NationStates Jolt Archive

...English'

A bright teenager was the victim of racial discrimination by the Environment Agency - she was told that she could not apply for a posted job opportunity, because of her ethnic origin - White English.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=473249&in_page_id=1770 (also reported in physical copy of Daily Express and probably other papers)

http://************/yrew3p (same link as above, but "tinyurl'd" so it doesn't break)

P.S. "the majority group... is 'White English'" (well duh of course it's the majority group IN THE WHOLE OF GREAT BRITAIN because it's the biggest piece of land! Duh again).

Fuck racial quota's. Most retarded thing ever.

Perhaps the envrionment agency should be more concerned with cleaning up the mess that they helped create this summer?

Perhaps the envrionment agency should be more concerned with cleaning up the mess that they helped create this summer?

Agreed

Don't trust a word the Daily Mail says. There are no ethnic quotas in the UK or positive discrimination is they are illegal.

If this should be true, the teenager could even go to the European court. This would never be accepted.

LOL. The UK is really pathetic. I'll have a blast if a silly British tabloid dares to mock US election results ever again...


English girl barred from Government job...because she is wrong kind of white
By MARK NICOL - More by this author » Last updated at 11:27am on 6th August 2007

Comments Comments (66)
A teenage science student has been banned from applying for a training programme with the Environment Agency because she is white and English.

The recruitment agency handling the scheme told Abigail Howarth, 18, that there was no point in her submitting an application because of her ethnic background.

But bizarrely she could have applied if she had been white and Welsh, Scottish or Irish.

Abigail, who wanted to join the Agency's flood management programme, saw an advert in a local newspaper offering positions in the Anglia region where she lives, complete with a £13,000-a-year tax-free grant.

It made no mention of the ban on white English applicants, merely noting that candidates from ethnic minorities, such as "Asian, Indian' and "White Other, e.g. Irish, Welsh, Scottish', were encouraged to put themselves forward.

Abigail, of Little Straughton, Bedfordshire, said: "I was really disappointed. To be told being "White English" ruled me out in my home county shocked me. I know why there are positive action training schemes to assist those who are genuinely discriminated against but when it's broken down to this level it seems crazy to me.

"I really wanted to work for the agency and I was very excited - followed by feeling very disappointed.

"I would not have minded had I been beaten for the position by somebody better able than me."

Scroll down for more

Abigail, who is awaiting the results of A-Levels in environmental science, geography and geology, emailed PATH National Ltd, the company handling applications.

She asked: "Am I correct in assuming that as I am English (White) I need not apply as the preference is for the minorities you have listed, or can I apply anyway?'

Three days later, PATH recruitment officer, Bola Odusi, replied: "Thank you for your enquiry unfortunately the traineeship opportunity in <\[>sic] targeted towards the ethnic minority group to address their under representations in the professions under the Race Relations Act amended 2000."

Such a policy may breach Race Relations legislation as employers must prove ethnic groups are under-represented before using positive discrimination strategies.

The Environment Agency admitted it had 'no evidence that white Welsh, Scottish or Irish workers were under-represented' in the Anglia region.

South West Bedfordshire Tory MP Andrew Selous said: "I think this is complete nonsense and the Environment Agency should be taking the best people, irrespective of their background.

"This is obviously borne out of some idiotic quota system. Abigail should have been able to apply and been judged on her own merits. I will raise this when I have a meeting with the Environment Agency next month."

PATH National's organisational development manager, Mary McDowell, said: "The "White Welsh", "White Irish" and "White Scottish" is a technicality in law - if they are a minority, they are entitled to places on these schemes - they are not part of the majority group, which is "White English".

"The "White English" in this area are the majority group and hence could not apply.

"That is the way the law is laid. This is a chance for people who might be less employable to gain experience, just experience. Public-sector organisations have a duty to ensure they reflect the make-up of the society they serve."

The Environment Agency says 387 of its 12,000 workers claim BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) status. A spokesman added: "The Commission for Racial Equality has confirmed we are acting legally."

A CRE spokeswoman said: "The Commission will be checking with the Environment Agency to clarify the current situation regarding their positive action initiatives.

"Positive action can only be used to encourage or train particular under-represented groups."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=473249&in_page_id=1770

Much as I rail against positive discrimination in the UK, the very fact this is in the Daily Mail suggests that it might not be quite as simple as conveyed. However, given the actions of Messyrs Cameron and Brown; "female, ethnic, gay or disabled sir? Please, run for a constituency....", and the desire of any official organisation to appear proper and thoroughly modern, the story sounds plausible enough.

The Daily Mail is complete shit. Just to make this quite clear.

Erm...this is a tabloid?

A: This thread has been done.

B: It's the Daily Mail.

C: It must suck to be part of the ethnic majority of a country.

Erm...this is a tabloid?

Yes. It sure as hell is not a Broadsheet.

It's the fucking Daily Mail. Aren't they a far right tabloid?

It's the fucking Daily Mail. Aren't they a far right tabloid?

The Daily Mail and the Daily Express are what I'd describe as bridge papers between the tabloids and the broadsheets.

I wouldn't say that the Mail is far right, just conservative and frequently wrong about everything.

Yes. It sure as hell is not a Broadsheet.
It's a broadsheet in size if not in intellectualism.
It's the fucking Daily Mail. Aren't they a far right tabloid?
No, they're not a far right tabloid.

They're a "GYPSIES LANDING IN DOVER - KILL THEM AT THE GATES BEFORE THEY LOWER HOUSE PRICES IN LONDON"-type tabloid.

It's a broadsheet in size if not in intellectualism.



I love playing the "who'll buy what paper?" game at work. Anybody who cycles in on a sunday morning inveriably buys an Observer, anybody in an Audi, Jag or Linen suit buys a Telegraph, and anybody in a slightly aged BMW or Mercedes of which they are terribly proud buys a Daily Mail...:D

No, they're not a far right tabloid.

They're a "GYPSIES LANDING IN DOVER - KILL THEM AT THE GATES BEFORE THEY LOWER HOUSE PRICES IN LONDON"-type tabloid.

Oh. I assume the editor thinks Elvis is still alive.

It's not far right. It's far on the other side of sanity.

I love playing the "who'll buy what paper?" game at work. Anybody who cycles in on a sunday morning inveriably buys an Observer, anybody in an Audi, Jag or Linen suit buys a Telegraph, and anybody in a slightly aged BMW or Mercedes of which they are terribly proud buys a Daily Mail...:D
Heh.

For 'who buys a Daily Mail', see also women who wear blue eyeshadow and have a child in a black pram, looking between 25 and 45.

For some reason, this group almost invariably buys said rag.
Oh. I assume the editor thinks Elvis is still alive.
Not really, more that were Elvis alive, it'd be great that a white man took the place of some perfidious coloured singer, who'd otherwise be a star with his voice.

Oh. I assume the editor thinks Elvis is still alive.

Not particularly. Such credulous wank is more the preserve of the Daily Star, Daily Sport and the like; the Mail is just refreshingly nasty, vindictive and visceral.

Not really, more that were Elvis alive, it'd be great that a white man took the place of some perfidious coloured singer, who'd otherwise be a star with his voice.

Racists too? They sound worse than FOX.

Heh.

For 'who buys a Daily Mail', see also women who wear blue eyeshadow and have a child in a black pram, looking between 25 and 45.

For some reason, this group almost invariably buys said rag.



The men always wear Polo shirts as well. And smell of slightly more upmarket aftershave than the average News of the World reader, while wearing discretely conspicuous expensive jewellery.

All the written media are as bias and retarded as each other (admittedly in different ways). Atleast the story's not the Express I can see it now "English girl barred from Government job...because she is wrong kind of white; What would Dianna say!". Can that paper go two pages without mentioning that stupid bitch.

Racists too? They sound worse than FOX.
Erm aye, albeit somewhat different.

They don't push a pro-Fundie viewpoint so much as a 'if you're not white, male and can trace 10 generations of heritage back to rural Kent, then get the fuck out" kind of one.
The men always wear Polo shirts as well. And smell of slightly more upmarket aftershave than the average News of the World reader, while wearing discretely conspicuous expensive jewellery.
Quite.
All the written media are as bias and retarded as each other (admittedly in different ways). Atleast the story's not the Express I can see it now "English girl barred from Government job...because she is wrong kind of white; What would Dianna say!". Can that paper go two pages without mentioning that stupid bitch.
:D

Ah, the Dily express.

"SHOCK NEWS : DIANA STILL DEAD, INVESTIGATION STILL SOMEWHAT GOING ON"
*page 2*
"Oh and we hate darkies, as would Diana nowadays"

Erm aye, albeit somewhat different.

They don't push a pro-Fundie viewpoint so much as a 'if you're not white, male and can trace 10 generations of heritage back to rural Kent, then get the fuck out" kind of one.


I think you need at least one colonial governer, one pastor/vicar, and a Battle of Britain pilot in your family tree to be excluded from the Mail's deportation list.

They don't push a pro-Fundie viewpoint so much as a 'if you're not white, male and can trace 10 generations of heritage back to rural Kent, then get the fuck out" kind of one.

Bet they play the retarded BNP music (http://youtube.com/watch?v=gtoF_7C6R7Q) in the backgroud. (The lyrics used to be somewhere on the net)

Bet they play the retarded BNP music (http://youtube.com/watch?v=gtoF_7C6R7Q) in the backgroud. (The lyrics used to be somewhere on the net)

Ah.... the BNP they're always good for a laugh. I saw one of those "THERES NO BLACK, IN THE UNION JACK" posters and thought to myself but there is a hell of a lot of red in that flag are they saying we should ship in some commies. Needless to say I felt the need to send them a letter pointing this out (yep, I'm a smug bastard) and to my surprise I got a response sent by recorded delivery but when I opened it it was just a sticky piece of paper. They sent spit by Recorded Delivery..... Ohh dear God I hope it was spit....

Ah.... the BNP they're always good for a laugh. I saw one of those "THERES NO BLACK, IN THE UNION JACK" posters and thought to myself but there is a hell of a lot of red in that flag are they saying we should ship in some commies. Needless to say I felt the need to send them a letter pointing this out (yep, I'm a smug bastard) and to my surprise I got a response sent by recorded delivery but when I opened it it was just a sticky piece of paper. They sent spit by Recorded Delivery..... Ohh dear God I hope it was spit....

Wow. Nice.

Not particularly. Such credulous wank is more the preserve of the Daily Star, Daily Sport and the like; the Mail is just refreshingly nasty, vindictive and visceral.

Oh. We've got Rush Limbaugh and Howard Dean.

Ah.... the BNP they're always good for a laugh. I saw one of those "THERES NO BLACK, IN THE UNION JACK" posters and thought to myself but there is a hell of a lot of red in that flag are they saying we should ship in some commies. Needless to say I felt the need to send them a letter pointing this out (yep, I'm a smug bastard) and to my surprise I got a response sent by recorded delivery but when I opened it it was just a sticky piece of paper. They sent spit by Recorded Delivery..... Ohh dear God I hope it was spit....

Heh. You should have suggested they allow smurfs to emigrate to the UK.;)

Heh. You should have suggested they allow smurfs to emigrate to the UK.;)

Ahh.... Touché.

I love playing the "who'll buy what paper?" game at work. Anybody who cycles in on a sunday morning inveriably buys an Observer, anybody in an Audi, Jag or Linen suit buys a Telegraph, and anybody in a slightly aged BMW or Mercedes of which they are terribly proud buys a Daily Mail...:D


I preferre this from Yes! Minister/Yes! Prime Minister

Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

I preferre this from Yes! Minister/Yes! Prime Minister

Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

That's brilliant.:D

I'm quite ashamed to say I've never really watched "Yes Minister!", but it's never on UKTVGold...:(

I preferre this from Yes! Minister/Yes! Prime Minister

Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.


Genius:D

Erm...this is a tabloid?

YOu obviously don't know what the definition of tabloid is. Tabloid is a term used to describe the size layout of the paper. Many trustworthy papers such as the Sun Times use this layout.

The Daily Mail and the Daily Express are what I'd describe as bridge papers between the tabloids and the broadsheets.

I wouldn't say that the Mail is far right, just conservative and frequently wrong about everything.

The bridge between tabloids and broadsheets is a berliner style.

BTW, I can rip apart the Daily Mirror for the same reasons people are ripping the Daily Mail. I bet the same people ripping the Mail would defend the Mirror. Hypocrites.

The bridge between tabloids and broadsheets is a berliner style.

BTW, I can rip apart the Daily Mirror for the same reasons people are ripping the Daily Mail. I bet the same people ripping the Mail would defend the Mirror. Hypocrites.

Not really, ones a right wing rag, ones a left wing rag. We seem to have a problem in the UK with developing any decent independent printed press.

Not really, ones a right wing rag, ones a left wing rag. We seem to have a problem in the UK with developing any decent independent printed press.

You're one of the honest ones. I bet most of the people ripping the Mail are avid fans of the Mirror. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of them. It's just like the people who rip Fox News but then cite the New York Times as a non-biased source. They aren't honest enough to point out both are biased.

That's brilliant.:D

I'm quite ashamed to say I've never really watched "Yes Minister!", but it's never on UKTVGold...:(

I only saw one episode of Yes! Prime Minister... and it had that quote in it.

It's not far right. It's far on the other side of sanity.

You mean far right?

Ah, so you're going to use something that is most likely illegal and, for God's sake, was reported in the Daily Mail?

Marvelous! I love the way we are three pages in and the original rant just got left behind, while we talk about the British press instead!

Just to clarify. I take The Sun, it's the only paper with tits and Hagar in it.

LOL. The UK is really pathetic. I'll have a blast if a silly British tabloid dares to mock US election results ever again...

Because a poor little white girl not getting a job is totally like irregularities in the POTUS elections :rolleyes:



And "Yes, [Prime] Minister" is great :)

Because a poor little white girl not getting a job is totally like irregularities in the POTUS elections :rolleyes:

It's racism. If she has the qualifications, she should get the job. End of story.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=534830

It's racism. If she has the qualifications, she should get the job. End of story.

Possibly,


But it isn't really comparable to voter fraud.

It's racism. If she has the qualifications, she should get the job. End of story.

Um, that's not the point. The point is that... they're completely unrelated.

You're one of the honest ones. I bet most of the people ripping the Mail are avid fans of the Mirror. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of them. It's just like the people who rip Fox News but then cite the New York Times as a non-biased source. They aren't honest enough to point out both are biased.

The Daily sodding Mirror! How dare you!

On the behalf of all UK NS'ers, I suggest you learn your British papers. Literacy, the ability to debate and generally be a reasoned human being are not qualities found in the average Mirror reader.

Personally, I prefer the Telegraph. Not only does it have the best sports writers (Boycott, Winters, Johnson etc), but it also has Boris as a columnist!:)

You're one of the honest ones. I bet most of the people ripping the Mail are avid fans of the Mirror.

I bet their not.


Honestly, if you wanted to pick a paper to use as a totem for the British left, you're better off using the Guardian, or even the Independent.

The Daily sodding Mirror! How dare you!

On the behalf of all UK NS'ers, I suggest you learn your British papers. Literacy, the ability to debate and generally be a reasoned human being are not qualities found in the average Mirror reader.

Personally, I prefer the Telegraph. Not only does it have the best sports writers (Boycott, Winters, Johnson etc), but it also has Boris as a columnist!:)

You know even as a liberal/socialist type of guy, I do like Boris, he is a funny chap, not afraid to speak his mind. A pretty shit politician, but a funny guy!

Nope I'll still give my vote to Red Ken for mayor of London.

Now if we're on the topic of favorite British newspapers. I'm going to take the Financial Times. I actually have had it delivered to my house.

I bet their not.

Honestly, if you wanted to pick a paper to use as a totem for the British left, you're better off using the Guardian, or even the Independent.

The Independent doesn't strike me as "Left" at all. Nor the Guardian for that matter.

Those poor oppressed WASPS.

Those poor oppressed WASPS.

It's racism to be classifying people into racial categories in the first place.

There's no scientific basis for "race". No medical basis for "race".

Why should there be legal divisions based on ideas that are pulled out of people's asses?

The Independent doesn't strike me as "Left" at all.

True, but I know more lefties who read that rather then the Mirror (why anyone reads either of those papers is beyond my ken though)


Nor the Guardian for that matter.

How do you figure?

How do you figure?

The Guardian does read "more Left" than the Independent - but barely so. Usually in its special coverage stories - and then it's not so much a matter of Left.

They are, however, noticeably anti-Israel (once again, lightly).

The BBC is more anti-Israel than the Guardian.

Then again, the Labour Party has really abandoned being Left, so the shift in politics has had a major effect on the news in the UK.

Don't trust a word the Daily Mail says. There are no ethnic quotas in the UK or positive discrimination is they are illegal.

Sorry but you are WRONG. The Daily Mail makes up some shit yeh (so check other news sources). but there are ethnic quotas and 'positive discrimination' (the latter was actually mentioned on my university course and when it comes to the law, this uni generally gets their facts right) in the UK. I've researched both. Such things SHOULD be illegal, but they're not.

Don't we have a thread on this already?

Too much trouble to, you know, post in the existing thread?

Don't we have a thread on this already?

yes, and it was beaten to death

Not to burst anyone's bubble, but there is already a thread on this.:)

Don't we have a thread on this already?
On page 2.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=534992

Not to burst anyone's bubble, but there is already a thread on this.:)

Not to burst your bubble, but someone's already said that.
Why does this keep happening to me?!?!?

The Guardian does read "more Left" than the Independent - but barely so. Usually in its special coverage stories - and then it's not so much a matter of Left.

They are, however, noticeably anti-Israel (once again, lightly).

The BBC is more anti-Israel than the Guardian.

Then again, the Labour Party has really abandoned being Left, so the shift in politics has had a major effect on the news in the UK.
Just because there's no scientific basis for race, doesn't mean that idiots haven't been discriminating based on it for hundreds of years.

Affirmative action can stop when a black man (or any other minority) has the same likelihood of knowing the right people (to help secure employment etc.) as a white man, and when all minorities average at around the same socioeconomic status.

You're one of the honest ones. I bet most of the people ripping the Mail are avid fans of the Mirror.
Pfft.

In the worlds of the mail, I'm a "Guardian-reading so-called intellectual". No Mirror for me, ta!

The Daily sodding Mirror! How dare you!

On the behalf of all UK NS'ers, I suggest you learn your British papers. Literacy, the ability to debate and generally be a reasoned human being are not qualities found in the average Mirror reader.

Personally, I prefer the Telegraph. Not only does it have the best sports writers (Boycott, Winters, Johnson etc), but it also has Boris as a columnist!:)
As someone whose dad writes for the Mirror, I'll tell you exactly where you can shove that crap, thank you very much.

Just because there's no scientific basis for race, doesn't mean that idiots haven't been discriminating based on it for hundreds of years.

Affirmative action can stop when a black man (or any other minority) has the same likelihood of knowing the right people (to help secure employment etc.) as a white man, and when all minorities average at around the same socioeconomic status.


or to quote an old black friend of mine(sadly passed away ) who took part in the civil rights movement
"Positive discrimination is still discrimination, just the victim group has changed"

You pick people for a job based on education ,experience and interview..... not on some pathetic 'quota'
How would you feel if the boss told you 'you were only employed because we have too many white/black/yellow/green with purple spots* people employed here'

Boris

*equality for zombies too!:eek:

The Independent doesn't strike me as "Left" at all. Nor the Guardian for that matter.

Really? Given that the Guardian is the socially acceptable left wing paper in the UK (people who read Morning Star tend to foam at the mouth), I spy a poor judgement.

As someone whose dad writes for the Mirror, I'll tell you exactly where you can shove that crap, thank you very much.

Which would be?;)

Much as I would love to feign an interest in whatever tabloid rag your dad writes for (Telegraph work experiance next summer for me!!! Hooray!), it is irrelevant considering that the paper is no more reasoned, considered or eloquent than the Sun. Classic from a recent sports headline; "Whinge Boks". Wow, the mind reels from considering how much effort that took to contrive.

or to quote an old black friend of mine(sadly passed away ) who took part in the civil rights movement
"Positive discrimination is still discrimination, just the victim group has changed"

You pick people for a job based on education ,experience and interview..... not on some pathetic 'quota'
How would you feel if the boss told you 'you were only employed because we have too many white/black/yellow/green with purple spots* people employed here'

Boris

*equality for zombies too!:eek:I endorse this statement 100%.

'Positive' descrimination has been in the UK for years.
In the early 90's I was made homeless because my landlord had pocketed all my rent and deposit, and not paid his mortgage, so the property got repossessed.
I was eligable for local council housing, however at the bottom of the list. The local council officer told me that if I was an ethnic lesbian with a disability and/or child I could be at the top of the list, or even just an ethnic lesbian would get me in the top 10!
Spent the next few months living in my van and sleeping on friends floors till I could find and afford somewhere else to rent.

Which would be?;)
You know exactly where, and you can take your appalling superiority complex along with it.

Much as I would love to feign an interest in whatever tabloid rag your dad writes for (Telegraph work experiance next summer for me!!! Hooray!), it is irrelevant considering that the paper is no more reasoned, considered or eloquent than the Sun.
Does that make anyone who reads it illiterate? I don't read the Mirror because it's content doesn't interest me (or some of it's politics), but that doesn't make it any less worthwhile - or its political 'unreasoned' bias any different to the 'reasoned' bias of the Torygraph, no matter how much more 'eloquent' it is. But then, I suppose that's a bit difficult to see when there's an excuse for some more sneering class snobbery.

Classic from a recent sports headline; "Whinge Boks". Wow, the mind reels from considering how much effort that took to contrive.
Telegraph headline: "Airlines ordered to show full ticket price"

:rolleyes:

You know exactly where, and you can take your appalling superiority complex along with it.


I'm with you on this one. Up in Scotland you can almost tell which side of the Christian coin a man is on by asking the seemingly innocent question which team do you support.

Down here in england some people labour under the misaprehension, that you can similarly tell which side of the political coin a man is on by asking what paper do you take.

This is false, and a massive mistake, and an overwhelmingly bad generalisation, that phrase about books and covers springs to mind. Sheet man, snobbery everywhere!

I'm with you on this one. Up in Scotland you can almost tell which side of the Christian coin a man is on by asking the seemingly innocent question which team do you support.

Down here in england some people labour under the misaprehension, that you can similarly tell which side of the political coin a man is on by asking what paper do you take.
Well, there's an element of truth to that, I doubt many Labour supporters read the Mail, but I think most people read a newspaper for its content - the types of news, features and sport it has - rather than its politics. I usually read a broadsheet, either the Guardian or the Telegraph, depending on what's available, because they have the kinds of things that I like to read about in them. My sister reads the Mirror because it reports on the kinds of things she likes to read about.

This is false, and a massive mistake, and an overwhelmingly bad generalisation, that phrase about books and covers springs to mind. Sheet man, snobbery everywhere!
Yep. And it's the same with the Tabloid/Broadsheet divide.

Well, there's an element of truth to that, I doubt many Labour supporters read the Mail, but I think most people read a newspaper for its content - the types of news, features and sport it has - rather than its politics. I usually read a broadsheet, either the Guardian or the Telegraph, depending on what's available, because they have the kinds of things that I like to read about in them. My sister reads the Mirror because it reports on the kinds of things she likes to read about.


Yep. And it's the same with the Tabloid/Broadsheet divide.

Ohh yeah granted, just like when people see me and my long hair they think 'he listens to rock'. Yes there is an element of truth, but my rock habits are a tiny part of the magnificense which is me.

As I said earlyer, I take the sun, just for the tits and Hagar. I activly take almost no notice of the 'news' in the paper, but I do like to read on the tube on the way to work.

Really, you can't tell anything by the choice of newspaper.

Ohh yeah granted, just like when people see me and my long hair they think 'he listens to rock'. Yes there is an element of truth, but my rock habits are a tiny part of the magnificense which is me.

As I said earlyer, I take the sun, just for the tits and Hagar. I activly take almost no notice of the 'news' in the paper, but I do like to read on the tube on the way to work.

Really, you can't tell anything by the choice of newspaper.

It depends. I still classify anybody who reads the Sun, News of the World, Daily Star, Daily Sport or any such crap as unworthy of much interest. Much the same with "celebrity" magazines.

Sorry, but I like to converse with people with more to discuss than a superficial, tribal interest in sport and celebrity.

"The Times is read by the people who run the country. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by the people who think they ought to run the country. The Morning Star is read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country. The Independent is read by the people who don't know who runs the country, but are sure they're doing it wrong. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country. The Daily Express is read by the people who think the country ought to be run the way it used to be. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is their country, and the Sun's readers don't care who runs the country, providing she has big tits."
--Bernard Woolley, Yes, Prime Minister

"The Times is read by the people who run the country. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by the people who think they ought to run the country. The Morning Star is read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country. The Independent is read by the people who don't know who runs the country, but are sure they're doing it wrong. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country. The Daily Express is read by the people who think the country ought to be run the way it used to be. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is their country, and the Sun's readers don't care who runs the country, providing she has big tits."
--Bernard Woolley, Yes, Prime Minister

If you are going to repeat a quotation that has already been posted, you could at least have the decency to get it correct ;)

Really, you can't tell anything by the choice of newspaper.
Not really. In this day and age, I think most people want a tabloid they can take on the train/bus to work, has a wide range of content, and is concise enough not to have to read for too long to get the gist of a story, and that's a niche market that tabloids fill, and with sales falling, trying to reach out to new audiences will mean less partsanship and targeting by class.

As someone whose dad writes for the Mirror, I'll tell you exactly where you can shove that crap, thank you very much.

as someone who's mum writes on occasion for the Times, i can only say Times FTW!! ;)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12950913#post12950913 *titters*

as someone who's mum writes on occasion for the Times, i can only say Times FTW!! ;)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12950913#post12950913 *titters*

Aaaaand as somebody whos grandad used to write for the National Geographic, I can only say 'what you talk'n about Willis'

Just because there's no scientific basis for race, doesn't mean that idiots haven't been discriminating based on it for hundreds of years.

It doesn't mean that you should perpetuate the stupidity by maintaining race classification.

It doesn't mean that you should perpetuate the stupidity by maintaining race classification.

I don't know. I know that it is popular to claim no scientific basis for race.

But it is true that people who come from differant places are geneticly differant.

Perhaps the hangup is on the word race, perhaps some feel it to be diversive, but would these people be happyer using the word breed instead?

I don't know. I know that it is popular to claim no scientific basis for race.

But it is true that people who come from differant places are geneticly differant.

Perhaps the hangup is on the word race, perhaps some feel it to be diversive, but would these people be happyer using the word breed instead?

I don't think it is the terms (though IIRC Daistella maintained that the two terms were already well defined by science on the thread we have had on race and biology) are the problems.

I think it the lack of compelling evidence

I don't think it is the terms (though IIRC Daistella maintained that the two terms were already well defined by science on the thread we have had on race and biology) are the problems.

I think it the lack of compelling evidence

Umm what lack of evidance that shows genetic differances between those whos counrty of origin differs?

Umm what lack of evidance that shows genetic differances between those whos counrty of origin differs?

It isn't that there isn't evidence of genetic difference between people around the world.

Just that the differences in phenotypes (?) don't constitute enough tocound as a race.

Or some such.

I don't know. I know that it is popular to claim no scientific basis for race.

But it is true that people who come from differant places are geneticly differant.

Perhaps the hangup is on the word race, perhaps some feel it to be diversive, but would these people be happyer using the word breed instead?

We're all genetically different.

I suggest that we approach "race" scientifically, if we are to pursue such stupidity. And if we can't do it scientifically, we shouldn't pursue it at all.

We could start with:

The Scientific Method ('http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html)

So, we have to start with:

Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

Well, we're going to observe race, so we have to describe race, and I assume that we'll do it in genetic terms.

The first problem you're going to run across is the fact that we've got a lot of people who have genetically crossed with a lot of other people.

Migrations of whole populations across global distances. We have many people who have their origins (one or more generations back) in formerly isolated cultural and genetic groups.

We might say that the ancient Aztecs, prior to the arrival of the Europeans, might have had some genetic isolation - but that's largely been erased by hundreds of years of contact with Europeans and others. In fact, we might find that genetic markers will only allow us to isolate very small groups of people who have never really interbred with any other groups - and I doubt that you will find very many people like that.

For the vast majority of people on the planet, you'll find bits and pieces of genetic markers spread throughout people you can't verify as any particular racial group - take African Americans for instance. Do we accept that native Africans from hundreds of years ago are "black" (and no one else)? If so, we can run into problems identified by researchers:

Gene flow, of course, goes in both directions. In every generation there has been a small percentage of persons who have some African ancestry but whose ancestry is predominantly Caucasian and who permanently "pass as white." The white American gene pool therefore contains some genes that can be traced to Africans who were brought over as slaves (estimated by analyses of genetic polymorphisms to be less than 1 percent). (Reed T. E. ( 1969a). "Caucasian genes in American Negroes". Science, 165, 762-768.)

So, are American "whites" really "black"? There's a similar mix in American "blacks". Are they really "white"?

At this point, you can't really proceed with the scientific method - you can't classify enough people to make a real measurement - and if you can't measure it, you can't really prove that "race" is a scientifically valid concept.

While there are some markers that they largely (but not "completely") share in common, such as

It isn't that there isn't evidence of genetic difference between people around the world.

Just that the differences in phenotypes (?) don't constitute enough tocound as a race.

Or some such.

Yet scientist using just DNA can tell which ethenicity you hold, and some disases and health woes only apply to a certian 'race' of people.

I think it is true to say that if we eqaute humaity with dogs, then all humans come from the same specics, but it is not right to say we are all of the same genus.

Yet scientist using just DNA can tell which ethenicity you hold, and some disases and health woes only apply to a certian 'race' of people.

I think it is true to say that if we eqaute humaity with dogs, then all humans come from the same specics, but it is not right to say we are all of the same genus.

I just posted that scientists can show that you have certain markers that relate to certain historical populations (such as Africa from a long time ago).

However, that isn't an accurate measurement of "race". You could be "white" and carry African genetic markers, or "black" and carry historically Nordic markers.

Scientifically, "race" is an obsolete term for "subspecies". Since Neandertal man was removed once and for all from Homo sapiens, there are now no subspecies in humanity. Ergo, there are no races.

I just posted that scientists can show that you have certain markers that relate to certain historical populations (such as Africa from a long time ago).

However, that isn't an accurate measurement of "race". You could be "white" and carry African genetic markers, or "black" and carry historically Nordic markers.

Indeed you can, which shows a clear genetic differance based on location.

Indeed you can, which shows a clear genetic differance based on location.

And you missed the part in the post where most people have multiple markers.

So, what race are people? Not black. Not white. What then?

Scientifically, "race" is an obsolete term for "subspecies". Since Neandertal man was removed once and for all from Homo sapiens, there are now no subspecies in humanity. Ergo, there are no races.

Again I don't see the big deal here. There are differances in the 'races' when ordinary people in the street uses the word race, it is clear what is meant.

So it no longer conforms to the scientific, language is ever evolving.

Chav IS a shortend form for the gypsy term for a child, indeed some people still mean child when they say Chav. To suggest that it has no other meaning though, perhaps a more modern one, well is plain daft.

Pretend that 'race' does not exist, yet we have the word, we use the word, and we all know what is meant by it in this context.

Find another more suitable word to describe the differances between us if you wish, but putting our heads in the sand and declaring there is no such thing as race, clearly is not the way to rid ourselves of bigotry.

Find another more suitable word to describe the differances between us if you wish, but putting our heads in the sand and declaring there is no such thing as race, clearly is not the way to rid ourselves of bigotry.

I've got an idea.

Teach your children that regardless of what someone looks like, you give them a fair shake.

It doesn't mean that you should perpetuate the stupidity by maintaining race classification.
When the racism of the past has been corrected, then we can get rid of the idea, but until all races are equal, we can not.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/images/concise.jpg

I've got an idea.

Teach your children that regardless of what someone looks like, you give them a fair shake.

Heh what by the throat?

Seriously though don't get to thinking because of what I say I am a bigot. Nope indeed the opposite is true. But in order to erradicate the bad things we need to be able to discuss them, and for that we need to be able to label not only that which makes us the same, but that which makes us differant.

Race as a word to label this is perfectly acceptable, by ridding us of the word we only rid ourselves of a useful label, not the discrimination that the word is used to describe.

Another thing occours to me , a more insidius thing, why change the way we talk, the ideas that our words represent, umm thats quite Oreliain isn't it?

Oh come on, if you're gonna edit my titles mods at least don't make a really crappy title. You know mine was better. And true.