. Social engineering is very much at the heart of Labour policy and the State Broadcaster always falls in line with this as can be seen from this outrageous report into controlling how private enterprise can operate under the guise of “Age Discrimination.” Note how a report which starts off talking about the need to outlaw all forms of age discrimination ends up advocating the requirement to hire women and ethnic minorities ahead of white men. Also note the witch-hunt proposed against the private sector via targeted “investigations” by the independent Equalities and Human Rights Commission. The idea that an employer might seek to reward an employee solely on the basis of merit is alien to the Government and the BBC seems to sell the same line. Indeed the idea is floated that private firms are threatened with loss of public sector contracts UNLESS they have the right ethnic minority mix (whatever that means?) it sails by without a murmur of comment by the State Broadcaster. What could be more natural than forcing diversity at all costs even at a time when every business in the land is trying to control costs? The danger for our society is that we have a left of centre Government hell-bent to socially engineer and a State Broadcaster which acts as its propaganda arm.
THE WAR ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR
Bookmark the permalink.
Harman on Today just now desperately trying to keep the subject on women and not on preferential treatment for ethnic minorites over white males, which Humphries, to his minor credit, framed as ‘discrimination’.
New Labour is over, but there are still two years left.
“Note how a report which starts off talking about the need to outlaw all forms of age discrimination ends up advocating the requirement to hire women and ethnic minorities ahead of white men.”
Note how a white man either doesn’t bother to find out more, or wilfully omits information in an effort to make his fallacious point.
The proposal (which I’m not sure I agree with BTW, but I’m reserving judgement until I read the whole white paper) is that, in the case where two candidates for a job are deemed to be equally qualified, the employer may, if they decide they want to, select the candidate from a minority that is underrepresented in the workforce. There’ll be no compulsion to do so. And the minorities concerned are workplace-specific: for example, a primary school may use the proposed legal protection to choose a male teacher over an equally qualified female one.
On the other hand, if there were a compulsion to hire people from minorities, perhaps Biased BBC would be forced to employ a writer who knows what they’re talking about. That’s one group that’s quite clearly under-represented.
“in the case where two candidates for a job are deemed to be equally qualified, the employer may, if they decide they want to, select the candidate from a minority that is underrepresented in the workforce”
That is cobblers.
No two job interviewees are ever “equal” – one is always the stronger candidate overall, other criteria being at least as important as qualifications: experience, attitude, performance during interview, communication skills, honesty etc etc.
Positive discrimination is worse than nepotism. The end result is that the very best people get excluded and the business goes downhill.
Employers by and large do not care about ethnic background. We’ve all got to come from somewhere. Their main concern is can he do the job?
Scott: “The proposal…is that, in the case where two candidates for a job are deemed to be equally qualified, the employer may, if they decide they want to, select the candidate from a minority that is underrepresented in the workforce. There’ll be no compulsion to do so.”
Actually, I think the article is misleading: you can already do this for ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and so on as far as I know.
And I am interested in how this can be described as analysis rather than cheerleading:
“The Equalities Bill will be presented as a sign that Labour is seizing the initiative in the crafting of a fairer society, where no-one is held back by prejudice.
But new laws and regulations often meet resistance from employers, organisations and individuals, who resent what they see as the state meddling in their business.
The moral case for eradicating discrimination in all its forms is easy. The new Equalities Bill will have to do something much harder.
To be successful, the bill must not just promote policies based on knowing what is right, but policies which will inspire action that works as well.”
Well, at least I think the last paragraph is still cheerleading – although I’m not convinced it means anything at all.
Enjoy reading the White Paper, though.
Actually, ignore my first point – this does go further than positive action, which is already allowed.
Any employer who employs a white man over a more qualified ethnic minority/woman is an idiot. It’s a problem that has been over-simplified by the left, and the so-called “solution” of positive discrimination has been blown up and lied about by the right for as long as commercial newpapers have existed.
As a former manager in a retail chain, we had “diversity targets” as far back as 2002 which everyone but those stores in the most affluent (white middle class) areas met easily without profiling. The left berates business for not having enough ethnics and women in senior roles (including, ironically, the BBC http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/19892/extras-producer-bbc-is-still-hideously) which is down to two things: lack of education due to “relative” poverty in ethnic areas and that – as a proportion of population – more women than men devote their time to family life. Not saying it’s right or wrong, just stating my experience.
The article in question, however, as pointed out by Scott, does NOT say business has to hire ethnics over white people, but it DOES imply that those businesses whose ethnic mix reflects the community in which they are based (which is a typical target in most businesses these days and in no way forced by the media or govt) will be smiled upon more generously. Which is THE WAY THAT IT HAS BEEN FOR YEARS.
It’s another non-story lept upon by the press and then misquoted to bash the Beeb. The right wing newspapers leap on crap like this and exagerate it in order to sell a few more copies, just like they do whenever a report even mentions ethnic minorities. It’s as bad as – if not worse than – the left’s rabid pursuit of climate change scares.
Each wing of our increasingly polorised society has its own drum to beat. The right want to pretend white people are victims and the left want to pretend everyone else is.
It’s a non-story, so how can there be bias? The BBC pay lip-service to it, although on breakfast this morning it was clear the presenters didn’t approve of the reporting – the bloke said something like “I should point out this is the EXPRESS’s take on the story” which I suppose could be construed as bias. I prefer to think of it as not blowing a non-story out of proportion.
Ah, I feel much better for that.
Scott,
Thank you for that profound insight. In advance of your reading of the White Paper can I point out that the governmenr makes it clear that this is about employers being allowed to discriminate against certain groups (White males) and indeed in the case of private sector companies seeking public sector contracts REQUIRED to do so in order to get the balance right.
Biased BBC does not “employ” any writers – we do what we do for so much less than the minimum wage – indeed for the princely sum of zero. Maybe you will have a word with Ms Harperson on our behalf?
From anonymous:
“No two job interviewees are ever “equal” – one is always the stronger candidate overall, other criteria being at least as important as qualifications: experience, attitude, performance during interview, communication skills, honesty etc etc. ”
Almost true. But it CAN be very hard to decide between two candidates. Most businesses now have points systems which can be totaled and used to defend NOT employing certain people.
This report just allows employers to meet these diversity targets in extreme circumstances. In my experience I have never had to make that decision. It’s always been clear-cut.
In other words, the fact that businesses are ALLOWED to positively discriminate doesn’t mean they HAVE to. But that doesn’t stop the Express from lying about it to rile up further ill-feeling about the world in which we live.
how about our state media employing more white people especially non gay males as there is a disproportionate amount of ethnics reporting the news, or am i racist for suggesting that
The social and political engineering of Labour continues apace; to complement the ceding of UK national sovereignty to the EU, we have Labour’s Equality and Human Rights Commission campaigning for NEGATIVE DISCRIMINATION against white indigenous people, men, in particular; (just as fathers are discriminated against, as Ms. Harman knows, in terms of their lesser rights relative to mothers in relation to the family).
In the BBC report ( and ‘Today’):-
“Harriet Harman has defended plans to make it legal for firms to discriminate in favour of female and ethnic minorities job candidates.”
But will repressive, social engineering Labour explicitly also support the corollary:
‘A Government should make it legal for firms to discriminate in favour of male and white majority job candidates’?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7474801.stm
For an alternative report to the BBC:
“Harriet Harman unleashes positive discrimination”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/798356/harriet-harman-unleashes-positive-discrimination.thtml
Anonymous: 10:30 am
“There are too many ethnics on TV, says Asian BBC chief”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1029544/There-ethnics-TV-says-Asian-BBC-chief.html
As usual, thank god, the response on their HYS is 100% on the side of sanity.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&start=0&edition=1&ttl=20080626103019&forumID=5010&
Mosr recommended:-
Added: Thursday, 26 June, 2008, 04:40 GMT 05:40 UK
If people are to be offered employment because of their orientation, ethnicity, age etc, that form of positive discrimination would be negative discrimination against others. Real equality is employing those who are most suitable for the job, disregarding everything else.
I’m sick of having ‘diversity’ rammed down us- I would like to abolish the race and discrimination industries which are strangling us but enriching the lawyers. Then we would really have equality.
Rebecca Goldsmith, London, United Kingdom
Recommended by 171 people
What do the metrosexual chatterati who run the beeb think when they read the real opinions of their audience?
Do they hang their heads in shame?
– or just do a couple of lines of coke and wander up to the heath for a bit of badger watching to take their minds off it all.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7474801.stm
As of Thursday 11pm, this article contains no dissenting opinion. The BBC expresses it’s opinion on whether it disagrees with something by the number of people it quotes in opposition and the amount of the article given over to them. A proposal, for example, which opposed gay marriage would take up about 5% of an article, with five or six opponents denouncing it for the rest.
The legal ability to discriminate against white heterosexual men, though, is the nirvana of the Metropolitan Left so it will be a while before dissent is allowed…if ever.
More poor quality reporting from the BBC, I see. The very first sentence of that report is just plain wrong.
The government bill does NOT propose to outlaw all forms of age discrimination.
As the BBC report itself later explains, there will be exemptions, such as holidays for the over-50s or the 18-30s; free bus passes etc.
Do these people ever read what they have written? Do they engage brain at all? Do they have editors?
Barry: “It’s a non-story, so how can there be bias?…
In other words, the fact that businesses are ALLOWED to positively discriminate doesn’t mean they HAVE to.”
How is legalising positive discrimination – given the controversy it causes in the US – a nonstory, even if the circumstances in which it’s to be allowed here will (for now) be more restrictive? It’s instructive that every newspaper and news channel in the UK disagrees with you.
As for businesses having the option – Vance points out what this might mean in relation to those contracting with Government, but what about the employees? They won’t have the option of the employer disregarding their sex if it has decided to do so in order to meet its targets.
It simply cannot be maintained that there’s no significant debate around this issue that the BBC should reflect. If you want to argue that it is providing a balanced account of this debate, fair enough, but looking at the last few paragraphs of that report I think you’ll have a tough time doing so.
“perhaps Biased BBC would be forced to employ a writer who knows what they’re talking about. That’s one group that’s quite clearly under-represented.
Scott | Homepage | 26.06.08 – 8:50 am”
B-BBC doesn’t employ anyone – you seem to have a problem understanding the simplest of concepts how can I make it clear for you, they are paid nada, nothing, zip, nil, zilch, zero.
For a poster who clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about you surely take the award.
Just you wait until some smart man uses the government’s own, and BBC-loved, Human Rights Act to rally against this new law. The BBC won’t know what to do.
“Employers by and large do not care about ethnic background. We’ve all got to come from somewhere. Their main concern is can he do the job?”
Interesting in that context that at least one member of this board, Mr Vance’s friend Andrew McCann, advocates excluding people from top jobs on the basis of the religion of a family member.
Typical Beeb – the Jeremy Vine show is headlining a discussion about the government aboloshing age discrimination – the positive spin – while they haven’t even mentioned the line about positive discrimination against white men. Except, of course on their news bulletin, where it is lead story.
Perhaps they don’t want to invite comments from their white middle class male audience? Or perhaps they have been asked by their NuLabour chums to focus on the age angle?
“The government has faced criticism from some quarters for presiding over a society which has arguably become more unequal.”
Who are these quarters? And what do they mean by equality? This is just lazy. Is it just the view of the reporter?
I know both left-wing and right-wing think-tanks, believe inequality has increased and both place the blame mostly on a collapse in education standards in schools in poorer areas. (Of course the solutions are different with Balls and Harman leading the cry for a full collapse in all schools).
“The moral case for eradicating discrimination in all its forms is easy.”
Is it? I discriminate against all sorts of things and people everyday. They may only be silly things like buying a coffee in one shop rather than another because a pretty girl works there. Nearly every time we make a choice there will be some form of discrimination involved. Again just more lazy opinion making.
It’s worse than that.
Based on a recent ruling (water authority or quango) it is Englishmen because ethnic minorities will include the Scotch, Irish, Welsh and Polish.
So, Englishmen, leave your country, you are not welcome.
I don’t think this was bias – it was just autopilot reporting on a policy which I imagine most people on this blog intuitively find insulting.
I’m not sure you can blame Humphreys for not articulating that displeasure. On the other hand, it is surprising that he didn’t, since, after all, these positive discrimination dictats will most likely be taken up with various levels of enthusiasm mainly by the ever-expanding public sector. And you may be sure that includes the BBC swamp-pit par excellence. Humphreys, the poor little sod, will find himself mired in even more endless diversity meetings, and ever more hostage to the special pleadings of today’s approved victims.
If he were in the private sector, I could even find it in my heart to feel sorry for him. But he isn’t, so it’ll be yours and my telly taxes that pay for his afternoons of being hectored. Which is the real scandal.
The private sector, meanwhile, will just get on with its business of employing whoever it takes to get the job done. And factoring in the likelihood that at some point they’ll get hit by the sex/race/disability shakedown no matter what they do. As someone said, if they decide to take a white male over better qualified women/non whites, they’re idiots and will suffer for it. Simple really.
Comrade Commissar Harman is perhaps the most insane member of the NuLabor nomenklatura, though there is stiff competition.
I can just imagine her in her NKVD uniform, executing enough kulaks to meet her target. Her thinking about race, gender and so-called discrimination does seem to run along those lines.
At a stroke, she seems to be telling white British men that they are the only people against whom it will be legal to discriminate. At a time when white working class boys are the least well educated, she has just told them there is no point working to get qualifications, because if they are up for a job against a black man, he will get it because of the colour of his skin. I can only say that 40 years on, Enoch Powell has been proved right, we have as a society become mad.
The only people who will benefit from this edict from the Comrade Commissar will be the BNP. She has justed handed the white working class vote to them on a plate. If she isn’t a BNP sleeper agent, then she can only be the most stupid PC moron ever to draw breath.
Harriet Harman in an NKVD uniform – hold on, there may be an entire website in that. . .
Harriet Harman — sounds a bit sexist to me.
Surely it should be Harriet Harperson?
Harpie Harman says (according to Al-Beeb):
“firms should be able to choose a woman over a man of equal ability if they wanted to”
Of equal ability. So effectively nothing is changed. It would be very interesting indeed if firms were now obliged to hire a certain quota of candidates on the basis of gender even if under-qualified. But that is not actually what has been said.
One thing I am sure of:
Harman says: “Everybody should be treated as individuals and not just discriminated against across the board because of their age.”
Harman is intellectually incompetent.
This really seems to be an issue on which the BBC has decided it doesn’t need to be impartial: George R pointed out on an earlier thread that Paxman’s newspaper review of the Mail last night involved glancing at its headline – ‘Women to be more equal than men’ – and sniffing “I don’t know what that’s all about.”
The Mail has a circulation of about 2.3 million. Add in the Express – which had a more extreme take on this – and that’s 3 million readers. A touch arrogant to dismiss it in this way, perhaps?
Michael Taylor – you know how it is, although I’m not so sure about the Harriet Harman/NKVD bit 🙂
Good to see the GROWNUPS are making an effort to RETAKE the asylum etc
Will the BBC now discriminate against John Humphreys, Jeremy Paxman et al ?
BBC TV lunchtime news was disgraceful, an extended propaganda piece. No analysis, Trevor Philips on to say what he wanted, only point put to him was should the bill go further. The more controversial aspects were not mentioned, criticism was dismissed as “not letting the truth get in the way of a story” and no one was brought on to put alternative point of view.
This isn’t just biased leftist propaganda, its BBC biased leftist propaganda. You HAVE to pay for it • we know where you live.
I’m about to declare myself an ethnic minority. How can they prove otherwise?
Michael Taylor: “I don’t think this was bias – it was just autopilot reporting on a policy which I imagine most people on this blog intuitively find insulting.”
I’m not sure I understand: How’s that not bias if the report didn’t reflect the controversy?
“I’m not sure you can blame Humphreys for not articulating that displeasure.”
Why not? It’s his job isn’t it?
Hugh,
I’d have thought Humphreys job is just to report the news. I don’t want him editorialising from the right (dream on!) any more than I want him editorialising from the left (ad infinitum). If the news is that Harriet Harman has decided to do something which you and I find unpleasant/silly, then the fact that you and I find it unpleasant/silly isn’t news. Sorry, but it’s not.
Now, one can discuss who and how what’s ‘news’ is determined, and sometimes that’s a discussion worth getting angry about (case in point – Newsnight’s promotion last night of a mere rumour of a Met officer maybe doing the Met for racial discrimination). Equally, if the report clearly editorializes (‘Harmon decides to do something silly/unpleasant, and she’s right to do it’) then also we can and should argue about the depressingly restricted political imaginations which do the editorialising.
I just think in this case, it was pretty straightforward: ‘Harmon decides to do something silly/unpleasant.’
On the other hand, I suppose in the widest view, the BBC and other associated tossers can’t be absolved from all responsibiliity for the rise of the New Labour Media Party.
“I’d have thought Humphreys job is just to report the news” – That’s the newsreader’s job. Humphreys is there to grill people and test their positions. However, I didn’t catch him and I think he’s normally okay, so I’d be surprised if he didn’t grill her. I’ll let others judge that, but it’s definitely the Beeb’s job to seek out the views of those likley to disagree. And it’s not just Today, is it? What about the web article, which the post referred to? Are those last five paragraphs just reporting the news?
This site occasionally reminds me of Les Patterson. That is Sir Lesley Patterson, Australian Cultural Attache and international sophistiKAT. Wiki will enlighten you further if you care. I mean no disrespect to Australians – it just so happens that he is Aussie, but he translates quite well.
I suppose the description by Bio could be seen as the other side of the coin to the Beeboid. The BBC does have a polarising effect because of its stances and its ludicrous lack of balance and judgement. This provokes rage and when they come on here people will often be angry and express themselves vehemently or intemperately and in some cases offensively.
So yes, there will be some commonality between people here but at the same time I do not share some of the stances and do find myself in strange company from time to time. I don’t generally bother to post about posts that offend me as I would be here all day, so I try to stick to the BBC offences.
I have no doubt that the BBC will lump together everybody on this site and dismiss them as right-wing nutters. That right-leaning stance however may in some cases be a reflection of the polarity that the BBC has done so much to enshrine, as much as it is inherent in the people posting here.
Hugh | 26.06.08 – 3:21 pm |
Why not? It’s his job isn’t it?
Well no it isn’t. That’s the whole point of this site surely, that BBC presenters should not voice their opinions at all.
Just because you may agree with his utterance doesn’t make him right to mutter it.
Millie Tant | 26.06.08 – 4:42 pm |
I have no doubt that the BBC will lump together everybody on this site and dismiss them as right-wing nutters.
Why not? The trolls and BBC defenders do.
That right-leaning stance however may in some cases be a reflection of the polarity that the BBC has done so much to enshrine, as much as it is inherent in the people posting here.
Agreed. There will always be an element of sharing a common enemy, but as long as things stay on the topic of the enemy, it seems to work out okay. It is interesting, though, that the majority of commenters are here because of their objection to the BBC’s hard Left shilling (I include anti-Zionist and disfavor towards Jews in that), and not because the BBC hasn’t “told the troof about 9/11”. The latter seems to be the only other category people complain about whenever the issue of trusting them comes up. I wonder how many troofers come here to talk about BBC bias on that, only to find a bunch of libertarians and conservatives and the like. Must be disappointing.
Still, right-wing or not, some of us are just nutters.
Humprhies, Naughtie et al are there, not to articulate their personal views as they did so blatantly in the John Bolton interviews case or the Hurricane Katrina episode. So it’s a bit rich to now say that Humphries shouldn’t have given Harman a hard time.
Er…Humphreys of course. Sorry John if you’re reading this.
The Cattle Prod of Destiny / Battersea, etc:
I’m sorry if I’ve been misunderstood. I’m simply saying Humphries job is to put the other side of the argument to those he’s interviewing. If there is significant controversy over an issue (like introducing positive discrimination) and they don’t have someone on to provide the opposing case, its his job to put it to the interviewee and see how they answer it. I’m not asking him to express a personal opinion, just to ask the relevant questions that should occur to a journalist.
If all you want him to do is ask the Minister to elaborate on their brilliant plans, there’s not much point of having him there. We’ve got Naughtie for that.
Over on the BNP’s website (warning: I now support the BNP), posters are citing Malcolm X in support against Harman. Haven’t we really come to a dangerous pass when supporters of a supposedly ‘racist’ white-oriented party use Malcolm X to make a point against NuLab’s racism? Clearly, NuLab is racist against this country’s indigenous population, the BBC is its mouthpiece and, as it is with NuLab/BBC, this is just the beginning.
i really just HAVE to laugh at the headline…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7474801.stm
“Harman pushes discrimination plan”
the irony of it is completely lost on the po-faced bbc.
what they are effectively doing , and saying to native English people is – we are introducing laws to discriminate against YOU..
i hope they burn in hell for this.
There’s one part of this other article about Harman’s wacko bill that caught my attention:
Harman pushes discrimination plan
Aside from the funny headline, that is.
The bill will also seek to stop pensioners being denied NHS treatment because of their age, although doctors will still be able to refuse treatment if they believe there are sound clinical reason for doing so.
This doesn’t make any sense. Are they saying that doctors have clinical reasons for not treating oldies, full stop? Or are they stretching the truth about the bill to fool people into thinking that this is a good thing for doctors because it will prevent them getting sued by oldies who want treatment they don’t need, or is contra-indicated?
It sure does seem like in both this and the other report that there are a few instances of the BBC going, “It’s okay because it will also actually help…..”
Overall, the most bizarre thing about all of this is the idea that this bill would do anything to “address the serious inequalities that still exist” in the UK. Unless I am very much mistaken, this presumes that employers are somehow forced to hire white men and this law will finally give them the ability to break the shackles.
Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Really, really, illogical.
“David Preiser (USA) | 26.06.08 – 7:59 pm”
the devil is in the details – one wonders what the very definition of an “ethnic minority” is.
no doubt, we’ll probably start seeing blatant “Poles only” adverts from certain companies as soon as its past.
dressed up in “equality” is more than likely the CBI’s dream come true – the option to finally LEGALLY discriminate in favour of dirt cheap non-union labour from eastern europe.
i do wonder why british trade unions hand over so much dosh to Labour.. are they thick as two planks?
The more nulabor uses it’s hold on power to carry out a policy of social engineering and the destruction of a people’s traditional way of life the more certain it is that there will be a reaction.What form it will take and what will be the result I do not know.What is certain is that it wiil come and encompass much more than a political change of direction.There is always a counter revolution(regarding nulabor and the liberal left as a revolutionary party with a small r) or reformation.It is the way of the world.
I am also sure that there are those actively desiring such a counter revolution who welcome the ever wilder and arbitary acts of this government.The last thing they want is for nulabor to moderate it’s behaviour.
The funny thing about history is the speed with which change happens and how nobody at the time seems able to see it coming.
We may already be in the first stage of a real counter revolution.Or perhaps not.Interesting times.
David Preiser
I wonder how many troofers come here to talk about BBC bias on that, only to find a bunch of libertarians and conservatives and the like. Must be disappointing.
Understanding the truth has nothing to do with being left or right wing. Come to think about it the terms left and right wing have long since been effectively redundant anyway.
I have always tried to described myself as a libertarian or a C/conservative, avoiding if possible wing type definitions.
Libertarians do not trust much. But they have never trusted the establishment or its state, further then they could individually throw them both. Which is not very far at all.
Being a troofer is not believing the official western establishment line on 9/11. In itself it means nothing more. As a libertarian and a C/conservative I see no contradiction whatsoever in being a troofer as well.
If the general public were as informed by the BBC as they have every right to expect to be. I guess as many as 99% of them would also be troofers, and a fair slice of them, very angry indeed.
I do not claim to know anywhere near the full story behind 9/11, very few do. I have my theories, which could be very wrong. But I would bet the house they are closer to the truth then anything the BBC has come out with for many decades.
IMO as there is simply so many evidential facts that do not tally with Washington’s narrative only a fool would believe what the MSM has to say on this, or any other related issue. Which as many agendas and literally tons of rampantly illiberal repressive legislation do now relate directly to this event. An individual interested in the truth, would be smart to trust nothing the MSM has to say on anything, anymore.
The establishment is at the same time capitalist, communist, socialist, internationalist, imperialist, fascist, green, conservative and sometimes ever so slightly libertarian. While also being very much in control of just about everything important ‘event’ that happens in the world. More importantly how these ‘events’ are reported by the vast majority of the worlds media, and therefore what reaction will ultimately be obtained.
The establishment is not the right wing or the left wing, it is the whole damned eagle flying very far over our heads.
Our problem is that competing world establishments have different ideas on who exactly is going to dominate the next century and beyond and how.
Our side is big, mean and the controlled by the nastiest collection of dishonest pirates and psychopathic murderers, so far known to mankind. The other side are not much better, but are also those that have not quite got the picture as to what exactly they are up against. So if they are not completely sure that god exists and is totally on their side, they would be well advised to give up now.
As well as the unconscious humour in the headline,as pointed out by gaping maw, there is another howler in the body of the article: “…firms found guilty of gender discrimination at employment tribunals.” Oh Beeby, the perils of language and not employing decent writers or subeditors.
Haven’t we really come to a dangerous pass when supporters of a supposedly ‘racist’ white-oriented party use Malcolm X to make a point against NuLab’s racism?
Nazis have always been opportunists and extreme left and extreme right eventually meet on common ground, nothing new in any of that.
David Duke of the KK became a firm supporter of Ken Livingstone in his attacks on Jews, Israel and MEMRI.
The Stop The War mob are “all Hizbollah now”. None of this is surprising, what is dangerous is that otherwise intelligent people like you support the BNP.
I’m sure all those Germans in the 1930s felt that the National Socialist Party was talking sense too.