Jump to content

Mad Mad UK


memb
 Share

Recommended Posts

[quote user="Marton"]Nativity plays banned, Xmas back instead of Christmas, changing carols to suit the multi cultural society but  when a teacher substitutes a "partridge in a pear tree " for "corncrake in a palm tree" because she doesn't want to step on any toes, then that, for me, is the end.  When are true Brits in Britain going to get some backbone and declare enough is enough.[:@] 
[/quote]

this bird is staying in my pear tree .......been coming to our house everyday for three months

[IMG]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b147/amyponders/partridge-evening.jpg[/IMG]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 419
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As well as by legislation the recent timidity about applying the existing laws strictly , and in that way distorting the concept of "human rights" ,comes also from the judiciary. A chicken-hearted lot[:@] And no Tresco I can't quote chapter and verse but will look out for some examples.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tresco

I was simply trying to demonstrate one of the many reports where UK life was being adopted in order to accommodate newcomers to the UK, which if my memory serves me right was what the original post was all about.

If someone wants to move to the UK or any country, work, pay tax and abide by the law then the best of luck to them. However them being there should not have an impact on the established population that could be viewed as negative. One of the keys to this, I believe, is the equal treatment of everyone.

The British Airways fiasco was a perfect example. The lady was banned from visibly displaying a cross. Why? Because it wasn't necessary for her religion. However hijabs were going to be allowed, even though they are not a requirement of the Koran. This was a BA rule, not government doctrine, but what a perfect example of how a stupid decision can cause a cultural divide. The decision was eventually recinded, however my personal belief is that it would have been better to keep it, but apply it to EVERYONE. But as I said that is my opinion.

I applauded the French law 2004-228 for this reason. When they banned the wearing of religious symbols in schools it didn't matter if you were christian, jewish or muslim, the rules were meant for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="oakbri"]...I was simply trying to demonstrate one of the many reports where UK life was being adopted in order to accommodate newcomers to the UK, which if my memory serves me right was what the original post was all about.

If someone wants to move to the UK or any country, work, pay tax and abide by the law then the best of luck to them. However them being there should not have an impact on the established population that could be viewed as negative. One of the keys to this, I believe, is the equal treatment of everyone.

[/quote](my bold)

I'm afraid 'good luck' 'hard work' etc simply wasn't enough for earlier groups of immigrants who were discriminated against in all walks of life, including in employment.  Hence, we have a  history of introducing and adapting Law to try and counter some of the more overtly discriminatory practices that were so common 30/40 years ago. I'm sure plenty of people found earlier legislation 'negative' too.

Would you have those former laws repealed?  I seem to recall a bit of a kerfuffle about the Sexual Discrimination Act. What a battle that was, and what a terrible shame it was to have to compel employers etc to treat women 'equally'. Wouldn't it be great if we were all just treated as equals by everyone else, without these pesky laws.[:)]

This new Act, (scrappy as it is) was enacted to try and ensure equal treatment or rather equal protection for everyone of faith, and indeed for those of no faith whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me Tresco, do you not view the new act as a positive step? Do not think I believe the law is aimed at discriminating against people, you are right, it is there to protect everyone, like I said, treat everyone the same. At the end of the day a law introduced to give equality is very different to one which openly gives favour.

The British airways debacle was a horrendous piece of mismanagement, and I assume the person responsible is no longer employed by BA. When I am checking in for a flight with BA I don't care if the check in agent believes in God, Allah or fairies at the bottom of the garden.

I read recently that one of the UK supermarket chains was going allow muslim check out staff to refuse to serve alcohol to people. Don't ask me to prove it as it was way before christmas and I can't remember where I read it and I don't know if it ever came to anything. The point is that, as you said, immigrants were discriminated against in the work place, yet here we have the same immigrants trying to dictate which part of the job they want to do. As an employer do you employ the British applicant who will just do the whole job or the immigrant who will only do the part that suits them? To avoid discrimination you must try to fit in and not expect your host country to adopt to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found a link to the story. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2558198.ece

Another amazing piece of mismanagement, especially in light of the fact it is even being condemned by senior muslims. I don't know who is more at fault, Sainsburys or the staff abusing this rule to escape work. The point is that, as a manager of the store, it is your responsibility to employ the best man for the job, who would you employ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="oakbri"]

Tell me Tresco, do you not view the new act as a positive step? Do not think I believe the law is aimed at discriminating against people, you are right, it is there to protect everyone, like I said, treat everyone the same. At the end of the day a law introduced to give equality is very different to one which openly gives favour.

The British airways debacle was a horrendous piece of mismanagement, and I assume the person responsible is no longer employed by BA. When I am checking in for a flight with BA I don't care if the check in agent believes in God, Allah or fairies at the bottom of the garden.

I read recently that one of the UK supermarket chains was going allow muslim check out staff to refuse to serve alcohol to people. Don't ask me to prove it as it was way before christmas and I can't remember where I read it and I don't know if it ever came to anything. The point is that, as you said, immigrants were discriminated against in the work place, yet here we have the same immigrants trying to dictate which part of the job they want to do. As an employer do you employ the British applicant who will just do the whole job or the immigrant who will only do the part that suits them? To avoid discrimination you must try to fit in and not expect your host country to adopt to you.

[/quote] (my bold)

I've already said that on the whole I disagreed with the new law, but that's because, in my view, it will prove very very hard to prosecute on the basis of it.

However if you are suggesting the new law 'favours' one religious group over any other, then I have to disagree with you.

It puts people of all faiths (and none) on an equal footing as far as protection from incitement to hatred on the basis of religion (or from having no religion). Previously, the law only pretected Jews and Sikhs.

The other examples are nothing to do with the Government. There are 'chancers' everywhere and yes, some of them are Muslims, but they aren't trying to dictate to the government, or their 'host' country.;; they are just chancing their luck.

Anyone who has ever employed people will know how extensive the practice of  employees trying to subvert the terms and conditions they signed up to is. It's just the ones who are Muslims that have featured so heavily in certain sections of the press, in recent times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article (and thanks for the link)[:)]

"The fault lies with the employee who is exploiting and misusing their goodwill"

Like I said. Chancers.[:)]

Edited to add; Who would I employ?

Well this is the trouble with chancers. They don't say at their interviews that they don't want to actually do the job they have applied for do they?  It's only later that the fantasy job (as opposed to the real one) they have in their heads comes to the fore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I just but in to say how refreshing it is to see two people with different views on a very sensitive subject, being able to discuss it in a civilised and non-confrontational manner - such a change from the tone of this thread a day or so ago when brick walls and keyboards were taking such a battering.  [:)]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="cooperlola"]... such a change from the tone of this thread a day or so ago when brick walls and keyboards were taking such a battering.  [:)][/quote]

Even then it was mostly only keyboards taking a beating, not personal attacks on forum members[:)]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tresco

Agreed, it is not only the muslims, they have become a focus of the press post 9/11, but this story shows how important it is not to change rules to favour anyone. If you allow it for one group it opens the doors for all the others. Firstly the muslims won't sell alcohol, next catholics won't sell birth control. Before you know it people of jewish descent will be refusing to sell to people they suspect of being arabic.

When someone from any background takes a job they know what the work entails. For an employer to then bow to the demands of one group is incredibly irresponsible. If some aspect of that job doesn't fit your beliefs then you know where the door is, someone else, who will be the better man for the job , will take your place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Tresco"]From the article (and thanks for the link)[:)]

"The fault lies with the employee who is exploiting and misusing their goodwill"

Like I said. Chancers.[:)]

Edited to add; Who would I employ?

Well this is the trouble with chancers. They don't say at their interviews that they don't want to actually do the job they have applied for do they?  It's only later that the fantasy job (as opposed to the real one) they have in their heads comes to the fore.
[/quote]

Agreed

The chancers don't come to an interview and start dictating what part of the job they want. But in keeping with your post, where you described immigrants being discriminated against. Now imagine you are the manager of a Sainsbury supermarket. 2 people apply for a job. They are both intelligent, well presented and have the required qualifications, however 1 is muslim. 1 person will slot straight in and do the whole job, the other MAY OR MAY NOT decide after they begin they no longer want to handle alcohol. It could be they will not misuse the goodwill of the store, as was reported in the article, however they may be of the other breed. They therefore find themselves being discriminated against due to a rule which should never have been allowed in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in saying that, is it not a very similar situation to the discrimination that women used to suffer?  If I change a few of your words

[quote user="oakbri"]

Now imagine you are the manager of a Sainsbury supermarket. 2 people apply for a job. They are both intelligent, well presented and have the required qualifications, however 1 is a woman. 1 person will slot straight in and do the whole job, the other MAY OR MAY NOT fall pregnant at some stage.

[/quote]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Cat"]

But in saying that, is it not a very similar situation to the discrimination that women used to suffer?  If I change a few of your words

[quote user="oakbri"]

Now imagine you are the manager of a Sainsbury supermarket. 2 people apply for a job. They are both intelligent, well presented and have the required qualifications, however 1 is a woman. 1 person will slot straight in and do the whole job, the other MAY OR MAY NOT fall pregnant at some stage.

[/quote]

 

[/quote]And this happened - make no mistake!  At interviews I was often asked "when I planned to have children."  My retort always was "so you'd expect a man to be in this job forever, then would you?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="oakbri"]I read recently that one of the UK supermarket chains was going

allow muslim check out staff to refuse to serve alcohol to people.

[...] here we have the same immigrants trying to

dictate which part of the job they want to do. As an employer do you

employ the British applicant who will just do the whole job or the

immigrant who will only do the part that suits them? To avoid

discrimination you must try to fit in and not expect your host country

to adopt to you.[/quote]

Muslim = immigrant ??? [8-)][blink]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Clair"][quote user="oakbri"]I read recently that one of the UK supermarket chains was going allow muslim check out staff to refuse to serve alcohol to people. [...] here we have the same immigrants trying to dictate which part of the job they want to do. As an employer do you employ the British applicant who will just do the whole job or the immigrant who will only do the part that suits them? To avoid discrimination you must try to fit in and not expect your host country to adopt to you.[/quote]
Muslim = immigrant ??? [8-)][blink]

[/quote]Better send Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) back where he came from then! (Yes, Oakbri, I know you've never advocated a mass deportation.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="oakbri"]

 

I read recently that one of the UK supermarket chains was going allow muslim check out staff to refuse to serve alcohol to people. Don't ask me to prove it as it was way before christmas and I can't remember where I read it and I don't know if it ever came to anything. [/quote]

I couldn't access the link you posted so I do not know what it says, but anyone trying to manipulate their employer with this would be being thoroughly dishonest. My understanding of the Islamic caution on alcohol is not that it is forbidden (paradoxically, alcohol is an arabic word) but that one must have a clear mind when one prays and that anyone who has consumed alcohol would have a mind which was not clear.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This idea of sending Muslims back where they came from always makes me smile. My elderly mother asked my daughter if her Muslim friend could get home very often (he lives in Notting Hill), my daughter confirmed that he did and it was hardly surprising as he comes from Luton ! 

As regards Roman Catholics not selling birth control - did we all complain, or suggest they shouldn't be in the job when roman catholic GPs refused to send women for abortions ?. Or is it different if you are a professional ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="sweet 17"] PLEASE let me say hello to Saligo Bay.  Hi there!  How are you?  Happy New Year, etc.  I thought all the Americans have left?  I AM right in thinking you are American, aren't I?[/quote]

Hello Sweet17, and Happy New Year to you too! Big smiley (can't find the smileys!)

Will you be very disappointed if I say I'm not American?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marton

Merrythought -  based in  Ironbridge, Shropshire,   Deans in  S Wales, both well established teddy bear makers, making mohair & other types of bears both make GOLLIES, they are not illegal, & Steiff, Hermann,  (of Germany) &  lots of others gollies are exported around the world & imported by the UK.  Lots of  people collect them.   The Chinese also make a few resin cheap & cheerful ornaments & soft toy gollies too.  Robertsons may have stopped them- sadly, but the badges are now trading on ebay etc .

Lots of collectors & demand for this traditional toy & available in lots of shops- just google it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="oakbri"]

I read recently that one of the UK supermarket chains was going allow muslim check out staff to refuse to serve alcohol to people. Don't ask me to prove it as it was way before christmas and I can't remember where I read it and I don't know if it ever came to anything. The point is that, as you said, immigrants were discriminated against in the work place, yet here we have the same immigrants trying to dictate which part of the job they want to do. As an employer do you employ the British applicant who will just do the whole job or the immigrant who will only do the part that suits them? To avoid discrimination you must try to fit in and not expect your host country to adopt to you.

[/quote]

Expanding this a little then.  What isd your position on female firefighters?  Reason i ask, they are not permitted to fight fires in radioactive environments in case of damage to their reproductive organs.  Fortunately male firefighters don't have reproductive organs so i guess thats okay........

I think the issue is this.  If you can comfortably accommodate a specific request or dispensation without detriment to service or standards, why not do so. Crosses, turbans, no radiation, no alcohol,...not detriment then why not??????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="oakbri"]

I read recently that one of the UK supermarket chains was going allow muslim check out staff to refuse to serve alcohol to people. Don't ask me to prove it as it was way before christmas and I can't remember where I read it ...

[/quote]

It was in http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2558198.ece

Maybe it is time we stopped forcing Catholics to handle condoms at checkouts as well.  And should vegetarian check out assistance be forced to handle meat, etc., etc.  UK has gone totally mad.

Are the various religious "groups" just pushing to see how far they can go.  Seems to me what when to take on a job with duties, it is a bit "out of order" to present yourself as being able to do the job and then start refusing to carry out as aspect.  If things changed after you have started (e.g. shop starts selling alcohol or you are moved to a new role requiring new things you cannot undertake) then maybe you have a case but suddenly deciding for personal reasons you are no longer happy to undertake the job you applied for and got.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Chief"]

Expanding this a little then.  What isd your position on female firefighters?  Reason i ask, they are not permitted to fight fires in radioactive environments in case of damage to their reproductive organs.  Fortunately male firefighters don't have reproductive organs so i guess thats okay........ [/quote]

Chief, I think the likely reason for this ruling is that a woman firefighter might be in the very early stages of pregnancy without knowing it. Exposure to radioactivity at this crucial state of development could very badly damage the embryo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...