not so sure that it a left or right wing ideology as such. it seemed to start around 1980ish. there was a lot stuff of going on then about trying to change the way people in a mass think and behave, be it in the workplace, a football match, bus que, supermarket etc.
it all sort of got mixed in together and when political correctness reared its ugly head it acted as a catalyst. we seem to be in a strange state where political correctness is mixed in with various managerial concepts, political ideologies, sociological theories (unproven), and some sort of collective shame that we are all supposed to feel very bad about, what horrible cowsons we are and our forefathers were for all the bad deeds of the empire and the wests general conquest of the rest of the world.
coupled with the break down of strong traditional social bonds such as mining communities, steel communities, the docks, the unions and social clubs, that sprang up from these traditional industries. the marginalisation of the churches, and then the move towards globalisation. somehow this strange state as got a hold and replaced common sense, and i believe got its take up accelerated courtesy of the eu
Free speech is in retreat throughout the West
Rochdale grooming trial: Police accused of failing to investigate paedophile gang for fear of appearing racist - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... acist.html
How do you insult someone legally? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18102815
-
superfrank
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:28 pm
[Black] Woman held over racist bus rant 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19340264
here's the rant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcZ1D2LCsao
pretty similar to the white woman (who was remanded in custody) for her rant on a bus last year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pONVYjAd1wc
let's hope they are treated the same.
imho both should have been given a warning for public disturbance and that's it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19340264
here's the rant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcZ1D2LCsao
pretty similar to the white woman (who was remanded in custody) for her rant on a bus last year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pONVYjAd1wc
let's hope they are treated the same.
imho both should have been given a warning for public disturbance and that's it.
-
superfrank
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:28 pm
naturally, it's the BBC. racism is a one way street in their eyes.
Police probe after BNP leader Nick Griffin post address of gay couple in B&B row on Twitter and threatens to bring 'drama' to their door
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z29lkxfRcg
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z29lkxfRcg
Stuart Rodger sentenced for shouting at David Cameron - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-20181601
I find it a bit disturbing that someone can get community service in modern day Britain for shouting out a political slogan...
Jeff
I find it a bit disturbing that someone can get community service in modern day Britain for shouting out a political slogan...
Jeff
-
mulberryhawk
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:37 am
I find the rar right element of this thread more disturbing to be honest 
Are you making a joke or a serious point? If it's the former, it's not very funny, and if it's the latter then you are bang out of order and wide of the mark.
It's liberals who play into the far right's hands, not people who have right of centre views on thinks like immigration and government spending. As we are seeing in Greece with the rise of the Golden Dawn, there comes a point when the effects of decades of left-wing policies come home to roost...
If I can make a novel suggestion, it wouldn't hurt for you to address arguments rather than engage in childish name calling...
Jeff
It's liberals who play into the far right's hands, not people who have right of centre views on thinks like immigration and government spending. As we are seeing in Greece with the rise of the Golden Dawn, there comes a point when the effects of decades of left-wing policies come home to roost...
If I can make a novel suggestion, it wouldn't hurt for you to address arguments rather than engage in childish name calling...
Jeff
-
mulberryhawk
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:37 am
no joke, deadly serious. I would have thought the post about the bnp leader threatening homosexuals would have disturbed someone more than shouting at politicians. That was merely my point.
That is what's called a straw man argument! 
The BNP leader wasn't threatening anyone - he was merely saying his party would be holding a peaceful protest. I disagree with that protest, btw, but I do think that it's absurd that the gay couple were able to sue a guest house for not accepting them. Surely people should be free to choose who they allow to stay in their home. And as for the claim that their practice is homophobic, they also don't allow heterosexual unmarried couples to share a room. But I digress...
And what makes you think I'm disturbed about someone shouting at politicians?!? I'm not - I'm disturbed that it can be a criminal offense to do so!
Jeff
The BNP leader wasn't threatening anyone - he was merely saying his party would be holding a peaceful protest. I disagree with that protest, btw, but I do think that it's absurd that the gay couple were able to sue a guest house for not accepting them. Surely people should be free to choose who they allow to stay in their home. And as for the claim that their practice is homophobic, they also don't allow heterosexual unmarried couples to share a room. But I digress...
And what makes you think I'm disturbed about someone shouting at politicians?!? I'm not - I'm disturbed that it can be a criminal offense to do so!
Jeff
mulberryhawk wrote:no joke, deadly serious. I would have thought the post about the bnp leader threatening homosexuals would have disturbed someone more than shouting at politicians. That was merely my point.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
It has always been the case that people are free to decide as to who stays in their home and remains so. But this was not a home it was a business premises. No different to any other business not being allowed to discriminate on sexuality, age, race, religion etc etc.Ferru123 wrote:I do think that it's absurd that the gay couple were able to sue a guest house for not accepting them. Surely people should be free to choose who they allow to stay in their home.
If they did not want people who were gay to stay in their home the simple option was not to set up a B&B.
Not sure why you think some businesses should be allowed to discriminate and others not?
It was a home as well as a business.andyfuller wrote: That has always been the case and remains so. But this was not a home it was a business premises. No different to any other business not being allowed to discriminate on sexuality, age, race, religion etc etc.
And given that they didn't let unmarried heterosexual couples share a room at their guest house, where's the discrimination?
I put it to you that the law discriminates against Christians by not allowing them to determine who they sell their services to in accordance with their faith.
A better option yet would be for the courts not to interfere in something that's none of their rightful business...andyfuller wrote:If they did not want people who were gay to stay in their home the simple option was not to set up a B&B.
Not sure why you think that I think that...andyfuller wrote:Not sure why you think some businesses should be allowed to discriminate and others not?
Jeff
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
They were offering the room on the basis that they would charge for it, hence they were operating a business. As such the judgement was made with regards to the business. There was no judgement made on who they could and could not let stay in their private home.
The discrimination is plain to see.
The law doesn't discriminate against Christians, the same law applies to all businesses and all religions. Christians are no more singled out than non Christians. The same rules apply to all. Just because you don't agree or believe in the law does not mean it discriminates against you.
My belief is that the 30mph speed limit in my village is to low but the law is the law and applies to all and as such does not discriminate against my belief it is just different to my belief.
It is entirely the business of the courts to make sure businesses act fairly to all no matter what the business owners beliefs or other thoughts are. For example, Peter Webb would not be entitled to refuse to sell his software to Gay people, do you think he would/should be allowed to ask what peoples sexual tendencies were prior to subscribing?
Reason I asked why you think some businesses should be allowed to discriminate and others not is because you say the B&B owners should be allowed to discriminate against Gay people but I would have thought you would not agree with say Apple being allowed to refuse to sell their goods to gay people, or do you think Apple should be?
The discrimination is plain to see.
The law doesn't discriminate against Christians, the same law applies to all businesses and all religions. Christians are no more singled out than non Christians. The same rules apply to all. Just because you don't agree or believe in the law does not mean it discriminates against you.
My belief is that the 30mph speed limit in my village is to low but the law is the law and applies to all and as such does not discriminate against my belief it is just different to my belief.
It is entirely the business of the courts to make sure businesses act fairly to all no matter what the business owners beliefs or other thoughts are. For example, Peter Webb would not be entitled to refuse to sell his software to Gay people, do you think he would/should be allowed to ask what peoples sexual tendencies were prior to subscribing?
Reason I asked why you think some businesses should be allowed to discriminate and others not is because you say the B&B owners should be allowed to discriminate against Gay people but I would have thought you would not agree with say Apple being allowed to refuse to sell their goods to gay people, or do you think Apple should be?