs (more than two and a half times as many). The fact of under-representation is clear. There are currently 15 non-white MPs: there would be 60 if the House of Commons was to reflect proportionately the ethnic mix of the country.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/10/harrietharman.labour - 2008 example of Labour.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3341874.ece - 2008 example of Labour (again).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-to-insist-on-womenonly-shortlists-1806259.html - 2009 example of Cameron.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7230771/David-Cameron-in-row-over-black-and-gay-candidates.html - 2010 example of Cameron.

I dont know recent you'd like the example to be, but there you go; total discrimination against different groups in favour of other groups (just like the Apartheid system). In reply to what you would call me if I called for all Black people to be banned from getting on certain buses; yes you'd call me a racist. So why are you any different when you call for white men to be banned from standing as an MP for their local consituency?

As for the makeup of parliament; we live in a democracy. That means choice when you elect somebody. The reason why many women may not be in parliament is because politics isnt much of a womens thing and thats a fact. Just like nursing or flight attending is not much of a mens thing. There is a very famous women MP and former Prime Minister (yes you've guessed her) Margaret Thatcher who had to genuinely fight aristocrats within the Conservative Party to be able to stand as a woman candidate in a seat. It is not the same now; but she fought and fought and eventually won. She didnt demand to be in a job because she was a woman, she fought because she believed she could do it and was capable of doing a good job.

What right do the Labour Party/Conservative Party have in banning me from a democratic election because of the colour of my skin/my sex?

[Catzsy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/10/harrietharman.labour - 2008 example of Labour.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3341874.ece - 2008 example of Labour (again).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-to-insist-on-womenonly-shortlists-1806259.html - 2009 example of Cameron.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7230771/David-Cameron-in-row-over-black-and-gay-candidates.html - 2010 example of Cameron.

I dont know recent you'd like the example to be, but there you go; total discrimination against different groups in favour of other groups (just like the Apartheid system). In reply to what you would call me if I called for all Black people to be banned from getting on certain buses; yes you'd call me a racist.] So why are you any different when you call for white men to be banned from standing as an MP for their local consituency?

As for the makeup of parliament; we live in a democracy. That means choice when you elect somebody. The reason why many women may not be in parliament is because politics isnt much of a womens thing and thats a fact. Just like nursing or flight attending is not much of a mens thing. There is a very famous women MP and former Prime Minister (yes you've guessed her) Margaret Thatcher who had to genuinely fight aristocrats within the Conservative Party to be able to stand as a woman candidate in a seat. It is not the same now; but she fought and fought and eventually won. She didnt demand to be in a job because she was a woman, she fought because she believed she could do it and was capable of doing a good job.

What right do the Labour Party/Conservative Party have in banning me from a democratic election because of the colour of my skin/my sex?


The part in bold is absolutely ludicrous and extremely sexist & offensive. You sound like somebody from the 1950s. I will never take you seriously again - I really thought you were more intelligent and open minded than that despite us disagreeing on political issues.

You need to put things into perspective a bit here. All women short lists, not that there are many, are legal and therefore not racist as that is illegal. Men, women of all age, creeds races who want to stand for parliament can put themselves forward . There is no bar. If you were applying for a job nobody can guarantee it for your local area - it is no different in politics. If anybody is that keen they will go for a constituency that is free.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The part in bold is absolutely ludicrous and extremely sexist & offensive. You sound like somebody from the 1950s. I will never take you seriously again - I really thought you were more intelligent and open minded than that despite us disagreeing on political issues.

You need to put things into perspective a bit here. All women short lists, not that there are many, are legal and therefore not racist as that is illegal. Men, women of all age, creeds races who want to stand for parliament can put themselves forward . There is no bar. If you were applying for a job nobody can guarantee it for your local area - it is no different in politics. If anybody is that keen they will go for a constituency that is free.

I can see that i'm now dealing with a Marxist who just cannot accept reality. Let me ask you this; are the vast majority of builders for example men? are the vast majority of air hostesses female? - the answer is yes. Politics has always been more of a male career, that doesnt mean that women shouldnt be allowed in or discriminated against just because they are women but its a fact that men with louder voices are more politically minded just as they are more minded on football. In a pub you will hear men talking about football and politics - subjects such as that. In a salon for example you will most likely hear women talking about fashion & men - that is the world we live in and it is reality. No it is not all women and it is not all men. You discriminate based on gender and race - I do not. Therefore you are calling me the very thing you are yourself.

They are legal yes, Apartheid was also legal under the Union of South Africa law - does that make it right, matter settled? - no it does not. You say there is no bar but I have just been arguing with you over the very fact that you support barring men and white people in favour of ethnic groups and women to ensure what you call a 'parliament that represents the country' - that is not democratic nor is it right. You go on calling the BNP racist and whatever other words you may like to call them just as you use them openly against me; but the fact is you, the main parties and the BNP are all toeing the same line and i'm not; people should be judged/elected on what their ability is and not who they are.

[Catzsy]

If I am a Marxist who cannot accept reality may I ask what you are? I will leave the rest of the forum to judge your last post as I cannot believe anybody could spout such arrogant nonsense which belongs in a men's club in the 1950s

[-:Undertaker:-]

If I am a Marxist who cannot accept reality may I ask what you are? I will leave the rest of the forum to judge your last post as I cannot believe anybody could spout such arrogant nonsense which belongs in a men's club in the 1950s

I and the rest of the world must be living on a different planet then because you must see women in pubs talking about football/politics just as much as men and you must see men in salons getting their nails done while talking about boys and fashion. So in future do not call me or anyone else on this forum a sexist because it is you who supports discriminating based on somebodies gender or race for that matter, not me or the majority. Accept reality because sterotypes dont come from nowhere. So please do answer the rest of my post because you appear to have no response to;

- the fact that you support judging people based on their race/gender or sexuality which by definition is sexism/racism.
- the fact that you appear to think because something is in law it is right (so was Apartheid right?)

Tell me why because i'm a white male I should be barred from standing for election as a LAB/CON candidate in my local consituency? - I didnt choose my skin colour or my gender, why should I be barred from standing in a democratic election because of something that was out of my control? - Can I also ask; do you see as many women builders as male builders? (or am I just being the typical 1950s sexist :rolleyes:)

[Catzsy]

Tell me how many other forum members support your arguments in this thread? I do not claim to talk on behalf of the rest of the world like you do. Professions like nursing, police, flight attendants ceased being the domain of a single sex many years ago. I don't think you are sexist I believe from what you have written in this thread that you are sexist. Views like yours are so outdated it makes me cringe. What on earth has bodybuilding got to with anything relevant in this thread but there are plenty of women bodybuilders:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_bodybuilding

There is nothing stopping anybody as I have said before in this thread putting themselves forward for election in any consituency they choose and if there is another person selected they can stand as an independent if they are so parochial that it has to be their home town.

The sexual discrimination act was passed by MPs who were in the majority white males - just the category that you complain being discriminated against so at least they can see a point to it even if you can't. For hundreds of years the males of the country took up all positions of any power and that act was passed to redress the balance. It is now the 21st century where women have an equal place in society and deserve some sort of equal representation in our parliament which has been denied to them for centuries. It was voted in by a majority of men until 2030. In the normal workplace I would agree with you it should be the best man or woman for the post. Also the English Womans Cricket Team and English Womens Rugby Team are world champions so it looks like yes you are totally out of date with present day living as that would have been unheard of years ago. South African law has nothing to do with the United Kingdom law. Yes of course Apartheid is wrong but it is a very, very weak example to support your case. I have a question for you. Do you support the BNP in any way at all?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Tell me how many other forum members support your arguments in this thread? I do not claim to talk on behalf of the rest of the world like you do. Professions like nursing, police, flight attendants ceased being the domain of a single sex many years ago. I don't think you are sexist I know from what you have written in this thread that you are sexist. Views like yours are so outdated it makes me cringe. What on earth has bodybuilding got to with anything relevant in this thread but there are plenty of women bodybuilders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_bodybuilding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_bodybuilding)Right ok lets get this straight; the definition of sexism is the belief that one sex is inferior to another. Now where have I implied or said that in this thread, would you like to point it out Rosie?;- as for flight attendants and nursing, they are still a mainly female dominated profession and there is nothing wrong with that. Politics on the other hand remains a male dominated profession just like building does. You on the other hand wish to rank somebody higher than somebody else based on their sex (electoral shortlists) thus you are the sexist.


There is nothing stopping anybody as I have said before in this thread putting themselves forward for election in any consituency they choose and if there is another person selected they can stand as an independent if they are so parochial that it has to be their home town. As I have said before and time and time again; if the Conservative or Labour parties put a ethnic/women policy in my local area, I would not be able to stand as I am a white male. Thus that is discrimination and is barring people from standing due to the colour of their skin or their gender. Did I choose or can I change my gender or colour of skin? - no I cannot, therefore it is discriminating in a racist/sexist manner against myself. Just like the BNP discriminate against black people by barring them from joining the party.


The sexual discrimination act was passed by MPs who were in the majority white males - just the category that you complain being discriminated against so at least they can see a point to it even if you can't. For hundreds of years the males of the country took up all positions of any power and that act was passed to redress the balance. It is now the 21st century where women have an equal place in society and deserve some sort of equal representation in our parliament which has been denied to them for centuries. It was voted in by a majority of men until 2030. In the normal workplace I would agree with you it should be the best man or woman for the post. Also the English Womans Cricket Team and English Womens Rugby Team are world champions so it looks like yes you are totally out of date with present day living as that would have been unheard of years ago. No I cannot, these people were elected Rosie. They didnt gain their positions in the way which you deem fit which is through not ability but through what gender you are/what skin colour you are a part of. Men are more politically inclined, now i'm not saying all of them are and would never say that. It is just like nursing and maternity, men are not as inclined/interested whereas women are interested and the same goes for social care which is a female dominated sector. It is fact, just accept it. Theres not an evil white male-dominated Empire out to get you;- its just who we are. As for equal representation that is possible with the currenct system where you vote for somebody you deem fit. We now have a situation where women/black people are being chosen not because they are the best for the job but because they are black/a woman. That does not create a fair parliament, its creates a parliament which is based on race/gender and not democracy.

My aunty has a black friend, he was offered a position in the police because he was black. He declined because he wanted the job based on what hisd ability was, not on what the colour of his skin is. You on the other hand hate the idea of fairness and thus pretend to be a champion of equality when in reality you are anything but. Its just a complete joke when people such as yourself label the BNP racist.


South African law has nothing to do with the United Kingdom law. Yes of course Apartheid is wrong but it is a very, very weak example to support your case. I have a question for you. Do you support the BNP in any way at all?You backed up your 'point' by saying "its law" - my point is that because something is law doesnt make it not racist/sexist or wrong. South Africa had Apartheid as its law yet I dont suppose you agree with that do you? - on the BNP no I do not support the extremes although I think they have more honour than the main parties put together because at least they dont pretend like you do not to discriminate. They discriminate and had it out in the open, the main parties on the other hand discriminate but have the cheek to call the BNP racist/sexist.

If I supported the British National Party then I would have them in my signature would I not.

Anyhow you still have not answered my question which is; Tell me why because i'm a white male I should be barred from standing for election as a LAB/CON candidate in my local consituency? - you justify to me why I am not worthy to stand because of the colour of my skin/my gender.

[Catzsy]

These are your sexist remarks:


The reason why many women may not be in parliament is because politics isnt much of a womens thing and thats a fact. Just like nursing or flight attending is not much of a mens thing.
Politics has always been more of a male career, that doesnt mean that women shouldnt be allowed in or discriminated against just because they are women but its a fact that men with louder voices are more politically minded just as they are more minded on football. In a pub you will hear men talking about football and politics - subjects such as that. In a salon for example you will most likely hear women talking about fashion & men - that is the world we live in and it is reality. No it is not all women and it is not all men

These opinions are not only outdated but very patronising of the modern women.

I say again there are not 'black' shortlists. You seem to think it is fair that because of history when women were denied entry to the House of Commons because of discrimination of previous generations then they should not be given the chance to 'catch up' a bit? If a male is denied selection from your local constituency because of an all women shortlist then he is not much of a man to 'throw his toys out of the pram' and shout 'discrimination' and quite frankly I am sure that any man wishing to stand for election would understand the reason for it and not have such superficial, narrow minded views. There are plenty of constituencys in the UK to stand for election and there is always the opportunity if they feel they are the 'best man for the job' to enter as an independent. If you feel that I am sexist to believe this then you are entitled to your opinion but Parliament has decided on this issue and there are no protests on the streets of Britain because of it. I like to think we live in an enlightened age where just because males are the majority in most positions of power not because of a deficiency in the make up of women but because of historic discrimination against ' the weaker sex' that most males can see the logic of trying to make our Parliament more representative of the society it serves. What problem is there in that? There is a huge difference between them and the BNP. There is nothing racist about this policy although you have viewed it as sexism which cannot be said of the BNP whose only interest is to serve indigenous white people.

[-:Undertaker:-]

These are your sexist remarks:

These opinions are not only outdated but very patronising of the modern women.So you often hear of football being discussed by women in salons? - well i'm impressed. That still doesnt answer the fact that i'm not suggesting women are inferior to men so you still have yet to tell me how I am sexist?


I say again there are not 'black' shortlists. You seem to think it is fair that because of history when women were denied entry to the House of Commons because of discrimination of previous generations then they should not be given the chance to 'catch up' a bit? If a male is denied selection from your local constituency because of an all women shortlist then he is not much of a man to 'throw his toys out of the pram' and shout 'discrimination' and quite frankly I am sure that any man wishing to stand for election would understand the reason for it and not have such superficial, narrow minded views.No, you wanted fairness and you got it. You cannot now you have fairness, turn that around and do exactly the same to men as they often did to women in the past. Why? - because that defeats the point of fairness. At the moment if you have a candidate shortlist which is open to all; people wont decide on your colour, your sex or sexuality because they will decided on who is best for the job. If a woman is best for the job then they will elect her, if a black man is best for the job then they will elect him and if a white man is best for the job then they will elect him. What do you not get about that concept?

If you make it so that the only choice is a black/woman candidate and exclude white males then that is not fairness and you are being racist and sexist. I loathe the idea that somebody is chosen based on whether they are a man, gay, black, a woman or any other factor. Racism and sexism is wrong whether it comes from the state or on the streets. You can call me narrow minded all you want, the fact is that more lads like football because they do, more women like fashion because they do, more men like politics because they do, more women are flight attendants because they are, more men are builders because they are and so on. You can see it, call me narrow minded, from the 1950s and whatever else all you want - you know its a fact of life and I know its a fact of life.


There are plenty of constituencys in the UK to stand for election and there is always the opportunity if they feel they are the 'best man for the job' to enter as an independent. If you feel that I am sexist to believe this then you are entitled to your opinion but Parliament has decided on this issue and there are no protests on the streets of Britain because of itIn other words, you think I am not worthy to stand as my local candidate as a Labour or Conservative MP because i'm white and i'm a male? - that is racist and sexist. How would you react if I stated that I dont agree with black people standing as my local Tory MP and my comeback to you would be 'well they can stand as an independant' - although I suppose the BNP could also use an excuse similar to the one you have come up with which would be 'join another party' - of course you still consider them racist despite the fact you are both identical except for which skin colour you discriminate against.


I like to think we live in an enlightened age where just because males are the majority in most positions of power not because of a deficiency in the make up of women but because of historic discrimination against ' the weaker sex' that most males can see the logic of trying to make our Parliament more representative of the society it serves. What problem is there in that? There is a huge difference between them and the BNP. There is nothing racist about this policy although you have viewed it as sexism which cannot be said of the BNP whose only interest is to serve indigenous white people.Most males and women cannot see the logic in being racist/sexist to others for them to gain a office of state when did not earn that place. Ann Widdecombe is a prime example, shes disgusted at the fact that its patronising to women that they need legislation to make it somewhere and you should be too. As a woman you want to be treated fairly, yet that doesnt seem to apply because you believe the male opposition should be removed. That is not fairness. In relation to the BNP; they say they wish to represent the indigenous white people and that is their justification for a ban on banning black/asian people. On the other hand you say you wish to represent the black/asian/women minorities and that is your justification for a ban on white males.

Can you not see how hypocritical that is?

[Catzsy]

If you cannot see how sexist your views are then I give up, quite frankly. If you feel that centuries of discrimination
against women can be undone in a couple of decades when the majority of men in parliament agreed to all women shortlists until 2030. Women do have not achieved 'fairness' yet it is an ongoing and will be an ongoing aim for decades to come. No woman or man can earn their place on selection they can only earn their place by being elected and doing the job then they will be voted out if they don't do it properly. I am not representing anybody - it was an act of parliament passed. Because you disagree with it does not make it wrong. It is not hypocritical to support this point of view and be against racism. I do not think you are hypocritical to hold your views as I can see you genuinely believe them.

[-:Undertaker:-]

If you cannot see how sexist your views are then I give up, quite frankly. If you feel that centuries of discrimination
against women can be undone in a couple of decades when the majority of men in parliament agreed to all women shortlists until 2030. Women do have not achieved 'fairness' yet it is an ongoing and will be an ongoing aim for decades to come. A woman or earn their on selection they can only earn their place by being elected and doing the job then they will be voted out. I am not representing anybody - it was an act of parliament passed. Because you disagree with it does not make it wrong. It is not hypocritical to support this point of view and be against racism. I do not think you are hypocritical to hold your views as I can see you genuinely believe them.

Tell me where I have implied that women are inferior to men (because thats the definition of sexism).

As for hypocritical, yes it is hypocritical. You slate the British National Party for not allowing black membership yet deem it perfectly fine for the Conservatives and Labour to bar white males from standing in a candidate shortlist election. The BNP discriminates against black and asian people, you do so against white males - what makes you so much better and morally higher than them?

The answer is that you are just as bad for judging somebody on the colour of their skin/the sex they belong to.

[jrh2002]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNC0kIzM1Fo

The BNP list is open.

I must say you cant want anti racism and anti sexism and then support lists that back women and minorities :o of course we want it fair for everybody but on merit and not on stupid lists because doing this is what is turning people towards the BNP. Yes there was lots of racism years ago but we are over that now in most cases but this stupid attitude by giving things to ppl because of race and sex is pushing the country back years.

[MrPinkPanther]

For once I agree with you Undertaker. It shouldn't be about who is the in the smallest minority but who is best at the job.

[Catzsy]

Politics has always been more of a male career, that doesnt mean that women shouldnt be allowed in or discriminated against just because they are women but its a fact that men with louder voices are more politically minded just as they are more minded on football.

Right ok lets get this straight; the definition of sexism is the belief that one sex is inferior to another.

The reason why many women may not be in parliament is because politics isnt much of a womens thing and thats a fact. Just like nursing or flight attending is not much of a mens thing.

Politics has always been more of a male career that doesnt mean that women shouldnt be allowed in or discriminated against just because they are women but its a fact that men with louder voices are more politically minded

flight attendants and nursing, they are still a mainly female dominated profession and there is nothing wrong with that. Politics on the other hand remains a male dominated profession just like building does.

The reason why many women may not be in parliament is because politics isnt much of a womens thing and thats a fact. Just like nursing or flight attending is not much of a mens thing.

These are your quotes and what you state is the definition of hostile sexism - there is more than one definition of sexism. Your quotes amount to indirect sexism which probably 90% of Sexual Discriminination cases are based on. You confine men and woman to stereotypical roles of the past that in reality do not reflect the ability of either men or women in the modern world - just because there are more female nurses/flight attendants it does not mean that males are not just as capable as them at doing the job. How on earth do you support the fact that because men have louder voices they are more politically minded. You also say Politics is not a woman's thing - how it is not a woman's thing? This is nonsense. This is indirect sexism and very patronising to both sexes and in fact you may not have realised that it even was. I suggest you do some research into indirect sexism as opposed to using a wicki definition.


by JRH2002
The BNP list is open.

I must say you cant want anti racism and anti sexism and then support lists that back women and minorities :o of course we want it fair for everybody but on merit and not on stupid lists because doing this is what is turning people towards the BNP. Yes there was lots of racism years ago but we are over that now in most cases but this stupid attitude by giving things to ppl because of race and sex is pushing the country back years.

The BNP is not open as it has been closed a judge as it was deemed to be based on racist criteria for selection.
I also think you also ought to read the thread as nowhere does it say I support short lists for black women and minorities.

In conclusion it was Parliament, made up of a majority of men, who passed all women short lists and made it an exception to The Sexual Discrimination Act until 2030 and not me but from some of the views expressed above I can certainly see why.

[-:Undertaker:-]

For once I agree with you Undertaker. It shouldn't be about who is the in the smallest minority but who is best at the job.

Thank you, its common sense. Fairness is who is the best for the job, whether your black, white, asian, disabled, gay, straight or any other factors and i'm glad you, like the majority can see that.


These are your quotes and what you state is the definition of hostile sexism - there is more than one definition of sexism. Your quotes amount to indirect sexism which probably 90% of Sexual Discriminination cases are based on. You confine men and woman to stereotypical roles of the past that in reality do not reflect the ability of either men or women in the modern world - just because there are more female nurses/flight attendants it does not mean that males are not just as capable as them at doing the job. How on earth do you support the fact that because men have louder voices they are more politically minded. You also say Politics is not a woman's thing - how it is not a woman's thing? This is nonsense. This is indirect sexism and very patronising to both sexes and in fact you may not have realised that it even was. I suggest you do some research into indirect sexism as opposed to using a wicki definition.

So what is the other definition of sexism? - you say there is another definition yet cannot seem to come up with one and just say i'm using indirext sexism. Wrong Rosie;- I never said men are more politically minded because of their voices, I said their voices play a part because they can usually speak better and it does play a part;- because the effect of Hitlers voice helped him gain power so its proven before you try and knock that one back

The sterotypes still exist and always will exist and the fact is that most sterotypes dont appear out of nowhere. That is not sexism, that is reality. Men are usually better at building because they are physically stronger whereas women are better at hairdressing because they are more interested in that and have the hands to be able to do that, whereas most men would struggle. It is how we are made. That doesnt mean you cannot have a man better at hairdressing than a woman and a woman better at men at politics. The fact is that leave it upto the electorate to decide who they want for the job rather than using racism and sexism to get your way and what you call a 'fairer parliament'. The only fair parliament is one which is elected on a fair playing field and who is elected to the best of their ability.

You are patronising to women and ethnic candidates;- you think they need legislation to be able to succeed? - with me quite frankly when people say gay people need more rights I just get wound up. You get the job based on what you can do, not who you are and anyone who disagrees needs to qute frankly get over themselves and get into the real world. Are you one of these people who sues a company for not hiring you because you think it was because you are a woman? - we have a word for that, its called totally and utterly paranoid.

You still have not told me where I have suggested that women are inferior to men (sexism).


The BNP is not open as it has been closed a judge as it was deemed to be based on racist criteria for selection. I also think you also ought to read the thread as nowhere does it say I support short lists for black women and minorities. In conclusion it was Parliament, made up of a majority of men, who passed all women short lists and made it an exception to The Sexual Discrimination Act until 2030 and not me but from some of the views expressed above I can certainly see why.

..despite the fact you have been saying you are basically in support of candidate shortlists for women, gays and blacks/asians and thus when I suggested the fact that because i'm a white male I wouldn't be able to stand as a Tory/Labour candidate in my area you replied with; - (basically telling me to stand somewhere else if I am not allowed to stand in my area because of the colour of my skin/my gender)

"If a male is denied selection from your local constituency because of an all women shortlist then he is not much of a man to 'throw his toys out of the pram' and shout 'discrimination' and quite frankly I am sure that any man wishing to stand for election would understand the reason for it and not have such superficial, narrow minded views. There are plenty of constituencys in the UK to stand for election and there is always the opportunity if they feel they are the 'best man for the job' to enter as an independent."

So one moment you are in favour of all women/ethnic shortlists and the next you are not. Which is it?

[jrh2002]

The BNP is not open as it has been closed a judge as it was deemed to be based on racist criteria for selection.
I also think you also ought to read the thread as nowhere does it say I support short lists for black women and minorities.

In conclusion it was Parliament, made up of a majority of men, who passed all women short lists and made it an exception to The Sexual Discrimination Act until 2030 and not me but from some of the views expressed above I can certainly see why.


After the judge made his decision the BNP removed the 2 hour home interview so that they were able to instantly open up their membership again (So it said on the news) Their membership list was CLOSED and unable to join but a few days later its clearly open https://secure.bnp.org.uk/join/join.html want to join? I am sure the BNP will still fight the judges decision but made a few alterations until an appeal has been heard.

You were saying that you agreed with positive discrimination so I gave a few examples :s Discrimination is discrimination - Positive discrimination is only positive for the people its for but its just discrimination to those of us not included. Any form of discrimination is NEGATIVE so the left wing morons who put the word POSITIVE in front and thinks makes it OK need to think again. ANY discrimination breeds discontent and anger so if people get a job etc on MERIT then EVERYBODY is happy apart from the people who need this so called positive discrimination to get a step up because quite clearly they are not talented enough to take on better people for the job.

BTW I have only given my opinion here and not quoted/highlighted anybodies posts as I am not wanting to be involved in a threesome over this ;)

[Catzsy]

Thank you, its common sense. Fairness is who is the best for the job, whether your black, white, asian, disabled, gay, straight or any other factors and i'm glad you, like the majority can see that.



So what is the other definition of sexism? - you say there is another definition yet cannot seem to come up with one and just say i'm using indirext sexism. Wrong Rosie;- I never said men are more politically minded because of their voices, I said their voices play a part because they can usually speak better and it does play a part;- because the effect of Hitlers voice helped him gain power so its proven before you try and knock that one back

The sterotypes still exist and always will exist and the fact is that most sterotypes dont appear out of nowhere. That is not sexism, that is reality. Men are usually better at building because they are physically stronger whereas women are better at hairdressing because they are more interested in that and have the hands to be able to do that, whereas most men would struggle. It is how we are made. That doesnt mean you cannot have a man better at hairdressing than a woman and a woman better at men at politics. The fact is that leave it upto the electorate to decide who they want for the job rather than using racism and sexism to get your way and what you call a 'fairer parliament'. The only fair parliament is one which is elected on a fair playing field and who is elected to the best of their ability.

You are patronising to women and ethnic candidates;- you think they need legislation to be able to succeed? - with me quite frankly when people say gay people need more rights I just get wound up. You get the job based on what you can do, not who you are and anyone who disagrees needs to qute frankly get over themselves and get into the real world. Are you one of these people who sues a company for not hiring you because you think it was because you are a woman? - we have a word for that, its called totally and utterly paranoid.

You still have not told me where I have suggested that women are inferior to men (sexism).


There are many definitions of sexism - Hostile sexism where somebody believes that women are inferior to men or the other way around and I have already stated this and that doesn't apply to you. I HAVE NOT SAID ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD THAT YOU HAVE SAID WOMEN ARE INFERIOR TO MEN! Indirect Sexism which I do believe you suffer from for the reasons given in my last post. Other forms of sexism include benevolent sexism, idealizes traditional women. This second form of sexism "protects" and gives limited privilege to women in traditional roles. Of course stereotypes exist but that is not reality. Educators have been trying to stamp out this form of prejudice for decades. You are just repeating yourself over and over again. I have already answered most of this in my last post. If the legislation wasn't needed in respect of all woman shortlists then the exception to the sexual discrimination act would not have been passed. There is leglislation in respect of this so nothing more needs to be said. If you don't agree with it go and lobby your local MP to get a change in the law.



..despite the fact you have been saying you are basically in support of candidate shortlists for women, gays and blacks/asians and thus when I suggested the fact that because i'm a white male I wouldn't be able to stand as a Tory/Labour candidate in my area you replied with; - (basically telling me to stand somewhere else if I am not allowed to stand in my area because of the colour of my skin/my gender)

"If a male is denied selection from your local constituency because of an all women shortlist then he is not much of a man to 'throw his toys out of the pram' and shout 'discrimination' and quite frankly I am sure that any man wishing to stand for election would understand the reason for it and not have such superficial, narrow minded views. There are plenty of constituencys in the UK to stand for election and there is always the opportunity if they feel they are the 'best man for the job' to enter as an independent."

So one moment you are in favour of all women/ethnic shortlists and the next you are not. Which is it?

Where have I said in this thread that I support shortlists for ethnic or other minorities such as gay people? Please quote me and stop putting words into my mouth. I have quoted you as you said it. That men are more suited to politics because they have louder voices - that is what you said and have even quoted Hitler as an example and the mind absolutely boggles at this. Again you are repeating yourself, over and over again. You can believe what you want and argue to the cows come home but supporting the exception of the Sexual Discrimination Act to allow woman shortlists is lawful and not sexist. That is a fact whether you like it or not. My reasons for supporting the all woman shortlists have been given more than once in this thread. If you think it is sexist you are entitled to you opinion but I am sure prospective MPs will have a more enlightened view than you and feel that it is also important to increase the number of women in parilaiment. If you do reply I would be greatful if you did not repeat comments you have already made at least once if not twice / three times in this thread.

@Jrh. Can you find a link to say that the judge has actually lifted the injunction on there list being re-opened because I can't. Be interesting to catch up on this.

[-:Undertaker:-]

There are many definitions of sexism - Hostile sexism where somebody believes that women are inferior to men or the other way around and I have already stated this and that doesn't apply to you. I HAVE NOT SAID ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD THAT YOU HAVE SAID WOMEN ARE INFERIOR TO MEN! Indirect Sexism which I do believe you suffer from for the reasons given in my last post. Other forms of sexism include benevolent sexism, idealizes traditional women. This second form of sexism "protects" and gives limited privilege to women in traditional roles. Of course stereotypes exist but that is not reality. Educators have been trying to stamp out this form of prejudice for decades. You are just repeating yourself over and over again. I have already answered most of this in my last post. If the legislation wasn't needed in respect of all woman shortlists then the exception to the sexual discrimination act would not have been passed. There is leglislation in respect of this so nothing more needs to be said. If you don't agree with it go and lobby your local MP to get a change in the law.No, you have not told me how I am being sexist. If you are calling me sexist then I want to know why. Educators have been trying to stamp out this prejudice? - its NOT prejudice! - its simple fact that most builders are men, most hairdressers are women and so forth. Its not me being nasty, I am stating a simple fact that you can find with your own two eyes, all you have to do is go and look at a building site for gods sake.

You say I should go lobby my local MP;- so do you not agree now with candidate shortlists being based on gender or minority then?


Where have I said in this thread that I support shortlists for ethnic or other minorities such as gay people? Please quote me and stop putting words into my mouth. I have quoted you as you said it. That men are more suited to politics because they have louder voices - that is what you said and have even quoted Hitler as an example and the mind absolutely boggles at this. Again you are repeating yourself, over and over again. You can believe what you want and argue to the cows come home but supporting the exception of the Sexual Discrimination Act to allow woman shortlists is lawful and not sexist. That is a fact whether you like it or not. My reasons for supporting the all woman shortlists have been given more than once in this thread. If you think it is sexist you are entitled to you opinion but I am sure prospective MPs will have a more enlightened view than you and feel that it is also important to increase the number of women in parilaiment. If you do reply I would be greatful if you did not repeat comments you have already made at least once if not twice / three times in this thread.You have been arguing with me for the past few pages about candidate shortlists, I have been saying they are discrimiatory and not needed whereas you have been telling me they are neede for what you call a 'fairer parliament' - what is your actual view? - oh wait you have now said that you do support women shortlists so in essence you do support sexism. On the Hitler point, you seem to think i'm being sexist by saying that a males deeper and stronger voice helps them be elected as an MP - Hitler was living proof that having a strong voice helps a man in politics, just as Thatchers voice also helped her along with her calm manner and Farages wit helps him.

So I shall ask again; because I am a male, why should I be barred from standing as my local Labour MP?

[jrh2002]

Here it is on the BNP site (Be careful or else you could all be converted :o) The press dont like reporting stuff like this incase all the people who sympathise a little may rush off and join.

Link: http://bnp.org.uk/2010/03/1000-new-members-for-bnp-in-first-three-working-days-after-membership-ban-lifted/

[Catzsy]

No, you have not told me how I am being sexist. If you are calling me sexist then I want to know why. Educators have been trying to stamp out this prejudice? - its NOT prejudice! - its simpyl fact that most builders are men, most hairdressers are women and so forth. Its not me being nasty, I am stating a simple fact that you can find with your own two eyes, all you have to do is go and look at a building site for gods sake.


Oh dear god! :'(:'(:'( If you can't see what you have been saying in this thread is not negative stereotyping and prejudice which is indirect sexism then I am unable to argue against it. Please do some research and then come back and say why it isn't with some evidence apart from saying it is a 'fact' and 'reality. You are impossible to argue against because your mind is made up and you won't even try to read further information which might broaden your mind. If there was an all woman shortlist in your constituency there would be nothing I could do about it. That really is a silly question and I definitely think you should be barred from standing as an MP because I am pretty certain that there would be more qualified people
whether they be men or women and you don't support any of the main parties.

@Jrh - that's interesting because it doesn't seem to have been covered in the press. Be interesting to see what happens next.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh dear god! :'(:'(:'( If you can't see what you have been saying in this thread is not negative stereotyping and prejudice which is indirect sexism then I am unable to argue against it. Please do some research and then come back and say why it isn't with some evidence apart from saying it is a 'fact' and 'reality. You are impossible to argue against because your mind is made up and you won't even try to read further information which might broaden your mind. If there was an all woman shortlist in your constituency there would be nothing I could do about it. That really is a silly question and I definitely think you should be barred from standing as an MP because I am pretty certain that there would be more qualified people whether they be men or women and you don't support any of the main parties.

Let me ask you some simple fact-of-life questions that will determine whether or not you are living on the same planet as the rest of us;


Are the majority of builders male?
Are the majority of hairdressers female?
Are the majority of nurses female?
Are the majority of beautificians female?
Are the majority of mechanices male?
Are the majority of plumbers male?
Are the majority of primary school teachers female?
Are the majority of nursery workers female?
Are the majority of electricians male?

If you answered no to any of the above then you indeed on another planet to the rest of us because the fact is that the answer to everyone of them questions is yes. You are right when you say you cant argue with it because its just a fact of life, the truth in simple terms. I cannot really back something up such as that because its one of them things which is just really plain old common sense, all you have to do is look on a building site next time you pass one and you will get your answer.

As for me not supporting any of the main parties that I have interpreted as one of your reasons for me not to be able to stand as an MP, why does that mean I should be barred as standing as an MP(?). Oh sorry, my apologies;- I didnt realise that your idea (and the main parties idea) of democracy is one of which I either are fully in support of you and the Lib/Lab/Con three and if i'm not I must just be a nasty facist, racist, homophobic and sexist pig who doesnt even deserve to be heard - an interesting take on democracy you have, not doubt in the pages of dark history you will find many who also have also had that outlook.

In reply to this;


If there was an all woman shortlist in your constituency there would be nothing I could do about it. That really is a silly question and I definitely think you should be barred from standing as an MP because I am pretty certain that there would be more qualified people whether they be men or women and you don't support any of the main parties.I am not asking whether or not you could do anything about it, I am asking you why you think I should, as a male, be barred from standing as my local Labour MP because of my gender which I was born with and is something I cannot change. Just please for once tell me why because of my gender I should not be able to stand in a democratic internal party election?

So pressing onwards; would it be right for the BNP to ban women from joining the party? - no of course not, so why are are the Lib/Lab/Con three any different to the basic ideal of democracy and fairness?

[Catzsy]

Let me ask you some simple fact-of-life questions that will determine whether or not you are living on the same planet as the rest of us;


Are the majority of builders male?
Are the majority of hairdressers female?
Are the majority of nurses female?
Are the majority of beautificians female?
Are the majority of mechanices male?
Are the majority of plumbers male?
Are the majority of primary school teachers female?
Are the majority of nursery workers female?
Are the majority of electricians male?

If you answered no to any of the above then you indeed on another planet to the rest of us because the fact is that the answer to everyone of them questions is yes. You are right when you say you cant argue with it because its just a fact of life, the truth in simple terms. I cannot really back something up such as that because its one of them things which is just really plain old common sense, all you have to do is look on a building site next time you pass one and you will get your answer.

As for me not supporting any of the main parties that I have interpreted as one of your reasons for me not to be able to stand as an MP, why does that mean I should be barred as standing as an MP(?). Oh sorry, my apologies;- I didnt realise that your idea (and the main parties idea) of democracy is one of which I either are fully in support of you and the Lib/Lab/Con three and if i'm not I must just be a nasty facist, racist, homophobic and sexist pig who doesnt even deserve to be heard - an interesting take on democracy you have, not doubt in the pages of dark history you will find many who also have also had that outlook.

In reply to this;

I am not asking whether or not you could do anything about it, I am asking you why you think I should, as a male, be barred from standing as my local Labour MP because of my gender which I was born with and is something I cannot change. Just please for once tell me why because of my gender I should not be able to stand in a democratic internal party election?

So pressing onwards; would it be right for the BNP to ban women from joining the party? - no of course not, so why are are the Lib/Lab/Con three any different to the basic ideal of democracy and fairness?

But all that has nothing to do with indirect sexism at all. As I said go do some research and come back with some evidence. You just fly with theories plucked from the air.

[-:Undertaker:-]

But all that has nothing to do with indirect sexism at all. As I said go do some research and come back with some evidence. You just fly with theories plucked from the air.

When I stated examples such as that (including some of those), you claimed I was being indirectly sexist. Am I now proved correct in the fact that I am simply stating home truths and am not being sexist in the slightest?

[Catzsy]

When I stated examples such as that (including some of those), you claimed I was being indirectly sexist. Am I now proved correct in the fact that I am simply stating home truths and am not being sexist in the slightest?

No you are just stating that there are more men than women or women than men in an occupation which has nothing to do with indirect sexism. It was other remarks you made that are sexist such as Men are more suited to be MPS because they have louder voices and it isn't really a woman's thing to be an MP etc etc. Evidence for this? You are still portraying a negative gender stereotype as men are just as capable of doing those professions as woman and vice versa. You have made a mistake berween choice and the actual capability of doing a job. Two very different things. I will requote what I said before as it still all applies and you show great reluctance to actually do any academic research on it and produce any evidence to support your claims made in bold in your quote below.


Undertaker

Politics has always been more of a male career, that doesnt mean that women shouldnt be allowed in or discriminated against just because they are women but its a fact that men with louder voices are more politically minded just as they are more minded on football.


The reason why many women may not be in parliament is because politics isnt much of a womens thing and thats a fact. Just like nursing or flight attending is not much of a mens thing.


flight attendants and nursing, they are still a mainly female dominated profession and there is nothing wrong with that. Politics on the other hand remains a male dominated profession just like building does.





Catzsy

These are your quotes and what you state is the definition of hostile sexism - there is more than one definition of sexism. Your quotes amount to indirect sexism which probably 90% of Sexual Discriminination cases are based on. You confine men and woman to stereotypical roles of the past that in reality do not reflect the ability of either men or women in the modern world - just because there are more female nurses/flight attendants it does not mean that males are not just as capable as them at doing the job. How on earth do you support the fact that because men have louder voices they are more politically minded. You also say Politics is not a woman's thing - how it is not a woman's thing? This is nonsense. This is indirect sexism and very patronising to both sexes and in fact you may not have realised that it even was. I suggest you do some research into indirect sexism as opposed to using a wicki definition.

Added to this you don't appear to be 'listening' preferring to say that I remind you of people that are from a dark period of history and that I am devoid of reality.After all there are more women in the UK than men approximately 31.0 million women compared with 29.9 million men in the UK population. This was the last survey in 2007. Having said that males occupy most positions of power still but to say that Politics is male dominated like building is pretty demeaning. Tell me what attributes women lack in order to enter politics, successfully? Choice is reality, opportunity is reality but there has to be checks and balances to redress mistakes of the past otherwise this world will never progress from a male dominated society to one that reflects the achievements of successful men & women on a more equal footing that is why there has been decades of education trying to get rid of this negative gender stereotyping and some all women shortlists are a way that Parliament has decreed that is a small way of redressing past discrimination against women. What is wrong with that? I am sure if the situtation was reversed you would agree.

[Hitman]

I was gonna write a big thing up about the BNP and why people support them, but I can be bothered with having to argue my point. Basically, people (including myself) don't like to see Britain deteriorating: (illegal) immigrants flocking in, the justice system is useless, judges don't give adequate sentences and the politicians are so politically correct it's sick. The city where I live is 50% white 50% ethnic minorities - soon to not be a minority. It'll be the first white minority city in the UK. 42% of the children in primary school don't speak English as a first language.

I was just about to go on again but I'll leave it there... I don't want to see my country Islamified. I have no problem with other races or religions, but some people like to force religions down other people's throats and I do have a problem with that. If Sharia (sp) law became default law then we'd be going back in time...

In conclusion, when people don't like what they see and leading parties won't do anything about it then people turn to the smaller parties who will. If things get so bad then there are riots and there's chaos. I hope it doesn't come to that.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No you are just stating that there are more men than women or women than men in an occupation which has nothing to do with indirect sexism. It was other remarks you made that are sexist such as Men are more suited to be MPS because they have louder voices and it isn't really a woman's thing to be an MP etc etc. Evidence for this? You are still portraying a negative gender stereotype as men are just as capable of doing those professions as woman and vice versa. You have made a mistake berween choice and the actual capability of doing a job. Two very different things. I will requote what I said before as it still all applies and you show great reluctance to actually do any academic research on it and produce any evidence to support your claims made in bold in your quote below.I didnt say they were more suited although that is one quality which is helpful in deciding a candidate, you want someone with tough speak and a strong voice otherwise your message will not be carried. It is a fact of life that a mans stronger voice helps him get along in politics just as the wit of Thatcher helped her, Blairs slickness helped him and Michael Howard performed some excellent PMQs thanks to his wit. That is not sexist, its the truth. I know men are just as capable of doing professions as women and the same way the other way around, the fact is that some professions are just suited more to men than woman with building being the key example because men are naturally stronger.

I do not have to do academic research on the subject and nor do you and you have not for that matter. Politics isnt such a womens thing, less women I find are interested in it while men love a good moan about taxes down at the pub. This doesnt mean i'm saying women are useless, I believe Margaret Thatcher was our greatest Prime Minister in our history and she was a woman. The same goes for my two favourite monarches in our history, Queen Elizabeth I & Empress Victoria.


Added to this you don't appear to be 'listening' preferring to say that I remind you of people that are from a dark period of history and that I am devoid of reality.After all there are more women in the UK than men approximately 31.0 million women compared with 29.9 million men in the UK population.So to ensure their are a equal number of women as men in building, do you also support restricting the number of male builders to ensure your PC politics are obeyed by everyone?

I can tell you now, you are living in a world which would totally and utterly fail.


This was the last survey in 2007. Having said that males occupy most positions of power still but to say that Politics is male dominated like building is pretty demeaning. Tell me what attributes women lack in order to enter politics, successfully? Choice is reality, opportunity is reality but there has to be checks and balances to redress mistakes of the past otherwise this world will never progress from a male dominated society to one that reflects the achievements of successful men & women on a more equal footing that is why there has been decades of education trying to get rid of this negative gender stereotyping and some all women shortlists are a way that Parliament has decreed that is a small way of redressing past discrimination against women. What is wrong with that? I am sure if the situtation was reversed you would agree.Why is it demeaning? - i'm sorry but most women would agree that building is more for men as would most people with a pair of eyes, the same going for politics. The attributes women lack against men in politics? - the voice being the main one with the wit, any leader who is historically considered a weak character does not have any support or arouses any motivation for people to vote them. I'm sorry but its a fact of life that the feminine side of women lets them down. When people go to vote they look for strong qualities (or they should do) and while some women possess this, others do not hence why their is a missing gap.

Choice is reality so I would like to ask; why do you support restricting peoples choice (a slur on democracy and the idea of fairness) in voting for candidates(?) and why because of my gender should I be barred from standing as my local Labour MP?

You talk about discrimination and sexism, when you are doing exactly that.

[Catzsy]

Politics isnt such a womens thing, less women I find are interested in it while men love a good moan about taxes down at the pub. he attributes women lack against men in politics? - the voice being the main one with the wit, any leader who is historically considered a weak character does not have any support or arouses any motivation for people to vote them. I'm sorry but its a fact of life that the feminine side of women lets them down. When people go to vote they look for strong qualities (or they should do) and while some women possess this, others do not hence why their is a missing gap.

You are doing it again - indirect sexism and total nonsense as this can be true of both sexes.you have absolutely no evidence to back that up it is just your personal opinion. The piece in bold is the absolute worst bit.
I have done research in what amounts to sexism - I did not say it was academic but the research I looked at was.

Perhaps you should take this test to see. I already have. Then we can compare scores :)

http://www.understandingprejudice.org/index.php?section=asi&action=takeSurvey

[jrh2002]

Hostile Sexism Score: 3.73
Benevolent Sexism Score: 3.55

Does that mean I am a real man? LOL Not sure some random survey tells you much about me haha

[-:Undertaker:-]

You are doing it again - indirect sexism and total nonsense as this can be true of both sexes.you have absolutely no evidence to back that up it is just your personal opinion. The piece in bold is the absolute worst bit.
I have done research in what amounts to sexism - I did not say it was academic but the research I looked at was.

Perhaps you should take this test to see. I already have. Then we can compare scores :)

http://www.understandingprejudice.org/index.php?section=asi&action=takeSurvey

Then perhaps instead of giving me links to left wing sites with typical logos such as the Gay flag on which I find patronising you should actually look into history. It has always amazed me that how on many pages of this forum people ignore history and just rubbish what I am saying, but i'll give some examples as you always ask for how I am talking the truth. Let us look firstly at Queen Boudicca who I learnt about in Primary School. She commanded support in times when being a woman was basically being an object and let us ask why did she succeed and command support? - because she had next to none feminine qualities and used rough methods as well as rhetorical.

The second example we can look at is Queen Elizabeth I. When she came to the Throne of England because she was a woman she was riddiculed and expected to be weak and powerless. She was anything but weak and feeble. Elizabeth had a strong sense of power and an almost masculine outlook and take on the world which allowed her to eventually show the nobles, barons and ruling classes that she was not a joke, she was a powerful figurehead.

The third example is Margaret Thatcher. Why did she succeed? - not because of feminist legislation which barred any opposition to her, but because she fought her way to the top based on merit and not her sex. She also had a masculine personality which made world leaders listen and even her own party which at the time was full of aristocrats. Anne Widdecombe is another living example of this and both hate the notion that you find appealing, which is to flout your gender as a reason to succeed in life.

There you have it, three examples of some of the most powerfuland strongest leaders in history and they did not need your feminine legislation to help them. They got there on merit and the fact that they had strong voices and masculine qualities which appeal to people whether you like it or not. Let me ask you this for example; who appeals more as a Prime Minister to most people, Margaret Thatcher or somebody such as Diane Abbott MP? - Thatcher because she has a strong voice, strong opinions whereas Abbott is very feminine and your classic 'namby pamby' approach to issues.

If you still wish for me to take your left wing test then I shall do so, once you have told me that why, as a male, I should be considered less worthy and barred as standing as my local Labour MP because of my gender that I was born with?

[Catzsy]

Hostile Sexism Score: 3.73
Benevolent Sexism Score: 3.55

Does that mean I am a real man? LOL Not sure some random survey tells you much about me haha

Well thats not too bad. Mine was 1. 80 and 1.81. You do seem to be quite high on the 'real man' stakes as it seems to be higher than average. :P xxx See below for my scores.

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/5817/image38r.jpg (http://img242.imageshack.us/i/image38r.jpg/)

@ Dan - that's a real cop out and you know it and it's not a left wing test. LOL:) Its the social Psychology network which is not a left wing organisation.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well thats not too bad. Mine was 1. 80 and 1.81. You do seem to be quite high on the 'real man' stakes as it seems to be higher than average. :P xxx See below for my scores.

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/5817/image38r.jpg (http://img242.imageshack.us/i/image38r.jpg/)

@ Dan - that's a real cop out and you know it and it's not a left wing test. LOL:)

The site is left wing site as it is obsessed with multi-culturalism and minorities, aka pandering to the views of yourself and labelling anyone who thinks any different words such as sexist, racist, homophobic and so on. I will do your quiz when you answer my question because I know as well as you do that once I get the results back all you will be coming back with is 'yeah but the poll said your sexist but you dont realise it' - answer my question that I have been asking throughout this thread which is; why should I be barred from standing as my local Labour MP because of my gender that I was born with? - you explain to me that because of something I could not choose or control I am not worthy in your eyes to stand for parliament for my local area and then you will get your poll filled in and posted.

As for the examples I have, i'll take it as no comment?

Actually I shall answer it and I hope that you will in return answer my question, here are my results and i've answered them 100% truthfully and honestly.

http://www.iaza.com/work/100323C/score3119645353-iaza.gif

[Catzsy]

No that's not to bad at all tbf if it is a first time try. I am quite surprised. I have answered this question more than once. If you were worthy of becoming a labour candidate then there should be nothing stopping you but no prospective MP has the right as far as I know to pick and choose their seat. This would apply as much to a woman as to a man. Most decent employment requires you to be 'mobile' these days and move if they want you to. We are really going around in circles here as I have already stated that in principle I agree with all women short lists until there is a fairer representation of numbers in parliament. There is nothing that a man can do that a woman cannot do as an MP - there is no difference in brain power. You have only taken about 3 examples and Diane Abbott is most definitely not namby pamby - she is a left wing feminist that I don't admire. This is a list of all the woman that have held positions of power since 1997 and I don't think that you can generalise and say their 'feminine' sides let them down and politics isn't a women's thing.


Date first
appointed
Name and offices held
1997
Rt Hon Harriet HARMAN
*
Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women 1997-1998
Solicitor-General 2001 - 2005
Minister of State for the Department for Constitutional Affairs 2005 -2007
*
Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal 2007-
Minister for Women and Equality 2007-
1997
Ms Glenda JACKSON, CBE
Under Secretary, Department for Environment, Transport and the
Regions (Minister for Transport in London) 1997-1999
1997
Rt Hon Tessa JOWELL
Minister for Public Health, Department for Health 1997-1999
Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment 1999-2001
*
Secretary of State, Culture, Media and Sport 2001-2007
*
Minister for the Olympics 2007-
*
Paymaster General 2007-
*
Minister for the Cabinet Office 2009-
*
Minister for London 2009-
1997
Rt Hon Jane KENNEDY
Assistant Government Whip, HM Treasury 1997-
Under Secretary, Lord Chancellor’s Department 1999-2001
Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office 2001-2004
Minister of State, Work and Pensions 2004- 2005
Minister of State, Department of Health 2005-2006
Financial Sectretary to the HM Treasury 2007-2008
Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Minister for Farming and the Environment) 2008-
1997
Rt Hon Helen LIDDELL
Economic Secretary, HM Treasury 1997-1998
Minister of State, Scottish Office 1998-1999
Minister of State, Department for Environment, Transport & the Regions 1999-1999
Minister of State, Department for Trade and Industry 1999 - 2001
*
Secretary of State for Scotland 2001 - 2003
1997
Rt Hon Ms Estelle MORRIS
Under Secretary, Department for Education and Employment 1997-1998
Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment 1998-2001
*
Secretary of State for Department for Education and Skills 2001-2002
Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport 2003- 2005
Women in the House of Commons House of Commons Information Office Factsheet M4 Appendix C
Date first
appointed
Name and offices held
1997
Rt Hon Dr Marjorie MOWLAM
*
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 1997-1999
*
Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 1999-2001
1997
Ms Bridget PRENTICE
Assistant Government Whip, HM Treasury 1997-1998
Assistant Government Whip, HM Treasury 2003- 2005
Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs 2005-2009
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Ministry of Justice 2009-
1997
Rt Hon Dawn PRIMAROLO
Financial Secretary, HM Treasury 1997-1999
Paymaster General, HM Treasury 1999-2007
Minister of State for Public Health 2007-2009
Minister of State, Department of Children Schools and Families 2009-
1997
Rt Hon Joyce QUIN
Minister of State, Home Office 1997-1998
Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office 1998-1999
Minister of State, Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 1999-2001
1997
Mrs Barbara ROCHE
Under Secretary, Department for Trade and Industry 1997-1999
Financial Secretary, HM Treasury 1999-1999
Minister of State, Home Office 1999-2001
Minister of State, Cabinet Office 2001-2002
Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2002-2003
1997
Joan RUDDOCK
Under Secretary for Women, Department for Social Security 1997-1998
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2007--2008
Minister of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 2008-
1997
Rt Hon Clare SHORT
*
Secretary of State, Department for International Development 1997-2003
Women in the House of Commons House of Commons Information Office Factsheet M4 Appendix C
1998
Rt Hon Ms Patricia HEWITT
Economic Secretary, HM Treasury 1998-1999
Minister of State, Department for Trade and Industry 1999-2001
*
Secretary of State, Department for Trade and Industry 2001- 2005
*
Secretary of State, Department of Health 2005 -2007
1998
Rt Hon Margaret HODGE MBE
Under Secretary, Department for Education and Employment 1998-2001
*
Minister of State, Department for Education and Skills 2001- 2005
Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions 2005 - 2006
Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry 2006 -2007
Minister of State, Culture, Media and Sport 2007-2008
1998
Miss Kate HOEY
Under Secretary, Home Office 1998-1999
Under Secretary, Department for Culture, Media and Sport 1999-2001
1998
Rt Hon Anne McGUIRE
Assistant Government Whip, HM Treasury 1998-2001
Whip, HM Treasury 2001-2002
Parliamentary Secretary, Scotland Office 2002
Minister of State, Scotland Office 2002-2003
Lords Commissioner, HM Treasury 2001
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs
2003-2005
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions 2005-2008
1999
Dr Lynda CLARK, QC
Advocate General for Scotland 1999-2003
1999
Rt Hon Yvette COOPER
Parliamentary Secretary, Department of Health (Minister for Public Health) 1999-2002
Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor’s Department 2002-2003
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2003-2005
Minister of State, Communities and Local Government 2006-2008
*
Chief Secretary to the HM Treasury 2008-2009
*
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2009-
Women in the House of Commons House of Commons Information Office Factsheet M4 Appendix C
1999
Rt Hon Beverley HUGHES
Under Secretary, Department for the Environment, Transport & the Regions 1999-2001
Parliamentary Secretary, Home Office 2001-2002
Minister of State, Home Office 2002-2004
Minister of State, Department for Education and Skills 2005-2007
Department for Children, Schools and Families 2007-2009
Minister for the North-West 2007-2009
1999
Miss Melanie JOHNSON
Economic Secretary, HM Treasury 1999-2001
Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Trade and Industry 2001-2003
Minister of State, Department of Health 2003-2005
1999
Rt Hon Jacqui SMITH
Under Secretary, Department for Education & Employment 1999-2001
Minister of State, Department for Health 2001-2003
Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry 2003-2005
Minister of State, Department for Education and Skills 2005-2006
*
Parliamentary Secretary to the HM Treasury (Chief Whip) 2006-2007
*
Secretary of State for the Home Office 2007-2009
1999
Ms Gisela STUART
Under Secretary, Department for Health 1999-2001
2001
Rt Hon Hazel BLEARS
Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Health 2001-2003
Minister of State, Home Office 2003-2006
*
Minister without Portfolio and Party Chair, 2006-2007
*
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 2007-2009
2001
Maria EAGLE
Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Works and Pensions 2001-2005
Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills 2005-2006
Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office 2006-2007
Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Justice 2007-2009
Minister of State, Ministry of Justice - (jointly with the Government Equalities Office) 2009-
2001
Ms Sally KEEBLE
Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 2001-2002
Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for International Development 2002-2003
Women in the House of Commons House of Commons Information Office Factsheet M4 Appendix C
2001
Rt Hon Ruth KELLY
Economic Secretary, HM Treasury 2001-2002
Financial Secretary, HM Treasury 2002- 2004
*
Minister of State, Cabinet Office 2004-2004
*
Secretary of State, Education and Skills 2004-2006
*
Secretary of State, Communities and Local Government 2006-2007
*
Minister for Women 2006-2007
Secretary of State for Transport 2007-2008
2001
Angela SMITH
Assistant Government Whip, HM Treasury 2001-2003
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office 2002-2006
Minister of State, Communities and Local Government 2006-2007
Minister of State, Cabinet Office 2009-
2001
Rt Hon Rosie WINTERTON
Parliamentary Secretary, Department of the Lord Chancellor 2001-2003
Minister of State, Department of Health 2003-2007
Minister of State, Department of Transport 2007-2008
Minister of State, Department Work & Pensions 2008-2009
Minister for Yorkshire and Humber 2008-
Minister of State, Business Innovation and Skills - (jointly with the Department for Communities and Local Government) 2009-
2002
Rt Hon Joan RYAN
Assistant Government Whip, HM Treasury 2002-2003
Lord Commissioner, HM Treasury 2003-2006
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office 2006-2007
2002
Charlotte ATKINS
Assistant Government Whip, HM Treasury 2002-
Parliamentary Under Secretary, Transport 2004-2005
2002
Gillian MERRON
Assistant Government Whip, HM Treasury 2002-2004
Lord commissioner, HM Treasury 2004-2006
Parliamentary Under Secretary, Department for Transport 2006-2007
Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office 2007-2008
Minister for the East Midlands 2007-2008
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development 2008 (jointly with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office)2008-2009
Minister of State, Department of Health 2009-
Women in the House of Commons House of Commons Information Office Factsheet M4 Appendix C
2003
Rt Hon Caroline FLINT
Parliamentary Under Secretary, Home Office 2003-2006
Minster of State, Department of Health 2006-2007
Minister of State, Department of Work and pensions 2007-2008
Minister for Yorkshire and Humber 2007-2008
*
Minister for Housing and Planning (attending Cabinet), Department for Communities and Local Government Minister of State 2008
Minister of State (Europe), Foreign and Commonwealth Office 2008-2009
2003
Fiona MACTAGGART
Parliamentary Under Secretary, Home Office 2003-2006
2003
Margaret MORAN
Assistant Government Whip, HM Treasury 2003-2005
2005
Meg MUNN
Parliamentary Under Secretary, Department for Trade and Industry 2005-2006
Minister of State, Communities and Local Government 2006-2007
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office 2007-2008
2005
Clare WARD
Assistant Government Whip, HM Treasury 2005-2006
Lord commissioner, HM Treasury 2006-2008
Vice Chamberlain, HM Household 2008-2009
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State ,Ministry of Justice 2009-
2006
Vera BAIRD
Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs 2006-2007
Solicitor General 2007-
2006
Liz BLACKMAN
Assistant Government Whip, HM Treasury 2006-2007
Government Whip 2007-2008
2006
Diana Johnson
Chief Secretary to the HM Treasury 2006-2007
Assistant Government Whip, HM Treasury 2007-2009
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Department Children Schools and Families 2009-
Women in the House of Commons House of Commons Information Office Factsheet M4 Appendix C
2007
Barbara FOLLETT
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Departof Work and Pensions 2007
Minister for the East of England 2007-
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions 2007
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Government Equalities Office 2008-2009
Parliamentary Under-Secretary ,Department for Culture, Media & Sport 2008-2009
Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government 2009-
Minister for the East of England 2007-
2007
Helen Goodman
Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Leader of the House of Commons 2007-2008
Assistant Whip, HM Treasury 2008-2009
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State – Department for Work & Pensions 2009-
2007
Meg Hillier
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office 2007-
2007
Siobhain McDonagh
Assistant Government Whip 2007-2008
2007
Alison Seabeck
Assistant Government Whip 2007-2008
2007
Kitty Ussher
Economic Secretary to the HM Treasury 2007-2008
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions 2008-2009
Exchequer Secretary, HM Treasury Kitty Ussher MP 2009
2009
Sarah McCarthy-Fry
Parliamentary Under Secretary of Stat,e Department of Communities and Local Government 2009
Exchequer Secretary 2009-
2009
Ann Keen
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Health 2009-
2009
Barbara Keeley
Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the leader of the House of Commons 2009-
2009
Ann McKechin
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Scotland Office 2009-
Women in the House of Commons House of Commons Information Office Factsheet M4 Appendix C
2009
Helen Jones
Government Whip (Vice Chamberlain of HM Household) 2009-
2009
Dawn Butler
Assistant Government Whip, HM Treasury & Parliamentary Secretary Cabinet Office 2009-
2009
Lyn Brown
Assistant Government Whip, HM Treasury 2009-
2009
Sharon Hodgson
Assistant Government Whip, HM Treasury 2009-
2009
Mary Creagh
Assistant Government Whip, HM Treasury 2009-
2009
Kerry McCarthy
Assistant Government Whip, HM Treasury 2009-
Women in the House of Commons House of Commons Information Office Factsheet M4 Appendix C
Notes:
* Cabinet post. This list shows the twenty four women Members of the House of Commons who have held posts in the Cabinet:
There are currently 4 women Members of the Cabinet:
Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP
Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP
Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP
Rt Hon Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
Women Peers who attended Cabinet
1982-83 – Baroness Young, was a member of the Cabinet as Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords
1998 – 2001 – Baroness Jay of Paddington became a Cabinet Minister as Leader of the Lords and Minister for Women
2003-2004 – Baroness Amos became a Cabinet Minister as Secretary of State for International Development
2004-2007 – Baroness Amos also served as Leader of the House of Lords and Lord President of the Council
2007- 2008 – Baroness Ashton became a Cabinet Minister as Leader of the House of Lords and Lord President of the Council
2008 Rt Hon Baroness Royall of Blaisdon became a Cabinet Minister as Leader of the House of Lords and Lord President of the Council
2009 Rt Hon Baroness Royall of Blaisdon also served as Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

[HotelUser]

Dan: Last time I checked Mr. Griffin is still in denial of the holocaust, he's xenophobic and homophobic. There's also Nick Eriksen, once a senior BNP official who said, "rape is sex - and women enjoy sex," and, "some women are like gongs — they need to be struck regularly". So--and I actually say this quite objectively: If you or anyone else suggests for a second, that the BNP are not racist, or sexist, this person making this statement has a horrible political mindset, and would do much less damage not even voting, much less trying to justify a corrupt point to begin with.

Catzsy: I'm really sorry Cat, I can see why you think Dan's remarks in this thread are sexist (Dan in all honesty you could have worded your point a lot better, maybe elaborated more, as opposed to just basically saying, "woman aren't interested in politics and generally aren't as good because yelling men debate better"). But in all honesty I'm not sure I understand how you can act upon Dan being sexist (when he isn't even intending to), when you yourself are a Habbox Forum Moderator who actively reads the various other sexist posts around the forum (primarily in spam) without speaking up, when those posters are one-hundred percent knowingly saying sexist remarks and jokes. I'm not looking from an argument from either of you here--I honestly think taking up sexism in this thread which doesn't matter, as opposed to addressing it at other parts of Habbox, is useless.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No that's not to bad at all tbf if it is a first time try. I am quite surprised. I have answered this question more than once. If you were worthy of becoming a labour candidate then there should be nothing stopping you but no prospective MP has the right as far as I know to pick and choose their seat. This would apply as much to a woman as to a man. Most decent employment requires you to eb 'mobile' these days and move if they want you to. We are really going around in circles here as I have already stated that in principle I agree with all women short lists until there is a fairer representation of numbers in parliament. There is nothing that a man can do that a woman cannot do as an MP - there is no difference in brain power. You have only taken about 3 examples and Diane Abbott is most definitely not namby pamby - she is a left wing feminist that I don't admire. This is a list of all the woman that have held positions of power since 1997 and I don't think that you can generalise and say their 'feminine' sides let them down and politics isn't a women's thing.

I haven't said for once that women who are feminine do not succeed, however it does pander them hence why their are more men. Infact women on that list such as Claire Short I admire greatly although she also has a more masculine side, as does the dreaded Harriett Harman. So I shall make it very clear; I have not for once said that women are less clever, less capable - I have just given you reasons why their are more men in politics than women with the two simple reasons being; vocal performances and interest.

I did take three examples, and have you not noticed how it is the most vocally capable leaders who are remembered. John Major - most children will not even of heard of him while Margaret Thatcher on the other hand they have. The same for Queen Elizabeth I compared with say for instance King Richard III. The most vocal are often the most capable, the same goes for Farage over Pearson and Blair over Brown - Farage and Blair have the ability to let their speech flow, the other two struggle especially Brown. Womans voices are naturally lower and less rough, thus will struggle to get the message across in a rowdy and noisy Houses of Parliament.

As for me not standing; yes you are barring me, because of the gender I was born from standing in an internal election because of a factor I could not and cannot control. If I or the BNP for a better example proposed banning all black people from the UK on the factor of 'we want to keep Britain white' how would you react? - I dont think you would be too pleased nor would the majority of people and I am not all that pleased with you basically telling me as a male that I should not be able to stand in certain consituencys because of my gender.

If a male MP proposed banning all women standing in a seat there would be instant uproar.


Dan: Last time I checked Mr. Griffin is still in denial of the holocaust, he's xenophobic and homophobic. There's also Nick Eriksen, once a senior BNP official who said, "rape is sex - and women enjoy sex," and, "some women are like gongs — they need to be struck regularly". So--and I actually say this quite objectively: If you or anyone else suggests for a second, that the BNP are not racist, or sexist, this person making this statement has a horrible political mindset, and would do much less damage not even voting, much less trying to justify a corrupt point to begin with.

Catzsy: I'm really sorry Cat, I can see why you think Dan's remarks in this thread are sexist (Dan in all honesty you could have worded your point a lot better, maybe elaborated more, as opposed to just basically saying, "woman aren't interested in politics and generally aren't as good because yelling men debate better"). But in all honesty I'm not sure I understand how you can act upon Dan being sexist (when he isn't even intending to), when you yourself are a Habbox Forum Moderator who actively reads the various other sexist posts around the forum (primarily in spam) without speaking up, when those posters are one-hundred percent knowingly saying sexist remarks and jokes. I'm not looking from an argument from either of you here--I honestly think taking up sexism in this thread which doesn't matter, as opposed to addressing it at other parts of Habbox, is useless.I am not denying the BNP are racist, sexist or homophobic and I would challenge you to find me an example doing so. I am pointing out that while Rosie and others such as yourself are very keen to label the BNP racist and so forth, how can you do so when your own parties (the Lib/Lab/Con three) do exactely the same, just they dont discriminate against the black man/asian man, they discriminate against the white man and males. Do not try and melt me in with the BNP because I have been arguing page after page that you are all as bad as eachother.

The BNP, Labour and the Conservatives all judge on race. What makes the Labour Party and Conservative Party so much more morally superior?

[Catzsy]

I haven't said for once that women who are feminine do not succeed, however it does pander them hence why their are more men. Infact women on that list such as Claire Short I admire greatly although she also has a more masculine side, as does the dreaded Harriett Harman. So I shall make it very clear; I have not for once said that women are less clever, less capable - I have just given you reasons why their are more men in politics than women with the two simple reasons being; vocal performances and interest.

I did take three examples, and have you not noticed how it is the most vocally capable leaders who are remembered. John Major - most children will not even of heard of him while Margaret Thatcher on the other hand they have. The same for Queen Elizabeth I compared with say for instance King Richard III. The most vocal are often the most capable, the same goes for Farage over Pearson and Blair over Brown - Farage and Blair have the ability to let their speech flow, the other two struggle especially Brown. Womans voices are naturally lower and less rough, thus will struggle to get the message across in a rowdy and noisy Houses of Parliament.

As for me not standing; yes you are barring me, because of the gender I was born from standing in an internal election because of a factor I could not and cannot control. If I or the BNP for a better example proposed banning all black people from the UK on the factor of 'we want to keep Britain white' how would you react? - I dont think you would be too pleased nor would the majority of people and I am not all that pleased with you basically telling me as a male that I should not be able to stand in certain consituencys because of my gender.
If a male MP proposed banning all women standing in a seat there would be instant uproar.



I am not denying the BNP are racist, sexist or homophobic and I would challenge you to find me an example doing so. I am pointing out that while Rosie and others such as yourself are very keen to label the BNP racist and so forth, how can you do so when your own parties (the Lib/Lab/Con three) do exactely the same, just they dont discriminate against the black man/asian man, they discriminate against the white man and males. Do not try and melt me in with the BNP because I have been arguing page after page that you are all as bad as eachother.

The BNP, Labour and the Conservatives all judge on race. What makes the Labour Party and Conservative Party so much morally superior?

I certainly do not label you as having anything to do with the BNP or supporting them I haven't said that anywhere. Women are not a race, they are a gender. End of.
If you can't see that the BNP are no different to the main political parties then you can't see it. Nominations for parliamentary selection do not work that way. Nobody in this world can expect to have their local constiuency handed to them on a plate. In any event there have only been about 50 shortlists altogether in the 1997 and 2005 elections which is nothing compared with the amount of constuencies there are so I really don't know what you are moaning about. If there there were not enough men to fairly represent society in parliament then I wouldn't complain about all men shortlists. Having said that most of them are:P
I have just given you reasons why their are more men in politics than women with the two simple reasons being; vocal performances and interest. This is complete nonsense not backed up by anything - it is just a stereotypical view no different to all teenagers who wear hoodies must be muggers. Now lets agree to disagree as Jrh2002 has suggested. Thanks =]

[-:Undertaker:-]

I certainly do not label you as having anything to do with the BNP or supporting them I haven't said that anywhere. Women are not a race, they are a gender. End of. If you can't see that the BNP are no different to the main political parties then you can't see it. Nominations for parliamentary selection do not work that way. Nobody in this world can expect to have their local constiuency handed to them on a plate. In any event there have only been about 50 shortlists altogether in the 1997 and 2005 elections which is nothing compared with the amount of constuencies there are so I really don't know what you are moaning about. If there there were not enough men to fairly represent society in parliament then I wouldn't complain about all men shortlists. Having said that most of them are:P This is complete nonsense not backed up by anything - it is just a stereotypical view no different to all teenagers who wear hoodies must be muggers. Now lets agree to disagree as Jrh2002 has suggested. Thanks =]

Why do you not get the simple fact that if you ban me from standing as my local Labour candidate because of the colour of my skin or because of the fact I am a man and not a woman then that is discriminating me because of my gender/race and thus is racist and sexist. The British National Party judge people on race - are they racist? - if so by saying they are then you are also having to admit that the Labour Party and Conservative Party are by the very least sexist.

You cannot have one rule for yourselves and another for the BNP.

[Catzsy]

Why do you not get the simple fact that if you ban me from standing as my local Labour candidate because of the colour of my skin or because of the fact I am a man and not a woman then that is discriminating me because of my gender/race and thus is racist and sexist. The British National Party judge people on race - are they racist? - if so by saying they are then you are also having to admit that the Labour Party and Conservative Party are by the very least sexist.

You cannot have one rule for yourselves and another for the BNP.

Again for about the fourth time - I have said nowhere that there should be black shortlists Why can't you take a hint? i.e.
Now lets agree to disagree as Jrh2002 has suggested. Thanks =]
You can believe what you want of me, of the main political parties, that you are correct all the time but I haven't got to agree with you so please leave it that. Thanks =]

[-:Undertaker:-]

Again for about the fourth time - I have said nowhere that there should be black shortlists Why can't you take a hint? i.e.
You can believe what you want of me, of the main political parties, that you are correct all the time but I haven't got to agree with you so please leave it that. Thanks =]

You have said very clearly that you believe in shortlists restricting people to create a more 'diverse and fair parliament' so surely that includes having ethnic candidate shortlists only. So I shall ask again; you tell me why as a man I should be barred from standing as my local Labour candidate because of the gender I was born? - explain that to me. Also tell me why you think it is racist for the British National Party to ban black people from becoming members of the party yet it is fine for the main parties (Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats) to ban white people/males from candidate shortlists?

I'm not saying i'm correct, i'm simply asking you to tell me why the Labour Party is any different to the BNP in these matters and so far you have failed time and time again to reply to that simple question.

[Catzsy]

You have said very clearly that you believe in shortlists restricting people to create a more 'diverse and fair parliament' so surely that includes having ethnic candidate shortlists only. So I shall ask again; you tell me why as a man I should be barred from standing as my local Labour candidate because of the gender I was born? - explain that to me. Also tell me why you think it is racist for the British National Party to ban black people from becoming members of the party yet it is fine for the main parties (Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats) to ban white people/males from candidate shortlists?


I'm not saying i'm correct, i'm simply asking you to tell me why the Labour Party is any different to the BNP in these matters and so far you have failed time and time again to reply to that simple question.

Okay I have asked you twice to agree to disagree in the last two posts. You persist in asking me questions that I have already answered. Please check the thread. You may not like the answers but I have answered this question about 3/4 times. To sum up you think I am sexist, racist (along with the main political parties) and a markist who doesn't live in the real world - you are entitled to your opinion which I respect. I think that you have made some sexist comments in the thread and that your views are very old fashioned and I am entitled to my opinion. I would be greatful if therefore you would agree to disagree as this is now started to feel like harrassment. Thanks =]

[-:Undertaker:-]

Okay I have asked you twice to agree to disagree in the last two posts. You persist in asking me questions that I have already answered. Please check the thread. You may not like the answers but I have answered this question about 3/4 times. To sum up you think I am sexist, racist (along with the main political parties) and a markist who doesn't live in the real world - you are entitled to your opinion which I respect. I think that you have made some sexist comments in the thread and that your views are very old fashioned and I am entitled to my opinion. I would be greatful if therefore you would agree to disagree as this is now started to feel like harrassment. Thanks =]


And I have asked you time and time again to tell me why as a male I should not be allowed to stand as my local Labour candidate. I have still not had an answer to why, because of my gender which I did not choose, that I should not be allowed to stand. Call the BNP racist, sexist and all the other words under the sun you like but the fact is that both your own party and the BNP discriminate on race and sex, so for a Labour supporter or a Conservative suporter at that to call the BNP racist or sexist for that matter is at the very least a little hypocritical. Next time before you attend an anti-BNP rally, call the BNP racist or even call me a sexist on this forum, just please look at yourself and your party before you make any comments.

If I called for black people to be banned from the buses, i'm sure you wouldnt just tell me that i'm 'entitled to my opinion'.

[Catzsy]

And I have asked you time and time again to tell me why as a male I should not be allowed to stand as my local Labour candidate. I have still not had an answer to why, because of my gender which I did not choose, that I should not be allowed to stand. Call the BNP racist, sexist and all the other words under the sun you like but the fact is that both your own party and the BNP discriminate on race and sex, so for a Labour supporter or a Conservative suporter at that to call the BNP racist or sexist for that matter is at the very least a little hypocritical. Next time before you attend an anti-BNP rally, call the BNP racist or even call me a sexist on this forum, just please look at yourself and your party before you make any comments.

If I called for black people to be banned from the buses, i'm sure you wouldnt just tell me that i'm 'entitled to my opinion'.

These are answers that I have given to your question about standing at an election and there are more that I cba to look for:
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=633252&p=6360610#post6360610


You cannot see the point between being free to join a party and having a shortlist. There is a great deal of difference. It is nothing to do with discrimination against white people as historically parliament has been made up of almost all white males which is not representative of our society. Shortlists are more commonly for females anyway so why you keep just mentioning 'black' people I don't know as it is more common for women to be on the shortlist. As I said before there is no bar to membership of the parties/associations which is the actual issue here

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=633252&p=6364941#post6364941

You need to put things into perspective a bit here. All women short lists, not that there are many, are legal and therefore not racist as that is illegal. Men, women of all age, creeds races who want to stand for parliament can put themselves forward . There is no bar. If you were applying for a job nobody can guarantee it for your local area - it is no different in politics. If anybody is that keen they will go for a constituency that is free.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=633252&p=6366358#post6366358

There is nothing stopping anybody as I have said before in this thread putting themselves forward for election in any consituency they choose and if there is another person selected they can stand as an independent if they are so parochial that it has to be their home town.

The sexual discrimination act was passed by MPs who were in the majority white males - just the category that you complain being discriminated against so at least they can see a point to it even if you can't. For hundreds of years the males of the country took up all positions of any power and that act was passed to redress the balance. It is now the 21st century where women have an equal place in society and deserve some sort of equal representation in our parliament which has been denied to them for centuries. It was voted in by a majority of men until 2030. In the normal workplace I would agree with you it should be the best man or woman for the post.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=633252&p=6366415#post6366415




I say again there are not 'black' shortlists. You seem to think it is fair that because of history when women were denied entry to the House of Commons because of discrimination of previous generations then they should not be given the chance to 'catch up' a bit? If a male is denied selection from your local constituency because of an all women shortlist then he is not much of a man to 'throw his toys out of the pram' and shout 'discrimination' and quite frankly I am sure that any man wishing to stand for election would understand the reason for it and not have such superficial, narrow minded views. There are plenty of constituencys in the UK to stand for election and there is always the opportunity if they feel they are the 'best man for the job' to enter as an independent.

If you asked for black people to be banned on the buses - yes I would say you are entitled to your opinion but I would not agree with. If I want to attend a anti BNP Rally that is up to me but that does not make me a sexist racist marxist as you seem to think. It is not my fault you don't like my answers NOW - WILL YOU PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE.