Discrimination again...

mejinks

mejinks

mejinks

Soldato
Joined
28 Oct 2002
Posts
5,037
Location
Hiraeth
Reading the metro today, there is an article about two British mothers who were turned away from a "foreign only" playgroup with the administrator saying "There are plenty of alternatives for British mothers in the town"

Surely then, this flies in the face of discrimination, especially when compared to the non gay B&B story from earlier in the week.

What the hell is this country coming to? We as the tax payer fund this playgroup and are the ones excluded from it? How does that work exactly?
 
mejinks said:
Reading the metro today, there is an article about two British mothers who were turned away from a "foreign only" playgroup with the administrator saying "There are plenty of alternatives for British mothers in the town"
Click to expand...

Is the Metro still the cut-down and free version of The Daily Mail?

Surely then, this flies in the face of discrimination, especially when compared to the non gay B&B story from earlier in the week.
Click to expand...

"Especially"? What do you mean?

What the hell is this country coming to? We as the tax payer fund this playgroup and are the ones excluded from it? How does that work exactly?
Click to expand...

Who is "we" here? Do you mean white people?
 
Its ok to discriminate against the English provided they are white and espically if they are healthy males.

We call it postive discrimation (or social engineering)
 
Come on guys, he is only pointing out how there seems to be one rule for say, muslims etc and another for anyone who is different from them.

If a non-muslim group tried to turn away a muslim or any other asian person there would be mass protests!!
 
[FnG]magnolia;18271181 said:
How does the tax payer fund the playgroup?
Click to expand...

The source of funding is irrelevant.

It is illegal for any business to discriminate against anyone based on their race, religion, sex or sexuality. The mothers in question should stop moaning to the papers and seek legal advice I'm sure their are plenty of no win no fee vultures who would take it on as it looks like an open and shut case.
 
a1ex2001 said:
The source of funding is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not if the OP is misinformed and is stating incorrect 'facts'.

It is illegal for any business to discriminate against anyone based on their race, religion, sex or sexuality. The mothers in question should stop moaning to the papers and seek legal advice I'm sure their are plenty of no win no fee vultures who would take it on as it looks like an open and shut case.
Click to expand...

Possibly. The OP likely doesn't care about that. This is yet another "MUSLIMS/BLACKS/THE GAYS TOOK MY JOB/DAYCARE/WIFE!!!!" piece of nonsense from good old GD.
 
simulatorman said:
Was it ever?
Click to expand...

Yes, it was and I think still is. The stories are the same although sometimes edited down for size.

I've done some reading and it appears that the OP is correct concerning the funding. I apologise for telling him he was wrong.

Making Links gets £5,000 towards its £11,000 running costs from Government funding, £1,000 comes from the local council and the rest from lottery handouts.
Click to expand...

What he has not done is explained what the daycare is actually designed to do. I won't spoil the surprise; instead I'm sure he'll balance up his rather one-sided OP by telling us himself.


e : actually he could still be wrong regarding the taxpayer part as it just says 'Government funding'. I CBA to argue the point though.
 
Last edited:
I hope someone tries to justify "Faith Playschools".

Ultimately though this just isn't a big deal. It's wrong, yes. It needs to get fixed, of course. But it's not the end of the world, and we shouldn't be "up in arms" about it.
 
OP obviously doesn't have kids if he thinks playgroups are 100% public funded. They are funded by blood, sweat and tears (and loads of money) of young parents, trying to hold down employment and raise their kids.

Oh, send em home and all that too
 
Baroness Warsi is to speak about prejudice against Muslims, according to the BBC. Reading the article I surprised myself with some of it.

"It's not a big leap of imagination to predict where the talk of 'moderate' Muslims leads; in the factory, where they've just hired a Muslim worker, the boss says to his employees: 'Not to worry, he's only fairly Muslim'," she will say.
"In the school, the kids say: 'The family next door are Muslim but they're not too bad'.
"And in the road, as a woman walks past wearing a burka, the passers-by think: 'That woman's either oppressed or is making a political statement'."
Click to expand...

I think we all can be guilty of that - at least I am. However I'm not sure if I am wrong though.

In the factory, where they've just hired a Muslim worker, the boss says to his employees: 'Not to worry, he's only fairly Muslim
Click to expand...

You could put the word Christian in there, or Jew or whatever you like. I'm prejudiced against people with strong religious beliefs, because I expect their beliefs to be at the front of their mind and strongly define them. And I'm not interested in speaking to someone who's going to be harping on about jeebus all day. However the point Baroness Warsi is making here may not be what my reaction is. It may be that it wouldn't be noted, it wouldn't be remarked on if it was a Christian worker.

"In the school, the kids say: 'The family next door are Muslim but they're not too bad'.
Click to expand...
Would we say "The family next door are Mormons but they're not too bad". I think we would. Is there anything wrong with that? I don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom