UKIP .... the BNP for softies...

Cleaver

The_White_Horse wrote: »

WE NEED TO FIGHT AGAINST SCUM.

And suddenly the debate has been taken up an intellectual notch.

The_White_Horse

Cleaver wrote: »

And suddenly the debate has been taken up an intellectual notch.

That is very true. The simplest answer is usually correct.

Or do you support Scum?

abaxas

Cleaver wrote: »

Ahh, fantastic, you agree with me. Glad I've changed your mind. Because the aim of the local council is to serve the local people. The ability to do a job for your lcoal council will include, amongst other things, serving your community. Often someone from a certain background will have a better understanding of other people from that background. Thus, as long as they have the same skills as other people doing that job, they have a better ability to do that particular job.
This is exactly the same as a Spanish hospital employing some English doctors as they treat a lot of English patients. The English doctors have exactly the same medical skills as the Spanish doctors, but they have a better affinity with the English patients coming in. The Spanish hospitals spend the same money on a Doctor but their English patients get treated 'better'. Everyone's a winner.



Well I agree with that to a certain extent. I've said a number of times that 'xx only' shortlists are, in my opinion, not a good idea. But you specifically said that they were racist, which they clearly aren't.

Quick question, have you ever been the victim of racism?

Just curious.

Pete111

The_White_Horse wrote: »

WE NEED TO FIGHT AGAINST SCUM.

Or do you support Scum?[/QUOTE]


I'd hate to be the person responsible for ensuring TWH's bathroom is shiny and clean.

Imagine the pressure....

abaxas

Pete111 wrote: »

Or do you support Scum?

I'd hate to be the person responsible for ensuring TWH's bathroom is shiny and clean.

Imagine the pressure....[/QUOTE]

"I'm the daddy now, next time, I'll fnorking kill ya! "

lostinrates

Pete111 wrote: »

Or do you support Scum?

I'd hate to be the person responsible for ensuring TWH's bathroom is shiny and clean.

Imagine the pressure....[/QUOTE]


This board gets increasingly depressing, but on reading that I have laughed so hard I coughed Thanks Pete111

Jonbvn

The_White_Horse wrote: »

WE NEED TO FIGHT AGAINST SCUM.

Aren't they playing City on Saturday?;)

chewmylegoff

the main two similarities between UKIP and BNP are that

(i) they are both mildly successful in EU elections as the semi-PR system makes them a viable repository for protest votes; and

(ii) they are both totally irrelevant in general elections.

The_White_Horse

Cillit Bang - Bang and the Scum is gone.

markharding557

wymondham wrote: »

I've just been on the BBC election site (excellent site by the way), and checked lots of differing parties approach to the same issues. On many occasions UKIP and BNP have striking similar policies. UKIP seem to offer many of the more paletable policies of the BNP without the darker side .... an acceptable harder line party ....?????

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8515961.stm#subject=key&col1=conservative&col2=labour&col3=libdem

Ukip are a nationalist party and not a racist one and there is the fundimental difference.

cleaver wrote:

If you think black / asian / women only shortlists are evidence of racism and sexism then you are clearly not that bright and see things in a very simplistic way. Sorry to be that blunt, but I can't see any other reason why you would think this. By all means criticise why they are a stupid idea (some wouldn't agree with you, I personally would) but to say that they are evidence as to why Labour are more racist than the BNP is completely dumb.

I agree labour are not racist like the bnp.
On the issue of selective short lists these are discriminating against one group in order to favour another so they are either racist,sexist or otherwise discriminatory.

abaxus wrote:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=labour+black+shortlist

enjoy

Even a bit of sexism in there too.

If you are going to take part in debates then at least use proper links to illustrate your points because a search engine link proves nothing except you either have no links or are too lazy to find and post them