The EU debate - Part III

[PleaseNotPoll]

I'm sure some came off sickness benefit for valid reasons but when you read the article further there is plenty of evidence of a lot of people trying to play the system.

No, there isn't. As somebody's already told you, it's something like 0.3% of claims.

Can you address the fact that the Telegraph knowingly lied, please?
They were told the truth and intentionally mislead their readers by presenting a false picture.

 

[Solid Air]

1 That is a ridiculous definition
2 The 900,000 is a fact. You might not like it but that is irrelevant.
Don't bother then.

oh i see you decide who is disabled do you rather than the medical profession ,DWP and a Tory govt
the 900000 is not fact but a discredited statistic based on raw DWP stats which have been deliberately misinterpreted to , as discussed earlier ,smear disabled people.

 

[Tobes]

I'm sure some came off sickness benefit for valid reasons but when you read the article further there is plenty of evidence of a lot of people trying to play the system.

Like your Mrs when she was here an as illegal

Bell end

 

[steveninaster1]

Have you read what it says? They did apply and then withdrew their claim before having a face to face interview. Now I can accept that some people may get better before their face to face interview but 900,000 is still a fact and not a lie. If you still think it is a lie then please provide proof.

You just have no idea of the relationship between long/short term Sickness benefit and Incapacity benefit being replaced by ESA.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

You did ask for a full answer, so here's my two pennerth, it'll look back to front, but bear with me because some of you won't like the middle bits, and no doubt some will see things that aren't there.

One thing I'll say from the start is that in my opinion and experience, by far and above the group that suffers the most discrimination are the ones that get the least recognition, and cover the whole gamut of isms, the disabled. That I believe to be damning on our society and part of a different set of issues to the ones I'll raise, but that certainly need addressing.

We want a world of true equal opportunity, effectively a meritocracy, where if you can, you can do irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation etc. (< this bit will get missed even though it's the most important part, and the key to the rest).

The current ways of thinking don't really enable that, as we've created a victim based culture.

The first thing we need is a line drawing. History ends and the future starts here, with a clean slate for all.

We can't forget the past, nor should we, but it is the past and we shouldn't live in, but learn from it.

Each area has culture, even though they're vague, varied and not easy to define. They evolve as people come and go, and other influences change habits and preferences, but it should be by consent, not legislation and incoming cultures should respect the indigenous, and the indigenous should tolerate the incomers, unless it conflicts materially, in which case there's an opportunity for discussion. The aim should be for multi-cultures, not the series of mono-cultures that we seem to have developed and they should be grounded in the key concepts of the host nation. In Britain, I'd say that's tolerance, charity, freedom, equality and a sense of fair play and justice.

Currently, some are continually told they're victims and deserving, and others told they should feel guilty because of historic events carried out by people long dead. That's the past and the other side of the line. Likewise with gender, there are good laws in place to protect against discrimination, but they need to be used for equal opportunity.

We're not equal. That's nature, some are stronger, some are brighter. There tends to be biological reasons and sport is a visible example. The national womens football team won't beat the mens football team, and the start line at the Olympic 100 metre sprint looks different to the swimming events.
The discrimination laws can be used if someone is victimised, and we should look to create equality of opportunity because just looking to balance numbers with roles in society is as daft as expecting Mr Bean to win the world heavyweight boxing title. It leaves some people that earn and deserve their place look like tokens, elevated to balance some book rather than getting the respect they deserve.

I love banter, it's a part of most areas of life and the banter in most workplaces and offices wouldn't get on mainstream tv, but it's tempered to those involved. There has to be limits as it's a fine, yet wobbly line between banter and abuse, but trying to claim that you can go further with some types of people than others is wrong. It's discriminatory, especially if it's okay for some other sections of society to do it.

If it's wrong to be jokey about some cultures, it's wrong to be abusive about other physical features. After all, ginger people can make a case for racial abuse and cultural domination by invaders too.

What we have ended up doing is silencing the words, but not tackling the thinking so it just gets reinforced. That misses the opportunity to challenge bigotry by getting people to talk openly about how they feel. We have laws to protect us from abuse and hatred, extra ones for race etc simply reinforce the victim culture that is divisive, as it makes some feel that the playing field slopes. You only have to look at the abuse by some of posters on here to see the hypocrisy. It also creates an opportunity for those that just feel the need to be outrageous because being funny or making a point is beyond them.

What the current system does by pushing race an other isms onto so many agendas is create division and animosity, and it's the perception of the guilt trip and victim culture as well as the system that has become an industry to keep us divided that generated the recorded increase. It's similar feelings that manifest in the US election and brexit. It's a combination of frustration and repression as well as an industry that needs it to stay on the agenda. A focus on what we share and what unites is more productive.

A clear set of rules that apply to all can help build civic and national pride, and help us all progress together and those remaining with irrational hatreds will be marginalised for what they are, not for what others claim them to be.

Discrimination and mindless abuse is wrong, in whatever form it takes and the rules should apply equally to all.

I agree with some of this, but not all.
Equality of opportunity has been overlooked for equality of outcome, in my opinion.
That's neither required, nor desirable.

I disagree about your whole anti-ism thing, though.
Stopping bigotry and hatred isn't some sort of discrimination.
Comparing a racism to jokes about red hair is just odd.

 

[petersaxton]

oh i see you decide who is disabled do you rather than the medical profession ,DWP and a Tory govt
the 900000 is not fact but a discredited statistic based on raw DWP stats which have been deliberately misinterpreted to , as discussed earlier ,smear disabled people.

You see nothing. Why do you keep coming out with ridiculous hysterical statements?

 

[Stan]

You see nothing. Why do you keep coming out with ridiculous hysterical statements?

He's only just joined the thread and you've turned on him already

Ignore awaits.

When a dozen doctors tell you to sit down, sit down.

In your case, just make sure the cats aren't akip on your chair.

 

[DMD]

I agree with some of this, but not all.
Equality of opportunity has been overlooked for equality of outcome, in my opinion.
That's neither required, nor desirable.

I disagree about your whole anti-ism thing, though.
Stopping bigotry and hatred isn't some sort of discrimination.
Comparing a racism to jokes about red hair is just odd.

*edit, I quoted wrong reply earlier.

Have a look at a few of the views from people like Morgan Freeman on youtube. In my view, America has a far worse problem and history with racial division, so he has more experience and adds a bit to what I put.

I don't want this to disappear down the rabbit hole, but ginger is an ethnic identity, as much as skin colour, and tends to be associated with people from a specific region, with many of those regions having strong feelings against what they see as oppression. Why shouldn't they be protected the same, or other groups treat like them if it's about equality? There are reports that show that the treatment they receive from society leaves them as the sort of outsider that extremists recruit.

http://ufpnews.com/2015/ginger-jihadis-why-red-heads-are-converting-to-radical-islam/

 

[NSIS]

oh i see you decide who is disabled do you rather than the medical profession ,DWP and a Tory govt
the 900000 is not fact but a discredited statistic based on raw DWP stats which have been deliberately misinterpreted to , as discussed earlier ,smear disabled people.

You're banging your head on the thickest of thick brick walls there, mate...

 

[Solid Air]

You see nothing. Why do you keep coming out with ridiculous hysterical statements?

Dear God
i see that there is no point in conversing with you.
goodbye

 

[Stan]

Dear God
i see that there is no point in conversing with you.
goodbye

He's an odious **** fella. He's laid his life bare on this forum and it's a pretty scummy existence.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Have a look at a few of the views from people like Morgan Freeman on youtube. In my view, America has a far worse problem and history with racial division, so he has more experience and adds a bit to what I put.

I don't want this to disappear down the rabbit hole, but ginger is an ethnic identity, as much as skin colour, and tends to be associated with people from a specific region, with many of those regions having strong feelings against what they see as oppression. Why shouldn't they be protected the same if it's about equality? There are reports that show that the treatment they receive from society leaves them as the sort of outsider that extremists recruit.

http://ufpnews.com/2015/ginger-jihadis-why-red-heads-are-converting-to-radical-islam/

Ginger is not an ethnic identity and there aren't regions complaining about ginger oppression.
Where did you get that from?

That Breitbart article has one major problem: It's not based in reality. Most of them aren't.
The alt-right like to make a lot of **** up and they're one of the worst offenders.
Feel free to provide sources for their claims though, as they certainly don't.

 

[Tobes]

You did ask for a full answer, so here's my two pennerth, it'll look back to front, but bear with me because some of you won't like the middle bits, and no doubt some will see things that aren't there.

One thing I'll say from the start is that in my opinion and experience, by far and above the group that suffers the most discrimination are the ones that get the least recognition, and cover the whole gamut of isms, the disabled. That I believe to be damning on our society and part of a different set of issues to the ones I'll raise, but that certainly need addressing.

We want a world of true equal opportunity, effectively a meritocracy, where if you can, you can do irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation etc. (< this bit will get missed even though it's the most important part, and the key to the rest).

The current ways of thinking don't really enable that, as we've created a victim based culture.

The first thing we need is a line drawing. History ends and the future starts here, with a clean slate for all.

We can't forget the past, nor should we, but it is the past and we shouldn't live in, but learn from it.

Each area has culture, even though they're vague, varied and not easy to define. They evolve as people come and go, and other influences change habits and preferences, but it should be by consent, not legislation and incoming cultures should respect the indigenous, and the indigenous should tolerate the incomers, unless it conflicts materially, in which case there's an opportunity for discussion. The aim should be for multi-cultures, not the series of mono-cultures that we seem to have developed and they should be grounded in the key concepts of the host nation. In Britain, I'd say that's tolerance, charity, freedom, equality and a sense of fair play and justice.

Currently, some are continually told they're victims and deserving, and others told they should feel guilty because of historic events carried out by people long dead. That's the past and the other side of the line. Likewise with gender, there are good laws in place to protect against discrimination, but they need to be used for equal opportunity.

We're not equal. That's nature, some are stronger, some are brighter. There tends to be biological reasons and sport is a visible example. The national womens football team won't beat the mens football team, and the start line at the Olympic 100 metre sprint looks different to the swimming events.
The discrimination laws can be used if someone is victimised, and we should look to create equality of opportunity because just looking to balance numbers with roles in society is as daft as expecting Mr Bean to win the world heavyweight boxing title. It leaves some people that earn and deserve their place look like tokens, elevated to balance some book rather than getting the respect they deserve.

I love banter, it's a part of most areas of life and the banter in most workplaces and offices wouldn't get on mainstream tv, but it's tempered to those involved. There has to be limits as it's a fine, yet wobbly line between banter and abuse, but trying to claim that you can go further with some types of people than others is wrong. It's discriminatory, especially if it's okay for some other sections of society to do it.

If it's wrong to be jokey about some cultures, it's wrong to be abusive about other physical features. After all, ginger people can make a case for racial abuse and cultural domination by invaders too.

What we have ended up doing is silencing the words, but not tackling the thinking so it just gets reinforced. That misses the opportunity to challenge bigotry by getting people to talk openly about how they feel. We have laws to protect us from abuse and hatred, extra ones for race etc simply reinforce the victim culture that is divisive, as it makes some feel that the playing field slopes. You only have to look at the abuse by some of posters on here to see the hypocrisy. It also creates an opportunity for those that just feel the need to be outrageous because being funny or making a point is beyond them.

What the current system does by pushing race an other isms onto so many agendas is create division and animosity, and it's the perception of the guilt trip and victim culture as well as the system that has become an industry to keep us divided that generated the recorded increase. It's similar feelings that manifest in the US election and brexit. It's a combination of frustration and repression as well as an industry that needs it to stay on the agenda. A focus on what we share and what unites is more productive.

A clear set of rules that apply to all can help build civic and national pride, and help us all progress together and those remaining with irrational hatreds will be marginalised for what they are, not for what others claim them to be.

Discrimination and mindless abuse is wrong, in whatever form it takes and the rules should apply equally to all.

I can agree with parts of that, but the section about 'isms' is absolute bollocks.

You're speaking as a white man living in a white community, and trying to compare office banter that goes beyond the pale, with hate filled racial abuse.

You lack perspective on this entire issue imo, probably due to where you live, which isn't a multi cutural place. How many black or Asian people who've suffered abuse that's bile filled and based solely on their skin colour and cutural heritage have you genuinely come into contact with? You can't just 'draw a line under it' as this country has a racist element that needs to be dealt with, and their views need to be driven out of the next generation, by education and a complete lack of tolerance from our society.

 

[steveninaster1]

You did ask for a full answer, so here's my two pennerth, it'll look back to front, but bear with me because some of you won't like the middle bits, and no doubt some will see things that aren't there.

One thing I'll say from the start is that in my opinion and experience, by far and above the group that suffers the most discrimination are the ones that get the least recognition, and cover the whole gamut of isms, the disabled. That I believe to be damning on our society and part of a different set of issues to the ones I'll raise, but that certainly need addressing.

We want a world of true equal opportunity, effectively a meritocracy, where if you can, you can do irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation etc. (< this bit will get missed even though it's the most important part, and the key to the rest).

The current ways of thinking don't really enable that, as we've created a victim based culture.

The first thing we need is a line drawing. History ends and the future starts here, with a clean slate for all.

We can't forget the past, nor should we, but it is the past and we shouldn't live in, but learn from it.

Each area has culture, even though they're vague, varied and not easy to define. They evolve as people come and go, and other influences change habits and preferences, but it should be by consent, not legislation and incoming cultures should respect the indigenous, and the indigenous should tolerate the incomers, unless it conflicts materially, in which case there's an opportunity for discussion. The aim should be for multi-cultures, not the series of mono-cultures that we seem to have developed and they should be grounded in the key concepts of the host nation. In Britain, I'd say that's tolerance, charity, freedom, equality and a sense of fair play and justice.

Currently, some are continually told they're victims and deserving, and others told they should feel guilty because of historic events carried out by people long dead. That's the past and the other side of the line. Likewise with gender, there are good laws in place to protect against discrimination, but they need to be used for equal opportunity.

We're not equal. That's nature, some are stronger, some are brighter. There tends to be biological reasons and sport is a visible example. The national womens football team won't beat the mens football team, and the start line at the Olympic 100 metre sprint looks different to the swimming events.
The discrimination laws can be used if someone is victimised, and we should look to create equality of opportunity because just looking to balance numbers with roles in society is as daft as expecting Mr Bean to win the world heavyweight boxing title. It leaves some people that earn and deserve their place look like tokens, elevated to balance some book rather than getting the respect they deserve.

I love banter, it's a part of most areas of life and the banter in most workplaces and offices wouldn't get on mainstream tv, but it's tempered to those involved. There has to be limits as it's a fine, yet wobbly line between banter and abuse, but trying to claim that you can go further with some types of people than others is wrong. It's discriminatory, especially if it's okay for some other sections of society to do it.

If it's wrong to be jokey about some cultures, it's wrong to be abusive about other physical features. After all, ginger people can make a case for racial abuse and cultural domination by invaders too.

What we have ended up doing is silencing the words, but not tackling the thinking so it just gets reinforced. That misses the opportunity to challenge bigotry by getting people to talk openly about how they feel. We have laws to protect us from abuse and hatred, extra ones for race etc simply reinforce the victim culture that is divisive, as it makes some feel that the playing field slopes. You only have to look at the abuse by some of posters on here to see the hypocrisy. It also creates an opportunity for those that just feel the need to be outrageous because being funny or making a point is beyond them.

What the current system does by pushing race an other isms onto so many agendas is create division and animosity, and it's the perception of the guilt trip and victim culture as well as the system that has become an industry to keep us divided that generated the recorded increase. It's similar feelings that manifest in the US election and brexit. It's a combination of frustration and repression as well as an industry that needs it to stay on the agenda. A focus on what we share and what unites is more productive.

A clear set of rules that apply to all can help build civic and national pride, and help us all progress together and those remaining with irrational hatreds will be marginalised for what they are, not for what others claim them to be.

Discrimination and mindless abuse is wrong, in whatever form it takes and the rules should apply equally to all.

There is a lot to agree with in this. Particularly the role the state and press have taken in highlighting and accommodating our differences at the expense of understanding and integrating.
People need to be accepted for being different within society, not marginalised and allowed to separate from it. It is the key to my opposition of faith schools for example.

 

[DMD]

Ginger is not an etic identity and there aren't regions complaining about ginger oppression.
Where did you get that from?

That Breitbart article has one major problem: It's not based in reality. Most of them aren't.
The alt-right like to make a lot of **** up and they're one of the worst offenders.
Feel free to provide sources for their claims though, as they certainly don't.

They mention other surveys that produced other figures and quote an Islamic source too.

I'm away out shortly, so apologies for it being an old link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6725653.stm

 

[DMD]

I can agree with parts of that, but the section about 'isms' is absolute bollocks.

You're speaking as a white man living in a white community, and trying to compare office banter that goes beyond the pale, with hate filled racial abuse.

You lack perspective on this entire issue imo, probably due to where you live, which isn't a multi cutural place. How many black or Asian people who've suffered abuse that's bile filled and based solely on their skin colour and cutural heritage have you genuinely come into contact with? You can't just 'draw a line under it' as this country has a racist element that needs to be dealt with, and their views need to be driven out of the next generation, by education and a complete lack of tolerance from our society.

I totally disagree, and you're making unfounded assumptions on several parts.

 

[Tobes]

I totally disagree, and you're making unfounded assumptions on several parts.

Then correct my supposed incorrect assumptions, that's generally how this works

 

[NSIS]

If I go back to my younger days, yes gingers were subjected to some piss taking, but it never went any further than that.

If you were black, however, genuine hatred was aimed at you. Plus it was deemed socially acceptable to openly abuse them on no other basis than the colour of their skin.

We've fortunately come a long way since those days, but we've still some way to go.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

They mention other surveys that produced other figures and quote an Islamic source too.

I'm away out shortly, so apologies for it being an old link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6725653.stm

They mention a survey of other sources, but don't produce that survey or how it was conducted.
All my attempts to Google their figures lead back to the article itself and the Islamic source is anonymous.
That doesn't strike me as being very good journalism. It strikes me as a fabrication, frankly.

I can find you articles about people getting abused for being short, tall, fat, thin, blonde, ugly and a variety of other things, if you'd like.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MensHealthNews/story?id=8347950
That doesn't make any of them equal to racism, though.

 

[Tobes]

If I go back to my younger days, yes gingers were subjected to some piss taking, but it never went any further than that.

If you were black, however, genuine hatred was aimed at you. Plus it was deemed socially acceptable to openly abuse them on no other basis than the colour of their skin.

We've fortunately come a long way since those days, but we've still some way to go.

People who use the ginger comparison haven't got a ****ing clue imo

Ginger hair doesn't represent your cutural heritage and the 'abuse' of gingers whilst it might be hurtful to a child, is not delivered with the vitriol of Paki, N*****, Goat ****er (hello Kustard) etc etc. People who are racists deliver their bile with HATRED, it's not banter or anything close to it. A white man spouting about racism being on a par with ginger gags, shows a complete lack of understanding about what being on the wrong end of genuine racism feels like for the victim