The all encompassing BNP thread - keep all crap in here.

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.

That doesn't make sense :confused: The point of positive discrimination is that it is controlled, temporary, and has positive consequences before ultimately making itself redundant. You want to retain an uncontrolled, permanent, negative discrimination because for some stupid reason you think that all discrimination is bad.

This doesn't by any chance have anything to do with the fact that you benefit from the permanent system of discrimination, does it? No, it couldn't do...
 
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?
I think the question is can YOU read, the issue here is not with voicing pro-BNP views at work, rather banning employment of its members entirely.

I have no issues with the idea that while at work people should keep their political views to themselves when acting as spokesperson for their employer, but the political views of a person should have no bearing in the recruitment process.
 
Why should anyone want to read this and go away thanks.

Because if you don't understand the difference principle and the principle of equality of opportunity you have precisely no place in discussing positive discrimination, since those are the two primary philosophical foundations of it? How can anyone expect to discuss an issue that they don't have the first clue about?
 
I think the question is can YOU read, the issue here is not with voicing pro-BNP views at work, rather banning employment of its members entirely.

I have no issues with the idea that while at work people should keep their political views to themselves when acting as spokesperson for their employer, but the political views of a person should have no bearing in the recruitment process.

It doesn't matter whether or not their views are being expressed at work (and if you actually read the post that you quoted, I never mentioned expressing them at work), it matters that their views are known--which they are if you make an explicit statement of them, e.g. by joining a political party that supports them. When those views conflict with your ability to do your job in a neutral way (for the aforementioned reasons), it is wholly justified to prevent that person's being employed.
 
It doesn't matter whether or not their views are being expressed at work (and if you actually read the post that you quoted, I never mentioned expressing them at work), it matters that their views are known--which they are if you make an explicit statement of them, e.g. by joining a political party that supports them. When those views conflict with your ability to do your job in a neutral way (for the aforementioned reasons), it is wholly justified to prevent that person's being employed.
It is not justified in the slightest, it is cowardice pure and simple.

If it does not interfere with their job, a person's views and private life has nothing to do with their employer.

Saying that simply by having their views known about (not entirely sure why they would be anyway, I don't tend to quiz my nurses on their political views) it tars the reputation of the body they work for is ludicrous, what evidence have you for this claim?
 
Because if you don't understand the difference principle and the principle of equality of opportunity you have precisely no place in discussing positive discrimination, since those are the two primary philosophical foundations of it?

I understand a principle but it appears that your view is rather clouded.

How can anyone expect to discuss an issue that they don't have the first clue about?

Get a life this is GD and not the real world.
 
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.

Actually he is, when we vote during a general election we vote for both the party and a PM, the democratic vote starts to work after he takes up his position as the leader of the UK, we elected him to make the right choices on our behalf, if he steps down another election should be done.
 
Saying that simply by having their views known about (not entirely sure why they would be anyway, I don't tend to quiz my nurses on their political views) it tars the reputation of the body they work for is ludicrous, what evidence have you for this claim?

How would you feel if you were an immigrant living in an area with high support for the BNP, knowing that when you went to the police you might very well be dealt with by someone who voted for a party that wanted to kick you out of the country? How do you think this would affect your trust of the police as an organisation?

There are several cases in recent memory where the racist actions of a few police officers or even a single officer have damaged the integrity of the police as an institution (see the declining trust in the police among ethnic minority communities following the Stephen Lawrence fiasco, the airing of The Secret Policeman, etc. etc.). Even the police complaints commission acknowledge that the perception of racism is just as damaging to the force as a whole as actual racism.
 
There are several cases in recent memory where the racist actions of a few police officers or even a single officer have damaged the integrity of the police as an institution

That's the key phrase, actions.

As for the immigrant chap who feels he might end up talking to a BNP supporting police officer, well, unfortunately that's the downside to a democracy that supports freedom of opinion, people might have opinions...

However as a balance, it's also a country of equality, so if the immigrant chap shows that the policeman behaved in a racist manner the policeman will be fired.
 
Actually he is, when we vote during a general election we vote for both the party and a PM

No, you vote for a party. The choice of PM is not stated on the ballot. You are voting for a party with a leader, and that leader becomes PM. But you only vote for the party itself; you do not specifically vote for the PM.

the democratic vote starts to work after he takes up his position as the leader of the UK, we elected him to make the right choices on our behalf, if he steps down another election should be done.

The head of the party is always chosen by the party (not by the public) and the head of the party becomes PM if the party wins a national election. If the PM steps down, the party votes for a new leader (who then becomes PM). Gordon Brown was elected by his party. He is not an unelected PM.
 
Last edited:
No, you vote for a party. The choice of PM is not stated on the ballot. You are voting for a party with a leader, and that leader becomes PM. But you only vote for the party itself; you do not specifically vote for the PM.



The head of the party is always chosen by the party (not by the public) and the head of the party becomes PM if the party wins a national election. If the PM steps down, the party votes for a new leader (who then becomes PM). Gordon Brown was elected by his party. He is not an unelected PM.


Whilst that is correct many people also base their vote on who would be PM, so in essenece they are voting for a person and not a party.

I know I won't be voting Labour if GB is still leader.


You can vote for whoever you want , its a free country.

And this
 
NW_SKINHEAD firstly you don't have to explain yourself to anyone and secondly take GD with a pinch of salt. For serious discussion I point you towards speakers corner where you will receive adult responses!
 
Last edited:
whilst i believe the BNP are nothing but the Nazi Party in disguise, using clever tactics to attract the average person to vote for them (immigration for example)


i also believe that everyone should have a free right to believe and vote for who ever they want.


i just hope the BNP never get in to power, as mentioned, they will create many more problems than they will solve
 
why should people be free from consequences for their active associations? remember we are talking about people who have gone to the level of actively becoming a party member.
 
I'm a little surprised that robmiller has been jumped upon like he has in this thread so far, personally I think that he has made some succinct and pertinent points. Working in the medical profession, I absolutely and especially agree, of course, that the standard of patient care is of utmost importance. This goes without saying.

Energize said:
Being anti-immigration doesn't affect your ability to do a job.

This is true. However in a field such as nursing, views such as this, as well as other sentiments that have been voiced by the BNP, may affect the standard to which this particular job is performed, not simply whether it is done or not. I have no proof of this of course, however there is evidence, as well as being common sense, that the standard of care received by patients in hospital affects their outcome.

I do not personally agree that nurses who are members of the BNP should be banned from their profession. This is because I see standards of nursing varying from awful to wonderful all the time, and it would be impossible to pinpoint low standards as resulting from political leaning, rather than say, basic laziness or incompetence. It is also unfair to assume that membership with the BNP is certain to affect one's performance.

However it is just as foolish to dismiss any actual bias as being irrelevant as it is not. Maintaining a standard of care requires impartiality, but membership with the BNP brings such impartiality into question, especially from a general public perspective I would think.
 
Back
Top Bottom