No it doesn't, just because you support a party doesn't mean you support all their policies, you can be a member of the bnp because you support their healthcare or education policies. Doesn't mean your going to be overdosing the 'blacks'.
The all encompassing BNP thread - keep all crap in here.
- Thread starter Stolly
- Start date
No it doesn't, just because you support a party doesn't mean you support all their policies, you can be a member of the bnp because you support their healthcare or education policies. Doesn't mean your going to be overdosing the 'blacks'.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 718
Simply because a lot of us on OcUK require more solid logic to form a base for our own opinions.
I agree with very little of what you say yet I still think you're perfectly entitled to your views and you have no need to fight the uphill battle every post you make tends to turn into
Of course you don't have to support all their policies, but are you actually trying to suggest that people vote for the BNP without supporting their central, anti-immigration tenet? That's absolutely ridiculous.
It's not obvious and it's not for people to make assumptions based on political views.
I hate to trot out the old argument but it is shockingly like how Nazi Germany started.
'Oh, of course you're free to support whatever political party you choose, but if you support them, them or them, you can't do x, y or z'
It's nothing like that all, for god's sake. Not letting racists into the police force, or at least forcing them to hide their racism, is such an obviously good thing that I don't even know where to begin trying to comprehend the opposite.
The police force, health service, etc., in order to be effective, need to be totally neutral. That neutrality is completely compromised if they allow their employees to air racist views. Why do you think this policy was even instituted in the first place?
Its a racist policy, you fail on the very foundation of what equality means.
Being anti-immigration doesn't affect your ability to do a job. Just like a judge owning animals doesn't affect his ability to rule over animal cruelty cases, people can be objective regardless of personal life.
It's irrelevant what party they support anyway, your trying to ban people from legitimate polictical parties from working in jobs on the misfounded belief that it will affect their work, when there are just as many racists who aren't members of the bnp working as nurses, it's totally unworkable, it's like banning people from owning knives in case they stab someone, "what if" legislation.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 718
Yes I did read all of your points. However, I do not agree that we should be treating the possibility, that somewhere along the line something could happen, as a guiding principle for our decisions on how to run any part of our country or society.
I also totally disagree with the statement that "religion has less of an impact than political views" when it comes to bias and/or discrimination. Which of the two has bred more discrimination in the past and which of the two continues to breed the most? I am fairly sure it is not someone's political persuasion.
Last edited:
For a start nobody is 'totally neutral'.
Secondly you're so consumed by your own bias that all BNP members are racist that it's colouring your judgement.
A person's political party should have nothing to do with recruitment policy, if a person is recruited and then shows racist behaviour then fire them, recruiting somebody or not based on their political party is no better than basing it on their religion.
Why is everyone ignoring the fact that these are organisations which rely on public trust, and therefore the actual bias is irrelevant? Merely the perception of bias is sufficient, and among the general public and particularly among ethnic minorities, the overwhelming belief is that "BNP = racist". Therefore, public trust in these organisations as neutral entities will be damaged if it allows these people to air their views while in the job, even if they do their job in a neutral way.
Not one of you has addressed this point!
I suppose it's a good job I never made that statement or anything like it then, I suppose
Not one of you has addressed this point!
I suppose it's a good job I never made that statement or anything like it then, I suppose
Learn what equality of opportunity is, please.
edit: actually please just read this and come back thanks
edit 2: a succinct summary of rawls' second principle can be found here if you don't want to make the effort of going to a library and actually reading a book: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#TwoPriJusFai
Last edited:
So recruitment policy should be influenced by what we suspect people might think the person might do if we recruit them?
Sounds like a plan!
Simply because a lot of us on OcUK require more solid logic to form a base for our own opinions.
I agree with very little of what you say yet I still think you're perfectly entitled to your views and you have no need to fight the uphill battle every post you make tends to turn into
But the point is if my views are some what inline with some of BNPs policies, iam a racist and i shouldnt be allowed to say what i think. BNP policies are truely the best policies infact the only policies that make any logical sense. Most people are being brain washed by government Propaganda, BNP didnt force their propaganda on me, i choose to support them because of what policies they would introduce, that suits me, the same as what policies suit an individual supporting labour.
Labour is a big business party not a party for the people, they left all that in the 80s, new labour is a party for big business and for cheap labour.
Personally I think peoples healthcare is more important than imagined bias, ridiculous to employ less than the best, especially when life or death situations are involved. From what I can see, the organisations reputation is more damaged by these policies as they are seen as discriminatory, I for one never heard anyone even mention the bnp in realation to the nhs before today. Should we ban gay people too because they are disliked by many?
Can you read? I said that the public perception of a public organisation should be a factor in its recruitment policy. It is a completely uncontroversial statement to say that allowing police officers to voice pro-BNP views would challenge the neutrality of the police as an organisation. Therefore, the ill of preventing officers from speaking freely is far outweighed by the good of maintaining as neutral a police force as possible.
Which particular bit do you take issue with?
He's not an unelected Prime Minister. He was elected by his party via democratic vote, which is how the system works.
Even when we vote in national elections, we're not voting for a Prime Minister; we're voting for his party.
When you introduce positive discrimination you are infact creating a situation of unequal opportunity. I(norder to have positive discrimination some else must have discrimination.
So there shouldnt be ethnicity sections on applications, or place of birth, just by adding that is racist.
Why should anyone want to read this and go away thanks.
Yes we all can, time for bed..... and grind the axe
Last edited: