UKIP would axe "much of" law that prevents racial discrimination in work place

[Denny Crane!]

It was my argument that was simplified, I am not comparing you with anyone, except perhaps with a reasonable person who can read and follow clear instructions . I have every reason to believe that you understood what I was saying. Your problem is either blind stubborness, which I doubt or ideology, your politics are such that you simply cannot accept official or professional advice that contradicts your political viewpoint, that is the reason for your interjections, is it not?And no I don't see "someone else" as being authorative enough.There is no possibilty of you commanding that the legislation be something that it isn't. THe BNP and EDL are virtually extinct, do keep up. Are you saying that we cannot comment on UKIP on a political forum. Please tell us why that should be?

I'm done with you. Lost cause.

[6th Vigil]

I'll risk putting my head above the parapet here and say while positive action does not force companies to discriminate positively it does allow them to if they deem it necessary. I don't understand where the disagreement is coming from as positive action is just another form of "affirmative action" of which the allocation of quotas is just one of a few methods to grant advantages to minority groups.

Positive action, from my humble reading of the sources provided, achieves this by providing a legal loophole for companies/firms to discriminate on the basis of gender/ethnicity. This is unequivocally racial/sexual discrimination, whether you deem it socially beneficial or not.

[mongrel]

There you go. If UKIP foillowers don't know what "much of" the law is, one can see why Farage got a bit confused . I am pleased to note that Farage's speech marked the end of the UKIP "surge" .

I'll risk putting my head above the parapet here and say while positive action does not force companies to discriminate positively it does allow them to if they deem it necessary. I don't understand where the disagreement is coming from as positive action is just another form of "affirmative action" of which the allocation of quotas is just one of a few methods to grant advantages to minority groups.

Positive action, from my humble reading of the sources provided, achieves this by providing a legal loophole for companies/firms to discriminate on the basis of gender/ethnicity. This is unequivocally racial/sexual discrimination, whether you deem it socially beneficial or not.

I suggest you read the sources properly. Positve action under 158 has already been defined quite well by Califer. It deals with training , not recruitment. s159 as far as I can see just gives legal cover, should someone complain that an employer is making up the numbers. It is not (unlawfully) discriminatory to pick someone who is equally or better qualified. How can it be?

[Denny Crane!]

See this disagree with Mongrel and you are a UKIP follower^ I am not a UKIP supporter. Do you actually know if 6th Vigil is?

I suggest you read the sources properly. Positve action under 158 has already been defined quite well by Califer. It deals with training , not recruitment. s159 as far as I can see just gives legal cover, should someone complain that an employer is making up the numbers. It is not (unlawfully) discriminatory to pick someone who is equally or better qualified. How can it be?

If they make murder legal one day would that make murdering someone not be murder? It might not class as murder under the law anymore but it would still be fitting the definition and concept even though some government decided to legalise it.

[mongrel]

See this disagree with Mongrel and you are a UKIP follower^ I am not a UKIP supporter. Do you actually know if 6th Vigil is?



If they make murder legal one day would that make murdering someone not be murder?

You sound likeone, but anyway, correct. THe law is what matters here. After all there was a time when white working class men were guaranteed the best paid jobs through the union closed shop system.Employers had no say as to who they could recruit in those circumstances. I am not so hysterical as to compare that state of affairs to murder. I see the remedy to that injustice as entirely reasonable, unlike some.

[Denny Crane!]

You sound likeone, but anyway, correct. THe law is what matters here. After all there was a time when white working class men were guaranteed the best paid jobs through the union closed shop system.Employers had no say as to who they could recruit in those circumstances. I am not so hysterical as to compare that state of affairs to murder. I see the remedy to that injustice as entirely reasonable, unlike some.

So the law is the entire world, the meaning of words and language, concepts are irrelevant.

Well there you go and that is why you can't debate with me because you aren't engaging on the same level. Really I am not one dimensional nor is my understanding. So we can't debate, you have your own tiny little little world in regards this debate, and that is all there can ever be.

Edit: Actually the irony just struck me. I started by saying I find the law strange, and I am arguing with someone who says, "the law defines all, law is law, law creates definitions, and if you disagree UKIP (subscript you fething racist).

[mongrel]

So the law is the entire world, the meaning of words and language, concepts are irrelevant.

Well there you go and that is why you can't debate with me because you aren't engaging on the same level. Really I am not one dimensional nor is my understanding. So we can't debate, you have your own tiny little little world in regards this debate, and that is all there can ever be.

Edit: Actually the irony just struck me. I started by saying I find the law strange, and I am arguing with someone who says, "the law defines all, law is law, law creates definitions, and if you disagree UKIP (subscript you fething racist).

Yes as far as the real world is concerned an employer can rely entirely on the ACAS guides, the legislation and relevant case law. It is basic HR. Your worthless opinion would be of no use to anyone.

Now if you said s159 is overkill, the burden of proof in establishing direct discrimination where qualifications are equal is almost impossibly high, that is a reasonable debating point. I would even agree with you. But saying the law says something it does not suggests that you are happy to ignore hard facts, facts which cannot be ignored giving the authorative sources provided. Your viewpoint is no more worthy of debate than say, you suggesting that the Earth isn't round, or that Her Majesty is one of the lizard people.

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31846453

UKIP really want to make it hard for anybody to argue against anybody who claims they're an explicitly racist party.

I can't understand this, this is political absurdity? What possible good reason would there be for reintroducing race discrimination to the United Kingdom's workplaces? Is it even worth the sort of votes this will attract?

I wish we had sensible parties like UKIP in the Netherlands and all over Europe. Discrimination should be a human right, everyone should be free to chose twith whom they wish to associate or not, the government has NO business forcing anyone to do business with anyone. The only one who shouldn't be allowed to discriminate is the government itself.

[mongrel]

I wish we had sensible parties like UKIP in the Netherlands and all over Europe. Discrimination should be a human right, everyone should be free to chose twith whom they wish to associate or not, the government has NO business forcing anyone to do business with anyone. The only one who shouldn't be allowed to discriminate is the government itself.

More nonsense. A foreigner suggesting that we should be beastly to foreigners. You think UKIP is sensible because one of them blamed gay people for the recent floods? We have already had racist union closed shops telling bosses who amongst the inbreds and retards in their shallow gene pool they could pick, rather than select solely on merit. They repaid their employers for their privileged lives by forever going on strike, knowing that their bosses were to afraid to sack them. We have done with that. Away with your racist notions, it's the 21st century now. Selection should be on whether someone can do the job and nothing else.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I wish we had sensible parties like UKIP in the Netherlands and all over Europe. Discrimination should be a human right, everyone should be free to chose twith whom they wish to associate or not, the government has NO business forcing anyone to do business with anyone. The only one who shouldn't be allowed to discriminate is the government itself.

Well despite the lack of ethics here there's also the slight problem that factually speaking it's a total crock. Government can force you to business with people, and it can force you not to do business with people. Trade sanctions to making you not ruin people's working lives - the government has an interest in protecting it's citizens.

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

More nonsense. A foreigner suggesting that we should be beastly to foreigners. You think UKIP is sensible because one of them blamed gay people for the recent floods? We have already had racist union closed shops telling bosses who amongst the inbreds and retards in their shallow gene pool they could pick, rather than select solely on merit. They repaid their employers for their privileged lives by forever going on strike, knowing that their bosses were to afraid to sack them. We have done with that. Away with your racist notions, it's the 21st century now. Selection should be on whether someone can do the job and nothing else.

HOW DARE YOU CALL ME RACIST!!!!! just because I think the government should not force people to associate who do not want to associate or believe that it is up to the businessman to run HIS business, where he stands to loose stakes NOT YOU, other lefties or the government!

[swabian]

Oh wow... mongrel thinks someone's being racist again. I swoon with shock.

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

Oh wow... mongrel thinks someone's being racist again. I swoon with shock.

Since we became members, I already got a whole load of moderator infractions (all of which have been overturned btw) in the mudpit for saying far far less offensive (nothing offensive really even acording to the majority of mods...) but being called a racist, truely objectively is very offensive...

[swabian]

Careful with the insulting insinuations and the off-topic personal references and the disruptive postings. Yes, please, do consider this a warning. - Aikanár

[removeduser_487563287433]

HOW DARE YOU CALL ME RACIST!!!!! just because I think the government should not force people to associate who do not want to associate or believe that it is up to the businessman to run HIS business, where he stands to loose stakes NOT YOU, other lefties or the government!

A businessman that doesn't hire somebody because of their race is the definition of a racist, and it is the duty of a government to protect the rights of it's citizens from such people.

[SorelusImperion]

I am not racist but I realy don't want to associate with other races...

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

A businessman that doesn't hire somebody because of their race is the definition of a racist, and it is the duty of a government to protect the rights of it's citizens from such people.

So it's his business bad businesses go out of business, it's just wrong to use force or threaten to use force because someone makes bad business decisions. People should be free to associate with whom they want and whom they don't want. Do I have the same rights at having a go at your misses (assuming you have one) as you because if I don't that's discrimination too!

[SorelusImperion]

People should be free to associate

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

Nothing wrong with that, that's freedom, but most sensible people vote and choose with their wallets anyway...

[Denny Crane!]

Yeah when you are not wanting to associate with other Races it does suggest racist attitudes, and I'm one that Mongrel frequently infers racist calls towards.