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

likwid · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:30

mattheman said:
So you dont feel that athletics is dominated by non whites? so thats fine in your terms of having an equal non racial society.

That's hilarious. Are you for real?

In your mind in sport clubs around the world athletes are selected to represent their club, region or country not by their athletic prowess, but by the colour of their skin? That is quite possibly the stupidest assertion I have ever responded to on the internet.

Sudden · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:33

mattheman said:
He wasnt the father, so what about india brazil and other countries that have high pre teen birth rates.

That's why I said supposed.

And I can't speak for brazil, but in the case of India at least, yes it probably exists. But, the key difference is, in areas where it exists its because the people feel its necessary to have a kid in order to have a worker so they can survive. In the major cities etc, or basically where people are educated to a certain standard, it does not. At least in my experience of living there for 17 years, did not know anyone who was pregnant, and did not know anyone who knew anyone who was pregnant, in their teens. Forget pre-teens. This is over 5 schools in 4 different cities, all over India. Vastly different from it happening in Britain where the children are, at least in theory, educated regardless to a certain standard. Not only that, but things such as sex education exist, which they don't really at school in India. Circumstances matter, and they are vastly different. I would imagine Brazil is much the same as India, but can't make a firm judgement since I haven't spent time there.

mattheman · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:33

Sudden said:
But surely being dominated by them, and racism existing within athletics are two completely different things?

So how can you differentiate between that and a company dominated by white workers?

Sudden · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:34

Neodite said:
Aww but you still have to feel bad for him, bless him

Haha. true enough. Especially when he was asked how he was financially going to take care of it and he said 'what's financially?'

Though you feel slightly worse for the baby

likwid · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:35

mattheman said:
So how can you differentiate between that and a company dominated by white workers?

Before someone answers, go ahead and try and work that one out for yourself.

panthro · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:36

likwid said:
That's hilarious. Are you for real?

In your mind in sport clubs around the world athletes are selected to represent their club, region or country not by their athletic prowess, but by the colour of their skin? That is quite possibly the stupidest assertion I have ever responded to on the internet.

Ive got deja vu, Im sure theres been a discussion on this before. Its laughable that someone would actually believe that athletes are selected based on the colour of their skin.

mattheman · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:37

likwid said:
That's hilarious. Are you for real?

In your mind in sport clubs around the world athletes are selected to represent their club, region or country not by their athletic prowess, but by the colour of their skin? That is quite possibly the stupidest assertion I have ever responded to on the internet.

No it isnt a stupid question, because you dont really understand the question itself. So your saying they are selected because they are better, ok now take that into the work place, government has imposed a percent of non white workers. Now lets say they need one more non white worker however the white worker is better suited for the position, but under law the company has to hire the non white guy.

Sudden · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:37

likwid said:
Before someone answers, go ahead and try and work that one out for yourself.

Naw. That would be expecting too much

likwid · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:37

panthro said:
Ive got deja vu, Im sure theres been a discussion on this before. Its laughable that someone would actually believe that athletes are selected based on the colour of their skin.

Was mat the man involved in that discussion?

Neodite · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:38

likwid said:
Before someone answers, go ahead and try and work that one out for yourself.

Because "none white" (sorry best way i could put it lol) are better at athletics so get picked over whites

But wait

why carnt the companys with all whites be like that because they are the best people that applied for those jobs...

Your arguments are very weak at best

mattheman · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:39

Neodite said:
Because "none white" (sorry best way i could put it lol) are better at athletics so get picked over whites

thats a racist comment you just said.

Neodite · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:40

mattheman said:
thats a racist comment you just said.

So would you prefer me to say blacks are faster runners? whats the differance?

semi-pro waster · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:42

Neodite said:
And you can tell that by text how? He is most probably an immigrant and is being very seriouse. But will probably now say it is sarcasum as he will see how much of a **** he sounds

The future's bright, the future's Orange. Does that ring any bells at all?

It seems a fairly obvious and over the top parody but perhaps that's just my failure to interpret it correctly.

likwid · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:43

mattheman said:
No it isnt a stupid question, because you dont really understand the question itself. So your saying they are selected because they are better, ok now take that into the work place, government has imposed a percent of non white workers. Now lets say they need one more non white worker however the white worker is better suited for the position, but under law the company has to hire the non white guy.

No, it was a blatantly stupid assertion - don't try and back out of it.

Under law businesses are required to select the best qualified candidate for the job, whether female or of an ethnic minority. If a proportionate representation of the labour market is employed by a business then the race and gender of the employ will also proportionate.

mattheman · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:45

likwid said:
No, it was a blatantly stupid assertion - don't try and back out of it.

Under law businesses are required to select the best qualified candidate for the job, whether female or of an ethnic minority. If a proportionate representation of the labour market is employed by a business then the race and gender of the employ will also proportionate.

No under law ethnic or female have priority over a white male.

RDM · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:46

mattheman said:
No it isnt a stupid question, because you dont really understand the question itself. So your saying they are selected because they are better, ok now take that into the work place, government has imposed a percent of non white workers. Now lets say they need one more non white worker however the white worker is better suited for the position, but under law the company has to hire the non white guy.

Your understanding of the law is incorrect. There is absolutely no requirement in law to hire someone that is less suited to a role just because of skin colour.

wilsky · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:47

likwid said:
Anyone can join the National Black Police Association. If you do feel racial discrimination and bullying exists within athletics, then by all means go ahead and start a like-minded association. Let us know how many people sign up.

Anyone can vote for the BNP. You do realise that black people can vote for them. They don't stop anyone voting for them, regardless of skin colour or race.

And be realistic, do you ever envisage a white person rising to the top of the BPA, or representing them at a high level? Of course not. It just isn't going to happen. And therefore it is a racist organisation, to claim it isn't is insulting peoples intelligence or you have your head firmly planted up your own rear end.

Incidentally, you are aware that Asians in Oldham were delivering leaflet for the BNP.

At the end of the day, they are a legal party and they got in via legitimate means. If you don't like it, tough, that is how democracy works, and that is what people in that area wanted. If they didn't, then they should have done something about it, like got of their backsides and voted. If there was no-one they wanted to vote for then they should have stood for the position themselves.

You may not like the BNP, but unless they are made illegal you will have to tolerate them. Otherwise you become no better than them (IE, just as intolerant to the opinions of other minority groups)

likwid · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:48

mattheman said:
No under law ethnic or female have priority over a white male.

No, that's only your interpretation of the law.

mattheman · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:49

likwid said:
No, it was a blatantly stupid assertion - don't try and back out of it.

Under law businesses are required to select the best qualified candidate for the job, whether female or of an ethnic minority. If a proportionate representation of the labour market is employed by a business then the race and gender of the employ will also proportionate.

So what you said was non whites are better at sports that whites, so then why can't i say whites are more intelligent than blacks because they've invent almost everything along with some asians.

RDM · 10 Jun 2009 at 10:49

mattheman said:
No under law ethnic or female have priority over a white male.

Incorrect. A law is currently being proposed to make it legal to hire someone on the basis of gender or race (and here is the important bit) if the candidates are equally qualified for the role. But it has no been enacted as of yet. Even if it was enacted if you are the best candidate for the job you will still get the job.