NationStates Jolt Archive

Yet another example of how some people take PCness to the level of pure retardation.


Force admits rejecting white men

Gloucestershire police force has admitted illegally rejecting 108 job applicants because they were white men.

The Police Federation said the force has been trying to recruit more female officers and more people from ethnic minorities to meet a government target.

But one of the unsuccessful applicants, Matt Powell took legal action and has been awarded £2,500 by a tribunal.

Mr Powell, 30, said he became suspicious when he was told he had been "randomly deselected".

The case comes six months after Avon and Somerset Police admitted it had illegally rejected almost 200 applications from white men for the same reason.

'Unlawful racial discrimination'

The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) and the Equal Opportunities Commission who led the investigation, said the Gloucestershire force had unlawfully discriminated on the grounds of race and sex.

A spokesman said: "Unlawful racial discrimination is unacceptable and as the guardian of the Race Relations Act we will hold organisations to account if we think that they are in breach of the Act."

Police are under pressure to meet the government target, set in 1999, that by 2009, 7% of police officers in England and Wales should be from ethnic minority groups.

In September 2005, only 1.6% of Gloucestershire Police officers were black or Asian.

Ian Anderson, chairman of Gloucestershire Police Federation blamed unrealistic government targets for their illegal recruitment drive.

"I think to call it a clumsy policy would be diplomatic.

"It clearly wasn't the way to do it and has caused a great deal of consternation and disquiet in the force and the local community."

'Positive action'

Earlier this year, Gloucestershire's Assistant Chief Constable Michael Matthews admitted 'positive action' had been taken to recruit more women and from ethnic minorities.

"It is essential in a democratic policing environment to ensure that under-represented groups are prioritised in our recruitment drives," he said.

Mr Powell's solicitor, Nigel Tillott, said: "The impact of this is that it is now clear how far public authorities can go in positive action.

"What they cannot do is discriminate against white males when it comes to job applications."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/gloucestershire/5369876.stm

Ahhh, affirmative action. Such a contradicting ideal...

Heard something like this happened down here too, something about a black officer reporting a pro-black bias in one of the local police forces. We should hire on skill, not on race. *nod*

Heard something like this happened down here too, something about a black officer reporting a pro-black bias in one of the local police forces. We should hire on skill, not on race. *nod*

Unless of course two applicants are equally skilled, but one is from an under-represented group of course

This is fucking stupid. It goes completely against my philosophy of "Hire for skill, not for race."

Unless of course two applicants are equally skilled, but one is from an under-represented group of course

Why should that matter? Flip a coin or something.

Why should that matter? Flip a coin or something.

But then people will complain if they are members of an under-represented group. Thats the way it works here anyway and I have no problem with it. Although I appreciate there are other opinions

We should hire on skill, not on race. *nod*

Which is more skilled at dealing with an ethnic group - the police officer with that ethnic background, or the one without?

Which is more skilled at dealing with an ethnic group - the police officer with that ethnic background, or the one without?

Then should minorities be overrepresented at the police force because most crimes are commited by ethnic minorities in western countries?

Then should minorities be overrepresented at the police force because most crimes are commited by ethnic minorities in western countries?

No. They should be represented to match the population they serve.

No. They should be represented to match the population they serve.

Because it's democratic?

Because it's democratic?

Because if it didnt work that way you would always have someone bitching about how unfair the system is

Which is more skilled at dealing with an ethnic group - the police officer with that ethnic background, or the one without?
And conversely - which police officer is said ethnic group going to identify more with and be more likely to listen to? (thus quite possibly defusing potentially riotous situations)

My bet's Ny, just picking a NS'er totally at random, would be more accepting of a blond police officer telling him what to do than a black police officer.

Then should minorities be overrepresented at the police force because most crimes are commited by ethnic minorities in western countries?

Who says they're over represented? And IIRC illiteracy is a far better predictor of crime then race, should we kill all the... *remembers who he's talking to* erm... nevermind.


Which is more skilled at dealing with an ethnic group - the police officer with that ethnic background, or the one without?
So we should only send black people to arrest black people, and white people to arrest white? Should we make the Asian force patrol chinatown? Because that sounds like what you're suggesting.

Because if it didnt work that way you would always have someone bitching about how unfair the system is

You'll always have someone doing that. Even in a utopia. (Well, assuming the dissenters weren't killed and everyone else had their vocal cords removed...)

You'll always have someone doing that. Even in a utopia. (Well, assuming the dissenters weren't killed and everyone else had their vocal cords removed...)

But at least then their complaints have no real substance

Because if it didnt work that way you would always have someone bitching about how unfair the system is

How fair is it for British white men since they are forced to accept unwanted immigrants in their country and then unfairly loose jobs because of them?


The poll comes ahead of local elections next week when there are fears the BNP could make an electoral breakthrough.

It found that 59 per cent of people supported a halt to all further immigration to the UK

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=384167&in_page_id=1770


Ipsos, a Paris-based polling firm, found 60 per cent believing that immigrants were a bad influence on Britain - the highest proportion of all countries surveyed.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=602872004

Some democracy, eh? And Mr Blair is the one who lectures about liberty...Meh

Then should minorities be overrepresented at the police force because most crimes are commited by ethnic minorities in western countries?

Perhaps there's a reason why the poor and marginalised are more likely to commit crimes.


So we should only send black people to arrest black people, and white people to arrest white? Should we make the Asian force patrol chinatown? Because that sounds like what you're suggesting.

Not to that extreme. But it makes sense to have police officers who can, as Demented Hamsters noted, identify closely with the local community, no?

How fair is it for British white men since they are forced to accept unwanted immigrants in their country and then unfairly loose jobs because of them?

The immigrants accepted into the police are obviously not illegal immigrants and lets not forget its not always a racial thing. Look at Northern Ireland for example

Perhaps there's a reason why the poor and marginalised are more likely to commit crimes.


<snip>


I can understand that in countries like USA, but they shouldnt in Europe. All of their neccessities are provided via welfare. They dont need to commit crime to make a living.

But at least then their complaints have no real substance

Whose the judge of substance? Whose to say John's opinion is more or less important then Sally's?

How fair is it for British white men since they are forced to accept unwanted immigrants in their country and then unfairly loose jobs because of them?
Why do you care?

The immigrants accepted into the police are obviously not illegal immigrants and lets not forget its not always a racial thing. Look at Northern Ireland for example

The poll doesnt talk about illegal immigrants. The British goverment is defying the will of people just like it did on Iraq war. And look how good it turned out.

Whose the judge of substance? Whose to say John's opinion is more or less important then Sally's?


Why do you care?

You havent figured out by now? Because I'm just that compassionate :D

Perhaps there's a reason why the poor and marginalised are more likely to commit crimes.



Not to that extreme. But it makes sense to have police officers who can, as Demented Hamsters noted, identify closely with the local community, no?

Unless you take into account an officer's biases. Subconsciously, I'll bet a white officer is more likely to let off a white person. Wouldn't it be best to attempt to ensure impartiality?

The poll doesnt talk about illegal immigrants. The British goverment is defying the will of people just like it did on Iraq war. And look how good it turned out.

If it was just the case that only legal immigrants came to the UK do you think there would be such an uproar. Look at your own link and this quote:

"The NHS is founded on the skills of Caribbean nurses, built by Indian and foreign doctors (today a third of all NHS doctors are foreign), and rescued by an injection of Filipino nurses and refugee cleaners and orderlies. And it remains 100 per cent British."

If it wasn't for the legal immigrants in Britain the country would be in serious trouble

You havent figured out by now? Because I'm just that compassionate :D

Dude, (?) you quoted Nietzsche. :p If you want to keep your own country "pure" or whatever that's your thing, but on't drag other countries into it.

Whose the judge of substance? Whose to say John's opinion is more or less important then Sally's?


Ok maybe you have a point. I'll back it if you can tell me how someone would complain rationally that they are under-represented in the police when the numbers match the population served

I can understand that in countries like USA, but they shouldnt in Europe. All of their neccessities are provided via welfare. They dont need to commit crime to make a living.
Bollocks. 'All of their necessities'? Have you tried living on under £100 a week with a family to support and rent/mortgage to pay? Sure, they don't need to commit crime, but it pays a hell of a lot more than state benefits and is a lot easier for under-educated people to get into than employment.

So we should only send black people to arrest black people, and white people to arrest white? Should we make the Asian force patrol chinatown? Because that sounds like what you're suggesting.
Surely having people patrol areas they're familar with, and who can speak the local's language if necessary - as well understand any cultural differences which might very well be misconstrued*, is just good policing policy, nothing more.
And of course those immigrants would be more likely to talk to and help a police officer who is of their own race and can speak their language.




*for eg, Cantonese Chinese have (for us) a very disgusting habit of spitting where-ever they feel like it. They also tend to talk very loudly (basically shout), especially when excited. A cop, not knowing this, would (quite understandably) mistake this shouting and spitting behaviour as aggression and might then well arrest an innocent person, thereby starting an argument/fight/riot/whathaveyou. A Chinese cop would recognise this behaviour for what it is and tell them - in Cantonese - to calm down.
Which reaction here is the better one?

If it was just the case that only legal immigrants came to the UK do you think there would be such an uproar. Look at your own link and this quote:

"The NHS is founded on the skills of Caribbean nurses, built by Indian and foreign doctors (today a third of all NHS doctors are foreign), and rescued by an injection of Filipino nurses and refugee cleaners and orderlies. And it remains 100 per cent British."

If it wasn't for the legal immigrants in Britain the country would be in serious trouble

Not really. They could have accepted immigrants from Eastern Europe only and wouldnt have to deal with things like honour killings or things like Radical Muslim Who Made Death Threats Against Pope Escapes Prosecution (http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/09/radical_muslim.php)

Not really. They could have accepted immigrants from Eastern Europe only and wouldnt have to deal with things like honour killings or things like Radical Muslim Who Made Death Threats Against Pope Escapes Prosecution (http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/09/radical_muslim.php)
I'm fairly sure the Philippines, India and the Caribbean aren't in Eastern Europe.

Bollocks. 'All of their necessities'? Have you tried living on under £100 a week with a family to support and rent/mortgage to pay? Sure, they don't need to commit crime, but it pays a hell of a lot more than state benefits and is a lot easier for under-educated people to get into than employment.

What about rapes? They got no economical connection.

I'm fairly sure the Philippines, India and the Caribbean aren't in Eastern Europe.

I know english isnt your native tongue but read my post again...

Ok maybe you have a point. I'll back it if you can tell me how someone would complain rationally that they are under-represented in the police when the numbers match the population served

Gladly. If statistics show that one group is being unfairly targeted by crime, then wouldn't that group have the right to demand extra representation in the police forces to attempt to get extra protection?

Not really. They could have accepted immigrants from Eastern Europe only and wouldnt have to deal with things like honour killings or things like Radical Muslim Who Made Death Threats Against Pope Escapes Prosecution (http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/09/radical_muslim.php)

You're looking at the exceptions not the rule.

Gladly. If statistics show that one group is being unfairly targeted by crime, then wouldn't that group have the right to demand extra representation in the police forces to attempt to get extra protection?

Wouldnt that require them to have a lack of respect for police officers of other backgrounds i.e. they wouldnt trust them to provide the same level of protection to all

I know english isnt your native tongue but read my post again...

"The NHS is founded on the skills of Caribbean nurses, built by Indian and foreign doctors (today a third of all NHS doctors are foreign), and rescued by an injection of Filipino nurses and refugee cleaners and orderlies. And it remains 100 per cent British."
If it wasn't for the legal immigrants in Britain the country would be in serious trouble
Not really. They could have accepted immigrants from Eastern Europe only

You were saying?

I can understand that in countries like USA, but they shouldnt in Europe. All of their neccessities are provided via welfare. They dont need to commit crime to make a living.

A welfare system doesn't mean they enjoy a comfortable or even worthwhile existence - we have enough of a welfare system to ensure people don't starve to death here too, but i've been in the houses of friends in significantly less than affluent areas, and I can say from first hand experience that they do it rough in comparison with what I enjoy.

I can certainly see how if you grow up in that sort of environment, while others around you have all the opportunity, you're likely to feel a sense of marginalisation and get pissed off. Some people who get pissed off resort to crime. (and that has nothing to do with ethnicity, but i'll say that certainly over here, the greater proportion of those in poverty are ethnic.) Others try and make something of themselves and make a difference somehow - and some in Britain are becoming police officers. Seems to me that this can only help the situation in the end, if nothing else, than by providing an example of what they can do to improve their lot.

Unless you take into account an officer's biases. Subconsciously, I'll bet a white officer is more likely to let off a white person. Wouldn't it be best to attempt to ensure impartiality?

That's just silly. Were I a police officer, I wouldn't "let off" a white person because I perceive some sort of racial connection with him - no matter if you say "subconsciously", I still don't see how you come to that conclusion. In any case, i'm sure there's no shortage of white police officers in the whole of Britain, so i'm not sure how the point is relevant to begin with. Also, remember that police officers enforce the law, they don't make it. If they let someone off, they have to justify that. It'd take some fancy footwork to cover that up.

Not really. They could have accepted immigrants from Eastern Europe only and wouldnt have to deal with things like honour killings or things like Radical Muslim Who Made Death Threats Against Pope Escapes Prosecution (http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/09/radical_muslim.php)
Having a quick scan over that story - at no point did Choudary actually make a death threat against the Pope:

"During an organised demonstration, Muslim radical Anjem Choudary said that anyone who insulted Prophet Mohammed would be ‘subject to capital punishment’"

If he had made a death threat against the Pope, I imagine it would have been reported something along the lines of:

"During an organised demonstration, Muslim radical Anjem Choudary said that 'The Pope has insulted our Prophet Mohammed, and for this he must die'."

Or something along those lines. But he didn't. So don't try to imply that he did.

And immigrants coming from Eastern Europe during the 50s, 60s and 70s would have been illegal immigrants, because no country in Eastern Europe was ever part of the Commonwealth. The only reason they're legal now is because they're coming from other EU countries.

You're looking at the exceptions not the rule.

Where is the muslim uproar against death threats to Pope? There certainly was when they were "insulted". This moderate muslims thingie is starting to become a bigger myth than Iraqi WMD.

Wouldnt that require them to have a lack of respect for police officers of other backgrounds i.e. they wouldnt trust them to provide the same level of protection to all

Or they could look at the fact that many people are subconsciously bias toward their own race.

Or they could look at the fact that many people are subconsciously bias toward their own race.

Proof?

You were saying?

"Could have" is past tense. So instead of Asians, they COULD HAVE accepted Eastern Europeans that would make NHS run as smoothly as now or maybe more. :rolleyes:

What about rapes? They got no economical connection.
Perhaps, but as rapes make up approximately 0.1% of total crime you can't really make a claim off the back of that.

That's just silly. Were I a police officer, I wouldn't "let off" a white person because I perceive some sort of racial connection with him - no matter if you say "subconsciously", I still don't see how you come to that conclusion. In any case, i'm sure there's no shortage of white police officers in the whole of Britain, so i'm not sure how the point is relevant to begin with. In any case, remember, police officers enforce the law, they don't make it. If they let someone off, they have to justify that. It'd take some fancy footwork to cover that up.

So what are the reasons for affirmative action in the first place? Were white people sitting around in meetings going "You know what? Let's not hire black people!" or were they subconsiously bias? Is it not likly that a police officer would be more likily to believe a person of his/her own race over someone who wasn't?

"Could have" is past tense. So instead of Asians, they COULD HAVE accepted Eastern Europeans that would make NHS run as smoothly as now or maybe more. :rolleyes:

or less of course. I'm sure though there would never have been any cultural problems were eastern europeans to be accepted.

Or they could look at the fact that many people are subconsciously bias toward their own race.

Replace "many" with "all" and you're there.

A welfare system doesn't mean they enjoy a comfortable or even worthwhile existence - we have enough of a welfare system to ensure people don't starve to death here too, but i've been in the houses of friends in significantly less than affluent areas, and I can say from first hand experience that they do it rough in comparison with what I enjoy.

I can certainly see how if you grow up in that sort of environment, while others around you have all the opportunity, you're likely to feel a sense of marginalisation and get pissed off. Some people who get pissed off resort to crime. (and that has nothing to do with ethnicity, but i'll say that certainly over here, the greater proportion of those in poverty are ethnic.) Others try and make something of themselves and make a difference somehow - and some in Britain are becoming police officers. Seems to me that this can only help the situation in the end, if nothing else, than by providing an example of what they can do to improve their lot.


<snip>


For me, Australia is a country like USA, economically. Maybe UK as well. But welfare means WELLfare here and all other nordic countries. And poverty is not an excuse for crime. There are lots of other negative things in life besides money.

So what are the reasons for affirmative action in the first place? Were white people sitting around in meetings going "You know what? Let's not hire black people!" or were they subconsiously bias? Is it not likly that a police officer would be more likily to believe a person of his/her own race over someone who wasn't?

I thought it was more a case of biased against other races than biased towards their own race (very slight difference i know)

Proof?

Invisible bias-boston globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/12/19/invisible_bias/)
Some results so far: 75 percent of white respondents implicitly favor white over black, more than 70 percent of all respondents favor straight people over gay people, and about 80 percent favor young over old.
Closest I can get to proof.

or less of course. I'm sure though there would never have been any cultural problems were eastern europeans to be accepted.

"any" is too big, probably. But there definately would be MUCH LESS cultural problems.

For me, Australia is a country like USA, economically. Maybe UK as well. But welfare means WELLfare here and all other nordic countries. And poverty is not an excuse for crime. There are lots of other negative things in life besides money.

May I ask have you ever considered your lifestyle one of poverty?

"any" is too big, probably. But there definately would be MUCH LESS cultural problems.

None of those in Britain before immigration of course? You take the good with the bad and in this case the good far outweighs the bad

"Could have" is past tense. So instead of Asians, they COULD HAVE accepted Eastern Europeans that would make NHS run as smoothly as now or maybe more. :rolleyes:
Or you could look at the basis for Britain's immigration policy in the third quarter of the 20th century - Commonwealth countries only to start off with, then it was restricted further to allow only those from Commonwealth countries who already had family over here or had a definite job waiting for them. Sure, we could have allowed Eastern Europeans, but the fact is that our immigration policy was incredibly racist - people believed that allowing people from outside the Commonwealth would make the country less British. As there was no evidence that Eastern Europeans would work harder or be more skilled than anyone else, there was no basis to let them into the country.

Having a quick scan over that story - at no point did Choudary actually make a death threat against the Pope:

"During an organised demonstration, Muslim radical Anjem Choudary said that anyone who insulted Prophet Mohammed would be ‘subject to capital punishment’"

If he had made a death threat against the Pope, I imagine it would have been reported something along the lines of:

"During an organised demonstration, Muslim radical Anjem Choudary said that 'The Pope has insulted our Prophet Mohammed, and for this he must die'."

Or something along those lines. But he didn't. So don't try to imply that he did.

And immigrants coming from Eastern Europe during the 50s, 60s and 70s would have been illegal immigrants, because no country in Eastern Europe was ever part of the Commonwealth. The only reason they're legal now is because they're coming from other EU countries.


Dont be silly, please. Many muslims thought Pope did insult their prophet. So mr yet another radical muslim was offering capital punishment for him.

Let me get this straight:
Ny posts a news report saying an English county's been trying to increase the number of it's ethnic minority police officers.
He then posts another report showing that the vast majority of (assumably white) Brits dislike immigrants and this may well result in increased support for the BNP (the english version of KKK).

Does anyone see a connection between the two reports?
I know Ny doesn't, cause he wouldn't have posted them. Ironic that he did of course.

To spell out to the more simple NS'ers out there:
White Britons are becoming increasingly racist.
White racists DO NOT make good police officers, especially so in areas which have large ethnic minorities.
Therefore, increasing the number of ethnic minority people on the police force is a GOOD THING. It can help lessen tensions between ethnic groups for one thing. This leads to less crime, which afaik is the main purpose of policing.

Invisible bias-boston globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/12/19/invisible_bias/)

Closest I can get to proof.

Fair enough :) although i still feel that the present system is the fairest possible at the moment

After generations of struggle to create a world of equality and justice, it's wonderful to know that we've finally reached the point of enlightenment where we can recognize that the real victims of racism are honky straight boys.

:rolleyes:

So what are the reasons for affirmative action in the first place? Were white people sitting around in meetings going "You know what? Let's not hire black people!" or were they subconsiously bias? Is it not likly that a police officer would be more likily to believe a person of his/her own race over someone who wasn't?

I'm not claiming that racism doesn't exist. You had the implication that all people subconsciously think like that - I don't think that all police officers are intrinsically "likely" to be racist.

One could dig up many reasons for why employers might be more likely to employ a white person over an ethnic person, and they're not necessarily due to a bias, but the reality of the situation - an ethnic person is less likely to have had access to a good education, for example.

(and in any case, i'm not pro affirmative action as such, since I believe that it is too little on its own to affect any lasting social change or provide much meaningful social mobility - although it might have its limited uses, and I do believe that employing ethnic police officers is one of them.)

Perhaps, but as rapes make up approximately 0.1% of total crime you can't really make a claim off the back of that.

The point is eventhough rape has no economical connections, ethnic minorities are hugely overrepresented at rape statistics as well in some or maybe all western countries. The question is why?

Dont be silly, please. Many muslims thought Pope did insult their prophet. So mr yet another radical muslim was offering capital punishment for him.
I'm not being silly. Mr Choudary may indeed have been referring to the Pope, but the fact is he never explicitly said words to the effect of 'the Pope must die'. The article you linked to put words in his mouth. It is not up to you or I to jump to the conclusion that he was referring to anything in particular, even with the background to his comments, and his own religious/political beliefs.

The point is eventhough rape has no economical connections, ethnic minorities are hugely overrepresented at rape statistics as well in some or maybe all western countries. The question is why?
Actually the first question that came to my mind was: where's your proof?

None of those in Britain before immigration of course? You take the good with the bad and in this case the good far outweighs the bad

Majority of British people disagree.

For me, Australia is a country like USA, economically.

Not quite - it's what our government would like, certainly, and a case might be made that we're heading that way, but we're not there yet.

And poverty is not an excuse for crime. There are lots of other negative things in life besides money.

I never said it was an excuse - stating why it might happen is different to justifying it.

Majority of British people disagree.
According to one poll the majority of British people disagree. It'd be interesting to see where that poll was conducted and how the questions were asked.

Let me get this straight:
Ny posts a news report saying an English county's been trying to increase the number of it's ethnic minority police officers.
He then posts another report showing that the vast majority of (assumably white) Brits dislike immigrants and this may well result in increased support for the BNP (the english version of KKK).

Does anyone see a connection between the two reports?
I know Ny doesn't, cause he wouldn't have posted them. Ironic that he did of course.

To spell out to the more simple NS'ers out there:
White Britons are becoming increasingly racist.
White racists DO NOT make good police officers, especially so in areas which have large ethnic minorities.
Therefore, increasing the number of ethnic minority people on the police force is a GOOD THING. It can help lessen tensions between ethnic groups for one thing. This leads to less crime, which afaik is the main purpose of policing.

Do you have any idea how offensive I find the idea that you would justify the arbitrary rejection of a white males' police application simply because he is white and male on the off chance that he may have become mort racist recently?

Police training isn't just an afternoon tour of a police station and you're good to go, it last months and there is plenty of time for problems with recruits to be noticed and that recruit removed from the program.

Majority of British people disagree.

Where in the links you gave me did the poll differentiate between illegal and legal immigrants as I have?

Actually the first question that came to my mind was: where's your proof?

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/62605.html

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece


While 65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo's population.


65% vs 14.3% That's hugely overrepresented. Furthermore the ratio could be even higher because:


Of the 111 charged with rape in Oslo last year, 72 were of non-western ethnic origin, 25 are classified as Norwegian or western and 14 are listed as unknown.


Now who's more likely to be classified as unknown? Norwegians? Not really...And I think 3rd generation immigrants are also classified as Norwegian even though they are of ethnic minority.

Where in the links you gave me did the poll differentiate between illegal and legal immigrants as I have?

It just says "immigrants made UK worse." And that includes legals as well as illegals.

It just says "immigrants made UK worse." And that includes legals as well as illegals.

Then to make your argument more effective show me a poll seperating the two groups

Now who's more likely to be classified as unknown? Norwegians? Not really...And I think 3rd generation immigrants are also classified as Norwegian even though they are of ethnic minority.

If I may ask, how many generations must they be before you consider them Norwegian?

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/62605.html

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece

65% vs 14.3% That's hugely overrepresented. Furthermore the ratio could be even higher because:

Ok. That's Norway done. You said 'some or maybe all western countries'.

I'm not being silly. Mr Choudary may indeed have been referring to the Pope, but the fact is he never explicitly said words to the effect of 'the Pope must die'. The article you linked to put words in his mouth. It is not up to you or I to jump to the conclusion that he was referring to anything in particular, even with the background to his comments, and his own religious/political beliefs.

Yes he didnt refer to anyone in particular. He refered to everyone who insults Mohammed which includes Pope. And that's a call for violance on a bigger scale and even worse then explicitly referring to the Pope.

Ok. That's Norway done. You said 'some or maybe all western countries'.

It's good to see geo-centrism alive in somewhere other then America ain't it?

According to one poll the majority of British people disagree. It'd be interesting to see where that poll was conducted and how the questions were asked.

Link clicking lazy?


Poll shows Britons fear immigration has damaged UK
FRASER NELSON POLITICAL EDITOR

BRITAIN has been named as one of the most xenophobic countries in the world, surpassing France, Germany, Spain and Japan in its hostility to immigration.

A new opinion poll which sampled opinion across ten countries found the majority of people in Britain are supportive of religious tolerance - but still believe that immigration has damaged the country.

The research triggered a mixture of disbelief and concern from mainstream political parties yesterday, amid fears that asylum is becoming a growing issue ahead of the 10 June European Parliament elections.

Ipsos, a Paris-based polling firm, found 60 per cent believing that immigrants were a bad influence on Britain - the highest proportion of all countries surveyed.

France, where the far-right National Front came second in the presidential election two years ago, emerged as one of the more moderate countries in the study with only 53 per cent arguing that migrants made the country worse.

But seven out of ten in France said that religious diversity within a country is to be welcomed, and three-quarters said that immigrants arrive to take the jobs which native Frenchmen refuse to do.

The same split reaction - welcoming religious pluralism but fearing that immigration has been harmful overall - also characterised Spain, Germany and Italy.

Ipsos, which conducted the poll with the Associated Press, admitted that its findings contradict widespread feeling that Britain - with its long history of migration and colonisation - is more relaxed about multiculturalism .

"The UK has historically embraced diversity," said Sam McGuire, with Ipsos-UK. The poll results, he said, "may have to do with Britons’ fears about the recent expansion of the European Union."

The Commission for Racial Equality said the survey was "disappointing" and underplayed the role of migrants in building British public services.

"The NHS is founded on the skills of Caribbean nurses, built by Indian and foreign doctors (today a third of all NHS doctors are foreign), and rescued by an injection of Filipino nurses and refugee cleaners and orderlies. And it remains 100 per cent British."

The poll chimes with the increasing alarm expressed in Westminster by MPs of all parties who say campaigners are being told that immigration is the main point of concern in several key seats.

This has been used to explain the rising success of the UK Independence Party, which recently recruited Robert Kilroy-Silk, the former BBC1 chat-show host, as its frontman.

Although the party is based on a pledge to withdraw Britain from the EU, its leaflet suggests it is now manoeuvring for the anti-migrant vote.

Its main theme is now arguing that Labour, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have agreed plans to "open our borders to 73 million potential immigrants from Eastern Europe".

The UKIP said their rivals have made a gross miscalculation in thinking that Britain is relaxed about the potential influx of migrants from the former Warsaw Pact countries made possible from 1 May.

"Britain absorbs almost half of all migration into the European Union - of course we’re more concerned," a spokesman said.

"We’re better at integrating. Once it happens, people don’t take out their anger on immigrants as they do in some countries. But that doesn’t mean people are not deeply worried about it."

Failure to address asylum fears has led to the toppling of centre-left governments in France, Austria and the Netherlands. One senior Blair adviser told The Scotsman that concern has never been higher.

"Two issues come up time and time again: Iraq and migration. We have an answer for the first, but we need an answer for the second. It will have to be something radical," he said.

Internal polling from Labour and the Tories shows that voters have more faith in Mr Howard to take a firm grip of migration. But the UKIP is shown to make high progress in opinion polls.

The Daily Telegraph last Monday showed the UKIP to be in third place, overtaking the Liberal Democrats. The party has three MEPs at present.

Anti-Scottish sentiment has entered the campaign in London, where an Essex-based party named the "English Democrats" has sent leaflets through letter-boxes highlighting Scottish Executive policies.

"By paying £10 billion extra to Scotland under the Barnett Formula, Scots now have a better education, transport and care with free prescriptions, residential care for the elderly and now top-up fees," it reads.

"All at the expense of the long-suffering English taxpayer! This is the real North/South divide." The party is campaigning against devolution for the English regions and also calls for withdrawal from the EU.

Cross-party MPs say immigration is not playing anywhere near as strongly in Scotland, where ministers are worried at the reverse problem: failing to attract enough migrants to stop depopulation.

This has already pushed Scotland’s school roll into permanent decline, with 14,000 places due to be lost this year alone.

Britain has emerged amongst the most sceptical countries on migration in the regular polls taken by the EU Commission. Britain is regularly ranked beside Belgium, the Netherlands and Austria.

But, in spite of this, Britain still has no mainstream political party which would reverse the migration policy adopted earlier this month which gives the ten EU accession countries the right to work in Britain without a permit.

Successive polls show this political consensus has not filtered through to the doorsteps. Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, has long worried that this will create an anomaly which will push voters towards the BNP or the UKIP.

Both can win seats due to the proportional representation electoral system used for the European Parliament elections, which will coincide with English local government elections on 10 June.

• The UKIP was reprimanded for telling Scots and Londoners that they should send in a postal vote because "the government has decreed that there will be no polling stations in your region". The UKIP said this was an honest error, and the leaflet was intended for Yorkshire. But the Electoral Commission suggested disciplinary action may follow. "It’s confusing for voters - we’ve discussed it with them and it was inaccurate," said a spokesman.

Ok. That's Norway done. You said 'some or maybe all western countries'.

Link clicking laziness again? That's Norway AND Denmark done. And they are some western countries. Maybe is still a maybe and I cant search net for all western countries.

Ahhh, affirmative action. Such a contradicting ideal...

That's like saying that feeding the poor is a bad idea because if you throw frozen turkeys off the roofs of the projects, then people get hurt.

Affirmative action, if it is nothing more than efforts to address racial inequality is not a bad thing. Quotas, which are a stupid way to achieve that goal, are a bad thing.

Sometimes genius children end up frustrated and bored, and with bad grades, when teachers don't recognize their talents. It makes sense to say that they should be given the opportunity to advance to whatever gradework that they're fit to complete. Now imagine if someone said that one spot in each grade must be held open for a first grader?

Just a stupid way of doing something that really should be done.

That's like saying that feeding the poor is a bad idea because if you throw frozen turkeys off the roofs of the projects, then people get hurt.

Affirmative action, if it is nothing more than efforts to address racial inequality is not a bad thing. Quotas, which are a stupid way to achieve that goal, are a bad thing.

Sometimes genius children end up frustrated and bored, and with bad grades, when teachers don't recognize their talents. It makes sense to say that they should be given the opportunity to advance to whatever gradework that they're fit to complete. Now imagine if someone said that one spot in each grade must be held open for a first grader?

Just a stupid way of doing something that really should be done.

How would you do it then?

Link clicking lazy?
I apologise for missing t'other link. Though that article is over 2 years old, and it claims that the French have 'moderate' views on immigrants because 'only 53%' believe that immigrants have had a negative effect on the country, whereas Britain is 'one of the most xenophobic countries in the world' because 7% more people believe the same for Britain. Somewhat odd, don't you think?

And I'd like to know what the British thought about this part:
"But seven out of ten in France said that religious diversity within a country is to be welcomed, and three-quarters said that immigrants arrive to take the jobs which native Frenchmen refuse to do."

As it's not reported I suspect that the findings from this part are contradictory to the message that the writer is trying to convey. Or, in other words, that the British feel exactly the same way, if not more so and in greater numbers.

Link clicking laziness again? That's Norway AND Denmark done. And they are some western countries. Maybe is still a maybe and I cant search net for all western countries.
No, they are two western countries. Maybe is also still a maybe not.

As usual, another thread by NN in which he runs the full length course of his views. "Whites" are being unfairly treated and victimized, immigrants are bad, Muslims are all extremist terrorists...

I guess you've been reading a lot of Angry White Girl when you've been gone, eh?

As usual, another thread by NN in which he runs the full length course of his views. "Whites" are being unfairly treated and victimized, immigrants are bad, Muslims are all extremist terrorists...

I guess you've been reading a lot of Angry White Girl when you've been gone, eh?

And another huge straw men from Greater Trostia/Trostia/Santa Barbara/Tropical blah blah, etc...

And another huge straw men from Greater Trostia/Trostia/Santa Barbara/Tropical blah blah, etc...

Ah. Of course. A straw man. A huge one, at that.

Because it's not like in this thread alone, you've tried to make the immigrants are all rapists (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11765048&postcount=68) argument. Or moderate Muslims are a myth (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11764950&postcount=40) - hence, they're all extremists. I guess the straw man must be me claiming you read Angry White Female, I mean it's not like you ever made a thread inspired by that racist she-bitch (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=480768).

Yeah. Strawman. Sure.

Having a quick scan over that story - at no point did Choudary actually make a death threat against the Pope:

"During an organised demonstration, Muslim radical Anjem Choudary said that anyone who insulted Prophet Mohammed would be ‘subject to capital punishment’"

If he had made a death threat against the Pope, I imagine it would have been reported something along the lines of:

"During an organised demonstration, Muslim radical Anjem Choudary said that 'The Pope has insulted our Prophet Mohammed, and for this he must die'."

Or something along those lines. But he didn't. So don't try to imply that he did.

Capital punishment = death penalty in British legal jargon (I am guessing, because it is the word used in Indian courts which are derived from British systems). From the name Anjem Choudhary, I can guess that he is Pakistani descent, so he could have gotten it from Pak legal lingo (same like Indian).

It does imply a death threat.

Maybe this will show as an example for the fokes back in the US to abolish political correctness and affirmative action. Let people get a job based on merit not race.

Affirmative action is racist, plain and simple.

when you make a decision about a person based on ethnicity or gender rather than on skills and achievements, it's racist.

If you want to end racism, simply make it illegal for job applications or college applications to ask for the applicant's race. If you want to be judged on "quality of character" rather than "color of skin", why should it matter what race you are? and if it doesn't matter what race you are, why should potential employers or colleges even need to know?

As I see it, Affirmitave Action is actually hurting minorities more than it helps. Sure, underpriviledged kids for poor neighborhoods need help getting into and paying for colleges that they normally couldn't afford. but why do you automatically equate "underprivilidged" with "black"? If anything, Aa should be restructured to help poor kids get into college and poor people into jobs rather than base it on race. If two applicants with equal criteria apply for a job, the ultimate decision wold fall to which one needs the money more. the guy with four kids and a shitty apartment gets the job over the guy with the nice house, one kid, and a wife with a well paying job.



Let me ask you: to hospitals give crutches to healthy people?

then why do you assume that black people can't stand on their own?

That seems more racist than any glass ceiling I've ever seen.

It's disgusting but hardly surprising. After all, these police forces are only doing what the government is encouraging them to do. It's yet another example of how pathetic this country has become. Another example of this sort of politically correct crap is this instance, (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/10/ngay10.xml) where an author was investigated by police because she dared express the opinion that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt children.

It comes to something when the people who we are putting in charge of society's protection are people like Ian Blair - a complete degenerate, dickless, politically correct left wing bastard who's more concerned with sucking off Tony Blair and working to further his cultural marxist agenda than he is about actually solving real crimes.

If it wasn't for race, racism would not exist. Sure, sexism, ageism, and other isms would but racism, the belief that one race is inferior to another, would not because there would only be one race.

If we can get everyone to abandon the idea of race, except the good kind that has fast things or people in them who try to cross a certain point first. Races involving fast stuff are great. Race, implying that blacks and whites and asians are all different in ways other than the obvious(amount of melanin in skin and eye shape), is not okay.

The first step to getting other people to abandon the concept is for all of us to abandon it. After all, people tend to believe that someone who believes what he says has more credibility than a hypocrit. Plus, you can't really change people. You can influence them enough to convince them to change, but you can't change them yourself, unless you rape and/or kill them. then you personally changed them.