BNP

[-:Undertaker:-]

So in an attempt to produce a counter argument you basically just keep on pretending that such things as sexism dont exist in the workplace, generalise what a typical role for a gender is and insult me. Isn't it patronising that I have to sit here and read things you try and pass off as facts when in fact their your own opinion and no one elses?

The BNP are small minded bigots whos popularity stem off events that have happened in the public eye. Put them in power and they wouldnt know what to do with it, they'd certainly un-do the work that has been done in the last 20 years under both Conservative and Labour governments to promote equality in society thats for sure.

I'm not insulting you, you appear to enjoy bureaucracy so you would be very well suited to a job in the European Union or Whitehall. I can generalise a job for a gender because its common sense and is the truth, are we going to ever have an equal amount of women builders as we are men builders? - no, because men can carry out more jobs in building and are more interested in it, the same the other way around with teaching and various other roles.

I do not want the British National Party in power, I want a Conservative government or even better but not as likely, a UKIP government to cut these pathetic discrimation laws away, to tackle bureaucracy in both Brussels and Whitehall and to have small goverment again. People hire, and have done long before these laws come into place, the best person for the job.

They are fact, i'm not ignoring anything I am confronting your opinion head on and will continue to do so.

The only way to stop the minority is to target the majority. It happens all the time. It won't affect people who aren't doing wrong in the first place.

And that stuff about the witch is rubbish. The law states that job roles can be open to only specific people if it suits the nature of the role. For example, when hiring a model role or a part in a musical theatre, they could be open to women or men only.

If you have a look at the laws, they seem very fair and should go without saying really.. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

These laws aren't needed and never will be, maybe fifty or so years ago but not today. The Witch stuff is not rubbish because there have been numerous examples of this type of situtation arising, and I read this on the BBC website aswell so its not as if its from a tabloid.

I simply don't agree that you should hire someone based on race, sexuality, age or gender and i'd be offended if I was given a job based on anyone of them, they are not needed and are insulting to them minorities/groups. Its time this government and the left stopped interfering in everything. They and their laws are not needed or wanted.

[Plank]

I'm not insulting you, you appear to enjoy bureaucracy so you would be very well suited to a job in the European Union or Whitehall. I can generalise a job for a gender because its common sense and is the truth, are we going to ever have an equal amount of women builders as we are men builders? - no, because men can carry out more jobs in building and are more interested in it, the same the other way around with teaching and various other roles.

I do not want the British National Party in power, I want a Conservative government or even better but not as likely, a UKIP government to cut these pathetic discrimation laws away, to tackle bureaucracy in both Brussels and Whitehall and to have small goverment again. People hire, and have done long before these laws come into place, the best person for the job.

They are fact, i'm not ignoring anything I am confronting your opinion head on and will continue to do so.



These laws aren't needed and never will be, maybe fifty or so years ago but not today. The Witch stuff is not rubbish because there have been numerous examples of this type of situtation arising, and I read this on the BBC website aswell so its not as if its from a tabloid.

I simply don't agree that you should hire someone based on race, sexuality, age or gender and i'd be offended if I was given a job based on anyone of them, they are not needed and are insulting to them minorities/groups. Its time this government and the left stopped interfering in everything. They and their laws are not needed or wanted.

You don't agree that you should hire someone based on race, sexuality, etc. - That's what these laws are there for, to stop people hiring on that basis. These laws are needed because there are still some small-minded people out there which will refuse to hire a gay person or someone of a certain religion even if they are perfect for the role.

And maybe people in the media complaining about all this witch stuff should read the law properly - they didn't have to open the job to men and women because the role of a women as a witch is suited for the nature of the role.

The stuff in bold - we never are going to have an equal amount of men and women as builders, who said we should have?

What you are saying are typical stereotypes. Not ALL women hate building - there are many out there which are perfectly suited for the job. The law is there to stop employers snubbing their noses at a women applying for a building job JUST because of her gender.

[Catzsy]

I am, because it mainly doesn't exist. Men are majorly suited better at business because it shows, as their are more men in the business sector; just like their are more women in teaching and nursing.

You, the left and the Labour Party need to stop this patronisation of everyone and punishing the majority, the discrimination laws Labour brought in are so stupid that I read a job opening for a witch in a tourist attration cave had to be open to men, because of these discrimination laws - if you think that is common sense then you have lost the plot.

Oh my god Sir Alan had a bit of light hearted fun!; you are well on your way to Brussels or Whitehall mate, your ideally suited to it.

Oh dear - you sound like you are from the 1960s.

[LuketheDuke]

Plank basically just said everything I was going to say.

You say such rules arent needed or required and that the Tories, UKIP or most definately the BNP would seemingly scrap them but in reality that would mean upsetting voters, potential right wing voters who still see it as righteous to eliminate all forms of discrimination in the workplace.

Labour promised electoral reform in 1997 but after getting such a majority would they? Of course not. I'd love to see what UKIP would do if they got in, wanted to withdraw from the EU and then realise the tax hikes and cost of living increases they'd have to face.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You don't agree that you should hire someone based on race, sexuality, etc. - That's what these laws are there for, to stop people hiring on that basis. These laws are needed because there are still some small-minded people out there which will refuse to hire a gay person or someone of a certain religion even if they are perfect for the role.

And maybe people in the media complaining about all this witch stuff should read the law properly - they didn't have to open the job to men and women because the role of a women as a witch is suited for the nature of the role.

The stuff in bold - we never are going to have an equal amount of men and women as builders, who said we should have?

People are not like that though, maybe a few and to be honest if someone thinks a certain person is too camp for a job/not suitable in looks or personality then they should have all the right in the world to not employ that person. I believe if someone owns a business, they have a right to hire whoever they want, and it is not up to the government to tell them what to think/who to think would be best suited to their company.

The BBC is historically left wing and considering that has come from the BBC which is pro-Labour who brought in these laws then i'd say everyone has reached a broad concensus that all these laws do is bring in more regulations and red tape, and bring up tricky situtations for employers who will hire based on skin colour/gender/sexuality rather than the persons ability;- again, victimising the majority.

If I had to choose between a man or a woman to be a builder, and they were both equally suited and did just as good as eachother in the interview, who would I choose? - the male because he is stronger and far more capable to carry out tasks on a building site than a woman. Under what I understand of these laws, that would be considered sexist.

Plank basically just said everything I was going to say.

You say such rules arent needed or required and that the Tories, UKIP or most definately the BNP would seemingly scrap them but in reality that would mean upsetting voters, potential right wing voters who still see it as righteous to eliminate all forms of discrimination in the workplace.

Labour promised electoral reform in 1997 but after getting such a majority would they? Of course not. I'd love to see what UKIP would do if they got in, wanted to withdraw from the EU and then realise the tax hikes and cost of living increases they'd have to face.

I think you have a very confused opinion of what right-wing is, right wingers support small government and full democracy especially to business and to the people, compared to socialists and the left who prefer large centralised government and more power to the state. The majority of this country, and especially middle england (the right wing voting bloc) despise these sort of regulations from both Whitehall and Brussels.

Anybody who votes Labour should know what to expect, lies and empty promises. Do not label UKIP with the same brush as as Labour Party who refuse to answer questions on nearly every show they send their ministers on. The cost of living would not increase due to the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, not only do we pay higher taxes for the European Union but we also pay higher prices on our food to be in the European Union.

Oh dear - you sound like you are from the 1960s.

Otherwise known as common sense.

[Plank]

People are not like that though, maybe a few and to be honest if someone thinks a certain person is too camp for a job/not suitable in looks or personality then they should have all the right in the world to not employ that person. I believe if someone owns a business, they have a right to hire whoever they want, and it is not up to the government to tell them what to think/who to think would be best suited to their company.

The BBC is historically left wing and considering that has come from the BBC which is pro-Labour who brought in these laws then i'd say everyone has reached a broad concensus that all these laws do is bring in more regulations and red tape, and bring up tricky situtations for employers who will hire based on skin colour/gender/sexuality rather than the persons ability;- again, victimising the majority.

If I had to choose between a man or a woman to be a builder, and they were both equally suited and did just as good as eachother in the interview, who would I choose? - the male because he is stronger and far more capable to carry out tasks on a building site than a woman. Under what I understand of these laws, that would be considered sexist.



I think you have a very confused opinion of what right-wing is, right wingers support small government and full democracy especially to business and to the people, compared to socialists and the left who prefer large centralised government and more power to the state. The majority of this country, and especially middle england (the right wing voting bloc) despise these sort of regulations from both Whitehall and Brussels.

Anybody who votes Labour should know what to expect, lies and empty promises. To not label UKIP with the same brush as as Labour Party who refuse to answer questions on nearly every show they send their ministers on. The cost of living would not increase due to the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, not only do we pay higher taxes for the European Union but we also pay higher prices on our food to be in the European Union.



Otherwise known as common sense.

It's not common sense - it's the opinion of a bigot.

Words completely fail me. No matter what perfectly reasonable counter-argument someone comes up with, you're always going to be stuck in the past. I think every argument against you in this thread has been much stronger than yours, and no matter what anyone says you will always throw back the same, repetitive, hogwash. This is why this debate is going nowhere.

The fact is, the BNP will never be in power, and the way you want life (full of stereotypes and discrimination) was so 50 years ago. People have moved on.

Lets just agree to disagree.

[LuketheDuke]

I know what ring wing means tyvm, the point I made was that the Tories/UKIP etc make these promises to us know that they'll do this and that but when push comes to shove they wont change anything as its too much of a fuss to do so without causing public outcry.

For instance no EU means paying for imported and exported goods from Europe which means we pay more. No more EU means no more structured rebates that the EU collectively pays for making it cheaper for us to pay taxes for such sectors as agriculture.

i.e EU = put 2 pounds in and get 1 pound back (our other pound helps other nations).

Independence = put 2 pounds in get nothing back, we front the entire bill.

The whole concept sounds iffy and I'm neutral on the EU but this just seems like a better system.

[alexxxxx]

People are not like that though, maybe a few and to be honest if someone thinks a certain person is too camp for a job/not suitable in looks or personality then they should have all the right in the world to not employ that person. I believe if someone owns a business, they have a right to hire whoever they want, and it is not up to the government to tell them what to think/who to think would be best suited to their company.

So if someone decides they don't want to employ gays or black people or muslims or hindus that's ok, even if they were born here.. I think taht most people believe that equal opportunities are important.

If I had to choose between a man or a woman to be a builder, and they were both equally suited and did just as good as eachother in the interview, who would I choose? - the male because he is stronger and far more capable to carry out tasks on a building site than a woman. Under what I understand of these laws, that would be considered sexist.

Well, you've answered your own question, the woman isn't as well suited as the man. That's not what it's about. If the woman was stronger than the man and could do all the work to the same/higher standard, however the empolyer's prejudiced stance on 'woman can't be builders' makes sure the man gets the job.

Anybody who votes Labour should know what to expect, lies and empty promises. To not label UKIP with the same brush as as Labour Party who refuse to answer questions on nearly every show they send their ministers on. The cost of living would not increase due to the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, not only do we pay higher taxes for the European Union but we also pay higher prices on our food to be in the European Union.

UKIP are dreadful and the cost of living would be similiar or maybe higher, as we import alot (if not the majority) of our food from the EU, therefore having to pay those prices anyway. The cost of the EU is dwarfed by the size of how much money is burned up in the deserts of the middle-east in wars that only turn others against us. Each person in the UK pays £150ish to the EU a year. Seeing as the average allary in the UK is 28k, that's hardly anything. Our exports to the EU (over 50%) would have to follow thier rulebook and we wouldn't get a say on what's in it at all - there would be noone looking after our interests at all. Plus we'd have to join the EEA, which we'd have to pay anyway.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's not common sense - it's the opinion of a bigot.

Words completely fail me. No matter what perfectly reasonable counter-argument someone comes up with, you're always going to be stuck in the past. I think every argument against you in this thread has been much stronger than yours, and no matter what anyone says you will always throw back the same, repetitive, hogwash. This is why this debate is going nowhere.

The fact is, the BNP will never be in power, and the way you want life (full of stereotypes and discrimination) was so 50 years ago. People have moved on.

Lets just agree to disagree.

Stuck in the past? - I think you yourself are stuck in all this red tape nonsense. If common sense is being stuck in the past then i'm stuck in the past and proud, and so are the majority of this country then. Who said I wanted discrimination, there is hardly any discrimination and that is my point, by having these laws and groups it is creating new discrimination so do not put words in my mouth.

I know what ring wing means tyvm, the point I made was that the Tories/UKIP etc make these promises to us know that they'll do this and that but when push comes to shove they wont change anything as its too much of a fuss to do so without causing public outcry.

For instance no EU means paying for imported and exported goods from Europe which means we pay more. No more EU means no more structured rebates that the EU collectively pays for making it cheaper for us to pay taxes for such sectors as agriculture.

i.e EU = put 2 pounds in and get 1 pound back (our other pound helps other nations).

Independence = put 2 pounds in get nothing back, we front the entire bill.

The whole concept sounds iffy and I'm neutral on the EU but this just seems like a better system.

No, independance would not mean putting £2 into the European Union and getting nothing back, independance would mean keeping the £2 to ourselves. We do not expect to pay our taxes to fund other nations while our own roads crumble and our country sinks futher into debt.

You have a strange idea of rebate. The rebate means for example, we give the European Union £10 and we then get £3.50 back, independance would mean keeping that £10 and spending it here, where it was earned.

So if someone decides they don't want to employ gays or black people or muslims or hindus that's ok, even if they were born here.. I think taht most people believe that equal opportunities are important.


Well, you've answered your own question, the woman isn't as well suited as the man. That's not what it's about. If the woman was stronger than the man and could do all the work to the same/higher standard, however the empolyer's prejudiced stance on 'woman can't be builders' makes sure the man gets the job.


UKIP are dreadful and the cost of living would be similiar or maybe higher, as we import alot (if not the majority) of our food from the EU, therefore having to pay those prices anyway. The cost of the EU is dwarfed by the size of how much money is burned up in the deserts of the middle-east in wars that only turn others against us. Each person in the UK pays £150ish to the EU a year. Seeing as the average allary in the UK is 28k, that's hardly anything. Our exports to the EU (over 50%) would have to follow thier rulebook and we wouldn't get a say on what's in it at all - there would be noone looking after our interests at all. Plus we'd have to join the EEA, which we'd have to pay anyway.

No it is not ok, most people are not like that. However if someone doesn't want to hire someone on the grounds that they are camp/not suited to the workplace or job then they should have all rights not to hire that person. The example you gave simply doesn't happen, employers employ based on how good someone would be for the job, these discrimination laws are not needed and create tricky situtations where employers would be feeling pressured to hire a certain amount of certain groups of people, regardless of their ability.

Yes, the United Kingdom Independance Party are dreadful for standing up to a unelected union of which nobody wants, while Labour happily tell lies to the electorate and then when in power happily sign away our sovereign powers. I'd like to know why Labour MPs & pro-EU MPs even bother standing for parliament when they support signing away our parliaments powers to the European Union.

Your right on the wars, so common sense would say to stop these illegal wars and save billions, and then leave the European Union and also save billions aswell as having 75%+ of our sovereignty given back to us!

How is it that the rest of the world, which is around 200 other states happily trade with the European Union without paying billions into the European Union?

Everyone can see the European Unions true aim, not economic but political. They want a politial union and the people do not. Why is that so hard to understand?

[alexxxxx]

well china had a problem a few years back when we wouldn't let them export any more cheap clothing into our union because they had reached the quota limit. The EU agreed to let them start using the next year's quota early. So there's at least one problem that one country has come across. and every other country in the world does often have to pay import taxes when exporting. when you go to the USA
you have to pay tax at the aiport when you come back with hiugh value goods such as computers.