EVE Search - UK Question...

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

UK Question...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dr Slaughter Minmatar Rabies Inc.	Posted - 2008.11.19 23:11:00 - [1] Without getting into the politics of the BNP (we're not allowed to discuss that on here and in any case I don't know much about them) I'm interesting in why BNP party members are not allowed to work in certain jobs. Assuming that the person doesn't break the law why can various Unions, quango's and unelected organizations appear to be able to discriminate against people for their political beliefs, and, who exactly are they to rule that someones thoughts and ideals should restrict that persons trade? Surely that would be illegal, and, you would assume they must also discriminate against certain religious groups for exactly the same reasons. Something appears to be very very wrong here in the UK....
Arianhod	Posted - 2008.11.19 23:21:00 - [2] I am personaly of the opinion that if a party has enough votes to gain a constituency or prove to be a very good challenge to one, it is a party whose policies need to be considered by all other parties. The fact that they are the only party talking about some subjects in a frank way (anti PC) is in fact a strong incentive to make them noteworthy. I am disregarding the specifics of what they stand for, and simply going along the fact that the main 3 don't even talk about it. Fascism gets in through the backdoors of a society that is in fear of the opposition and sees itself taking the lesser evil or one that will bring a change beneficial. BNP, they made the bed, now all parties have to lie in it and address the concerns of the citizens that voted for them. If it's worth voting for them, they have something the others don't provide. That said, I will stop playing devils advocate. It would appear that the Unions don't like the idea of being associated with the BNP, and hence discriminate against them. I believe the BNP to be a necessary evil as if they were outright banned, this could be interpreted as a go ahead for a * style organization. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer still. So keep the BNP in the commons so we can have dialouge and a means of addressing the issues that they raise well enough to get voted into the commons in the first place Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. Originally by:** Janu Hull You're making me tingly in the special places...
ouroboros trading Gallente Medics On Fire	Posted - 2008.11.19 23:21:00 - [3] Originally by: Dr Slaughter Something appears to be very very wrong here in the UK.... yep.
nahtoh Caldari StrikerCorp Dark Trinity Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.19 23:38:00 - [4] Yeah it seems strange...but the poilce allow the the NBPA to exist...just think of the howls if there was a NWPA.... ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self
Tiffis	Posted - 2008.11.19 23:56:00 - [5] I think this sums up my thoughts on the topic.
Dr Slaughter Minmatar Rabies Inc.	Posted - 2008.11.20 00:03:00 - [6] Originally by: nahtoh Yeah it seems strange...but the poilce allow the the NBPA to exist...just think of the howls if there was a NWPA.... yeah. I'm used to '[insert colour] arts centers' but no 'white arts centers' coming from Camden. Kinda water off a ducks back. Same goes for music awards etc. ANYWAY... I'm just surprised that there's such a fascist, and essentially hypocritical, reaction from organizations that say they believe in equal opportunities and upholding the law. I made my way over to a favorite site (out-law.com) and read the following: Quote: "The recent Equality Act makes it clear that discrimination against an individual on political grounds constitutes a breach of contractual employment law," he said. In 2006, the Court of Appeal ruled in a landmark case that an employer did not act unlawfully when it dismissed a BNP member. Bus driver Arthur Redfearn was sacked after he stood for election as a BNP councillor in 2004. His employers were concerned that his public association with the BNP posed a health and safety risk to users of its service, employees and to Redfearn himself. Redfearn worked with disabled children and adults in a mainly-Asian community. He argued that the decision to dismiss him amounted to discrimination on racial grounds. But Michael Ryley, an employment law specialist with Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, said that the Redfearn case did not justify the sacking of staff simply because they are revealed as members of the BNP. "Generally speaking it would be unfair to take any sort of action as an employer against an employee for things they do in their spare time," he said. Ryley said that membership of an extreme political party was unlikely to bring someone's employer into disrepute. But political activism could, he said, and that may be grounds to terminate someone's employment. He said that while the employer had justification for dismissal in the circumstances of the Redfearn case, there would not always be justification. "Standing for election is different from being a member of a party. The issue generally is not the person's belief itself; it's the practical manifestation of that belief. The Redfearn case surfaced when the employee stood in an election. But it would be unfair just to sack an employee for being 'an extremist'," he said. So, basically, unless there's some legal exemption (as there could be in the Army as an example) what's going on is basically illegal. Why aren't people up in court for this? ~~~~ There is no parody in this thread. Honest.
Arianhod	Posted - 2008.11.20 00:09:00 - [7] Edited by: Arianhod on 20/11/2008 00:17:16 Originally by: Tiffis I think this sums up my thoughts on the topic. I do not support or like the BNP. However it would be grossly hypocritical of myself to claim they have no right to exist in a state which fought the second world war to keep the country free for speech and thought of its own and generations ahead. Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. Originally by: Janu Hull You're making me tingly in the special places...
Dr Slaughter Minmatar Rabies Inc.	Posted - 2008.11.20 00:15:00 - [8] That video link was... . . classic. 'you righteous ****whit' might just make my sig ~~~~ There is no parody in this thread. Honest.
annoing Fallen Angel's	Posted - 2008.11.20 01:29:00 - [9] Edited by: annoing on 20/11/2008 01:37:18 I cant believe im going to say this: We live in a democracy and part of that democracy ideal is the freedom to choose and the freedom of speech. Even though the thought of the BNP disgusts me, I do believe they have the right to 'be'. If they want to stand for election then so be it. If they want to hold rallies then so be it. Just as it is my right to stand in an election against them, to hold a rally against their ideals. It isnt a democracy when you exclude another political party however heinous their beliefs are. Also, as part of that democracy, people have the right to join that party, to become active members, to stand for election etc. Anything else isnt democracy, its a step towards a totalitarian state.
Sallah Hernandes	Posted - 2008.11.20 01:30:00 - [10] Originally by: Dr Slaughter "He argued that the decision to dismiss him amounted to discrimination on racial grounds." Anyone else appreciate the irony of this? same problem as everywhere - there will always be a group of a-holes willing to tell you your problems are someone else's fault and it suits some people to believe it.

Baldour Ngarr Aliastra	Posted - 2008.11.20 03:42:00 - [11] Edited by: Baldour Ngarr on 20/11/2008 03:42:39 Maybe I can get away with explaining some BNP politics, in the light of how large a news story this has become. The British National Party is only open to white people. It campaigns for the keeping of Britain (or England, at least, since it has close to nil representation in the other Home Nations) for the "indigenous" white population. It evolved out of various neo-fascist groups. In cases where membership of the BNP makes it actually illegal for you to hold a job (like the police force), it is because it's held to be mutually exclusive that you can believe in the forcible repatriation of, and/or legalised discrimination against, non-whites and still do your job properly. In cases where people are simply getting hounded out of work (a radio DJ has been sacked already), it's merely because the BNP are held in widespread contempt. It's rather as if the Ku Klux Klan membership list had been made public (although the BNP has never been proven to be behind racial violence, despite being widely believed to be so) - how many companies would continue to hire someone who had been exposed as a practicing Klan member? edit reminder, we are not allowed to discuss whether these BNP policies are good or bad. I merely point out what they are.
Gabrialle Amarr Sunspot Requisitions Worlds End Consortium	Posted - 2008.11.20 04:49:00 - [12] Also to add a few more painful facts to this barrel of laughs... We arent a democracy we're a monarchy, the queen is the only single person in the country who can override the PM's orders, she simply has sense enough not to. We have no stated legal right to free speech in this country, the closes t thing we have is the magna carta.
Gojyu Ever Flow Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.11.20 06:01:00 - [13] It's time for the almighty power of the internet lawyer According to UK law, a business may discriminate against people not sharing a belief when it can establish that such a belief is relevant to the required duties of the position. Given this law, a business could argue that in a position were treating mixed races equally is an integral part of the position means that the belief of racial equality is relevant to the required duties of said position. Given this, a person can thus be seen to be unable to perform the duties of the position due to belief, and thus it is legal to discriminate against them. This argument is further evidenced by the UK's courts support of this argument
Souvera Corvus Gallente SPORADIC MOVEMENT FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.11.20 06:13:00 - [14] Time for the internet Jurisprude. Where the BNP's ability to exercise what they feel are their constitutional and legally enforcable rights impinge on other citizens (ethnic minorities) ability to exercise the same rights then its permissable and desirable for government to restrict those rights and for the courts to support them. The right, such as it exists, to free speech isn't absolute and neither should it be.
Davina Braben	Posted - 2008.11.20 07:51:00 - [15] Because being a member of an organisation peopled by racist ****s (Nick Griffin is a greasy little turd. I am always massively amused to see his pale chubby squinty eyed face on TV championing the cause of racial superiority) and with an explicitly racist manifesto is entirely incompatible with working for an organisation that is supposed to provide public service. Public service is supposed to be fair and impartial to people of all races and racial discrimination not just frowned upon but in some cases illegal. It could also really damages the relationship between those organisations and the communities they serve. Take those police officers for example. What does it do to the credibility of their force when dealing with members of the public who are "non-white" (as the BNP would have it)? If this sort of thing were widespread it would make their position untenable. I don't know if you guys abroad are aware but we had a murder a few years ago where a teenager called Stephen Lawrence was stabbed to death by a gang of skinheads. The police investigation and criminal prosecution was fatally flawed and said skinheads walked. There was later an inquiry and a civil court case and one of the outcomes was that the Met was "institutionally racist". This doesn't just mean that individual officers are racist or that there is an unfortunate canteen culture but that the organisation itself fails to provide the service it should to people because of their skin colour. Having police officers in the BNP 10 years after this is anywhere from "regrettable" to "a bloody disaster" depending on what those officers are actually doing and what cases they have been involved with.
Valan The Fated	Posted - 2008.11.20 10:02:00 - [16] What made me smile is that on the BBC the BNP were descibed as an anti immigration party and that was bad. In the next story leading politicians were talking about stopping immigration. /start sig I love old characters that post 'I've beeen playing the game four years' when I know their account has been sold on. /end sig
Dwain Chambers Big S Triangle	Posted - 2008.11.20 10:49:00 - [17] Leaving abusive and threatening e-mails and telephone messages to known BNP members is pretty hypocritical :s Also: political party is full of a-holes... more news at 11.
Baldour Ngarr Aliastra	Posted - 2008.11.20 11:07:00 - [18] Originally by: Davina Braben Because being a member of an organisation peopled by racists and with an explicitly racist manifesto is entirely incompatible with working for an organisation that is supposed to provide public service. Public service is supposed to be fair and impartial to people of all races and racial discrimination not just frowned upon but in some cases illegal. You, like most people, and like the (illegal) UK laws that forbid membership for certain groups, are all missing an obvious point. Just because you think that it should be legal to treat certain groups as second-class, does NOT mean that you actually do so currently. Proof of BNP membership is not proof of racism.
Gojyu Ever Flow Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.11.20 11:21:00 - [19] Quote: Proof of BNP membership is not proof of racism. No, however, getting up at a public forum (through the elections that the person in question ran in) and stating that you agree with the racist ideals of the bnp, you believe that the bnp ideas should be implemented as law and you believe that whites are a superior race is
kor anon Amarr The Tuskers	Posted - 2008.11.20 11:57:00 - [20] Originally by: Gojyu Quote: Proof of BNP membership is not proof of racism. No, however, getting up at a public forum (through the elections that the person in question ran in) and stating that you agree with the racist ideals of the bnp, you believe that the bnp ideas should be implemented as law and you believe that whites are a superior race is I dont think that they believe in whites being supreme, they just want Britain to be for the white indiginous british people. Ironic considering everyone in Britain is retty much an immigrant

Gojyu Ever Flow Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.11.20 12:07:00 - [21] Originally by: kor anon Originally by: Gojyu Quote: Proof of BNP membership is not proof of racism. No, however, getting up at a public forum (through the elections that the person in question ran in) and stating that you agree with the racist ideals of the bnp, you believe that the bnp ideas should be implemented as law and you believe that whites are a superior race is I dont think that they believe in whites being supreme, they just want Britain to be for the white indiginous british people. Ironic considering everyone in Britain is retty much an immigrant Their technical belief is fairly subtle. They state they do not believe any ethnic group being superior to another. However, they do believe that there are certain biological factors that can cause certain ethnic groups to be more prone to crime, more violent and at a lower cognitive level than whites. At a basic level, they're hiding a mask of superiority with the argument "Muslims are genetically disposed to violence and evil, blacks are less evolved and less able to think as a human, but we don't think we're superior... that would be bad"
ReaperOfSly Gallente Zetsubou Corp	Posted - 2008.11.20 12:08:00 - [22] This is one of those things that really makes my blood boil. Why is it ANYBODY'S business but the individual concerned? I can't believe people could lose their jobs because it's been found out they are a member of a legitimate political party. Because the person holds an opinion that runs contrary to the popular opinion. Hell, this is getting into thought-crime territory. "You're a member of the BNP, which means you must think things which we don't like. This is not allowed. And by the way, we have ALWAYS been a war with Eastasia." If the person can do the job, what difference does it make?
Baldour Ngarr Aliastra	Posted - 2008.11.20 12:12:00 - [23] Originally by: Gojyu Quote: Proof of BNP membership is not proof of racism. No, however, getting up at a public forum (through the elections that the person in question ran in) and stating that you agree with the racist ideals of the bnp, you believe that the bnp ideas should be implemented as law and you believe that whites are a superior race is No it isn't. It proves only that they believe racist practice should be allowed. It offers no proof whatsoever that they're committing any. ________________________________________________ "I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked." http://eve-search.com/thread/73354/page/1#1
Gojyu Ever Flow Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.11.20 12:34:00 - [24] Quote: It proves only that they believe racist practice should be allowed Then they should have no problem with the court's decision should they?
kor anon Amarr The Tuskers	Posted - 2008.11.20 12:42:00 - [25] Edited by: kor anon on 20/11/2008 12:44:20 I think there whould be a public forum (not the internet type), where in it you can express any view as you wish free from charge. Any views expressed are left at the door of the forum, so that they have no effect on your day to day life. This way we could remove freedom of speech outside of these forums. Just an idea, i donmt know how effective it would be
Gojyu Ever Flow Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.11.20 12:54:00 - [26] Edited by: Gojyu on 20/11/2008 12:54:49 Originally by: kor anon Edited by: kor anon on 20/11/2008 12:44:20 I think there whould be a public forum (not the internet type), where in it you can express any view as you wish free from charge. Any views expressed are left at the door of the forum, so that they have no effect on your day to day life. This way we could remove freedom of speech outside of these forums. Just an idea, i donmt know how effective it would be I believe people should be willing to accept the fact that their actions have consequences, and should be willing to accept those consequences.
Kaiser Sorano	Posted - 2008.11.20 12:55:00 - [27] Originally by: Davina Braben There was later an inquiry and a civil court case and one of the outcomes was that the Met was "institutionally racist". This doesn't just mean that individual officers are racist or that there is an unfortunate canteen culture but that the organisation itself fails to provide the service it should to people because of their skin colour. You could contend that the police service is 'institutionally incompotent' or at the least 'institutionally hampered' by crap policies and targets. Couple that with a bureacratic justice system and people are being hammered for minor crimes while people who attack other people are getting away with a few weeks of painting walls or picking up litter. To swing this post back on topic, I would say that private companies can largely do as they please with regards choosing who they can and can't employ (to a certain extent). The reins tighten when you look at government organisations such as the NHS or local councils who have strict policies to deal with redundancy and employment.
kor anon Amarr The Tuskers	Posted - 2008.11.20 12:55:00 - [28] Originally by: Gojyu Originally by: kor anon Edited by: kor anon on 20/11/2008 12:44:20 I think there whould be a public forum (not the internet type), where in it you can express any view as you wish free from charge. Any views expressed are left at the door of the forum, so that they have no effect on your day to day life. This way we could remove freedom of speech outside of these forums. Just an idea, i donmt know how effective it would be I believe people should be willing to accept the consequences of their actions What actions? im talking about them speaking their bit freely and thats it
Davina Braben	Posted - 2008.11.20 12:56:00 - [29] Edited by: Davina Braben on 20/11/2008 13:01:03 Originally by: Baldour Ngarr Originally by: Davina Braben Because being a member of an organisation peopled by racists and with an explicitly racist manifesto is entirely incompatible with working for an organisation that is supposed to provide public service. Public service is supposed to be fair and impartial to people of all races and racial discrimination not just frowned upon but in some cases illegal. You, like most people, and like the (illegal) UK laws that forbid membership for certain groups, are all missing an obvious point. Just because you think that it should be legal to treat certain groups as second-class, does NOT mean that you actually do so currently. Proof of BNP membership is not proof of racism. Sophistry aside ("proof"? please. How can you have "proof" of the inner motivation for any decision?) I think we both know that back in the real world the two are going to "coincide" often enough for anyone who has explicitly stated views of that kind to not be trustworthy to be in that position of power to begin with. edit I'm assuming you're not seriously suggesting that the BNP aren't a racist organisation with a racist manifesto there. There is also the issue of why of you are seen to make a decision. The Police (or any other government organisation) cannot be associated with an organisation like the BNP in the minds of the public. It damages their integrity. It damages their authority. Neither of those things are really optional.
Gojyu Ever Flow Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.11.20 13:22:00 - [30] Originally by: kor anon Originally by: Gojyu Originally by: kor anon Edited by: kor anon on 20/11/2008 12:44:20 I think there whould be a public forum (not the internet type), where in it you can express any view as you wish free from charge. Any views expressed are left at the door of the forum, so that they have no effect on your day to day life. This way we could remove freedom of speech outside of these forums. Just an idea, i donmt know how effective it would be I believe people should be willing to accept the consequences of their actions What actions? im talking about them speaking their bit freely and thats it That's an action. I go out yelling about how Lebanese people are s****in some neighborhoods in Sydney and I'll likely die. I tell the media that I believe that non-whites do not deserve the same rights as white people, and my job is to be the primary carer for disabled non-whites, even for a short time during the day, and I'll lose that job. Words, especially in today's society, have real power. That political correctness has gone so far as allowing people to preach hate and discrimination as says "oh well, we wouldn't want to hurt their sensibilities by rallying against them" is a weakness of today's society, not a strength



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.