ebaynut Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 [quote user="Quillan"]To be honest if I felt rather upset about this I think I would raise a petition and ask everyone, whatever their ethnic and religious background, to sign. I rather think that probably you would get just as many non Christians signing as Christians.The other thing of course is to claim discrimination under the Religious Discrimination Act which states.:The European Convention on Human Rights upholds freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the manifestation of religion and belief. This was included in the Human Rights Act (1998), but only applies directly to public bodies. andThe religious discrimination regulations give protection against discrimination on the grounds of "any religion, religious belief or philosophical belief" in a similar way to the existing sex discrimination and race discrimination laws. The Equality Act 2006 widened this to specifically protect "lack of belief" as well. As the council is a 'public body' then they are discriminating against Christians by not allowing you to put Merry Christmas on their tree(s). I am sure you could get enough equally minded people to support you.Hope that helps.[/quote]But surely this is all part of the problem. Why should the English have to mess about putting in complaints because people have moved into their country and want to change things from how they were? You might enjoy form filling and running to teacher ( government department) with your grips, most do not. [8-)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted October 29, 2009 Author Share Posted October 29, 2009 [quote user="ebaynut"][quote user="Quillan"] To be honest if I felt rather upset about this I think I would raise a petition and ask everyone, whatever their ethnic and religious background, to sign. I rather think that probably you would get just as many non Christians signing as Christians.The other thing of course is to claim discrimination under the Religious Discrimination Act which states.:The European Convention on Human Rights upholds freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the manifestation of religion and belief. This was included in the Human Rights Act (1998), but only applies directly to public bodies. andThe religious discrimination regulations give protection against discrimination on the grounds of "any religion, religious belief or philosophical belief" in a similar way to the existing sex discrimination and race discrimination laws. The Equality Act 2006 widened this to specifically protect "lack of belief" as well. As the council is a 'public body' then they are discriminating against Christians by not allowing you to put Merry Christmas on their tree(s). I am sure you could get enough equally minded people to support you.Hope that helps.[/quote]But surely this is all part of the problem. Why should the English have to mess about putting in complaints because people have moved into their country and want to change things from how they were? You might enjoy form filling and running to teacher ( government department) with your grips, most do not. [8-)][/quote]But I thought from what has been said its the councils that have come up with these 'rules' not those that have moved in to the country. The law is there for all, it just seems that some people just can't be bothered to exersise it. If you don't complain nothing will change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted October 29, 2009 Author Share Posted October 29, 2009 By the way did anyone watch THIS . I read a lot about this program before it was aired most of which was negative. I watched the program (often wondering how Rageh Omaar didn't give one or two people 'a smack' at times) and found it very interesting. It wasn't what it seemed and in fact, for those that didn't watch it, proved those that think that whites are far more intelligent than coloured people to be both misguided and totally wrong. Surprisingly it could turn out the other way round. As a follow up I did a bit of a search on google. Most disturbing was the results that came up if you type in "are black people less intelligent than white people" and see the garbage that comes up by some very 'real' people including a Nobel Prize winner Dr James Watson.The program basically challenges the legitimacy of IQ tests and the fact they can be used to 'prove' anything you want.Another in the series that I am looking forward to (for personal reasons) is the one on the 2nd Nov (C4 20:00 UK time) called "Is it better to be of mixed race". Some might like to watch the program tonight on C4 at 10:00 (UK time) called "The Event: How racist are you". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 [quote user="Quillan"]By the way did anyone watch THIS . I read a lot about this program before it was aired most of which was negative. I watched the program (often wondering how Rageh Omaar didn't give one or two people 'a smack' at times) and found it very interesting. It wasn't what it seemed and in fact, for those that didn't watch it, proved those that think that whites are far more intelligent than coloured people to be both misguided and totally wrong. Surprisingly it could turn out the other way round. As a follow up I did a bit of a search on google. Most disturbing was the results that came up if you type in "are black people less intelligent than white people" and see the garbage that comes up by some very 'real' people including a Nobel Prize winner Dr James Watson.The program basically challenges the legitimacy of IQ tests and the fact they can be used to 'prove' anything you want.Another in the series that I am looking forward to (for personal reasons) is the one on the 2nd Nov (C4 20:00 UK time) called "Is it better to be of mixed race". Some might like to watch the program tonight on C4 at 10:00 (UK time) called "The Event: How racist are you".[/quote]I found it a really useless dumbed down piece of cheap journalism.They just didn't go into the whole subject far enough.All IQ tests prove is that you can do IQ tests - no wonder Antipodean Aborigines had better things on their minds than daft questions.I reckon it is quite possible that some races are more intelligent than others or are more adept at some mental processes or are more interested in intelectual pursuits- just as some see colours differently or can tolerate alchohol or milk products for instance. What's needed is research but it isn't too sexy a subject in these times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 [quote user="Dog"] What's needed is research but it isn't too sexy a subject in these times.[/quote]Ain't that the truth. I'm not the only one who finds these re-hashed, out-of-context, broad-brush statements'/articles/tv progs about complicated and important subjects both uninformative and pointless, then? If you have a spare few hours, Dog, try reading (if you haven't already) Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" and Frances Wheen's "How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World." Eye-openers both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 [quote user="cooperlola"][quote user="Dog"] What's needed is research but it isn't too sexy a subject in these times.[/quote]Ain't that the truth. I'm not the only one who finds these re-hashed, out-of-context, broad-brush statements'/articles/tv progs about complicated and important subjects both uninformative and pointless, then? If you have a spare few hours, Dog, try reading (if you haven't already) Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" and Frances Wheen's "How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World." Eye-openers both.[/quote]I will check those titles out.I was severely berated by an old school friend and his wife for being against male homosexuals adopting children. He is a professor of criminology and she a teacher. The first gay men had just adopted 3 boys - they are now in jail for sexually abusing the boys.Today a homosexual rights activist has been found guilty of paedophilia in Scotland - I expect more beration for mentioning it - I suppose statistics will be found that show me to be even more the unreconstructed homophobe that I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoobyInFrance Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Sorry Dog - hate to fall out again but.....if we counted up the number of abuse cases perpetrated by heterosexuals against those by homosexuals I think it would lean (rather heavily) towards the heteros. Yes you are being a homophobe - and, yes, these cases get disproportionate headlines because of the prejudices of others like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 [quote user="ScoobyInFrance"]Sorry Dog - hate to fall out again but.....if we counted up the number of abuse cases perpetrated by heterosexuals against those by homosexuals I think it would lean (rather heavily) towards the heteros. Yes you are being a homophobe - and, yes, these cases get disproportionate headlines because of the prejudices of others like you.[/quote]You may have problems proving that per capita. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buelligan Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I'm sure I'm wrong but...if we are going to use statistics as a tool to judge people in advance, I think it would be wise to incarcerate all men. After all, if you look at the figures, men are responsible for almost all murders, sexual and violent crime, genocide.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 [quote user="buelligan"]I'm sure I'm wrong but...if we are going to use statistics as a tool to judge people in advance, I think it would be wise to incarcerate all men. After all, if you look at the figures, men are responsible for almost all murders, sexual and violent crime, genocide.... [/quote] You are not wrong but you have only done have the job.If we are to judge people in advance all women should be incarcerated separately as they are the mothers and wives of the criminal males.Who will run the prisons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buelligan Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Our elders and betters ..? The dimmest and least imaginative...? Those who think they know "what's best"....? Yes, I think we'll probably stick to a tried and tested formula...[:(][:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted October 30, 2009 Author Share Posted October 30, 2009 The Program - It was only an hour long so you can't have everything but it did get the point across that those that said coloured people were less intelligent were using flawed data, had interpreted data incorrectly and/or had used selected data to put forward their conclusions (bit like politicians [;-)] ). The real reason behind the apparent difference in 'intelligence' is to do with society, poverty and lack of education. Many coloured kids have been inspired by others (including some dedicated and hard working teachers) who have done well and see education as a way out of the 'poverty' trap. Their ability to learn is very high and result wise are starting to equal and overtake 'white' children.Statistics - The way I see it is that the National Statistics Office collects raw data that is then manipulated by whoever has a point to make. Some groups have been caught out more than once by those that go back to the 'source' only to discover that part of the data published by such a group has critical bits missing, only covers periods where the data backs up what they are saying etc, etc.Not read 'Bad Science' but have visited the website and read some of the articles Ben Goldacre has written. I have read Francis Wheen's "How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World.". Its a funny book with some interesting bits and some other not so interesting. The problem with it is, like the program, there are too many different subjects which need further discussion. Again you can only get so much in to a book. Perhaps Wheen would have done better to half the subjects but expand more on those that are left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 I know what you mean about Wheen's book. However, there are plenty of follow-up websites and "further reading" ideas at the end - some of which are well worth following up. But my take on both books is not so much the detail of what they set out to argue but with the basic point of both (hence my response to Dog's comment) is surely that society is tending more and more to take notice of somebody's (often crackpot) ideas which have no basis in fact, and have not been emprically proved? The point both make is that true science is being taken less and less seriously - we are inclined to believe that some potion sold by an "alternative" practitoner, must, ipso facto, be better than something proved scientifically to work, just because we read an article in the Daily Redtop, or because we read it on the internet or a bloke in the pub said it worked for him.We seem to do the same thing with these assumptions about race and sexuality. Nobody has proved a link between inteligence/inclination to violence or any other thing and our origins or sexuality - so much of this is anecdotal, or based on unproved, poorly carried-out research where the benchmarks (as in IQ tests) are fatally flawed in themselves. That, to my mind Q, is the central premise of both books and I think it's a point Wheen makes well. Although I'll admit he's a raging leftie so he speaks from an already biased point of view with which I have a lot of sympathy so of course everybody is welcome to take his ideas with a pinch of salt if they wish. But it's an entertaining read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoddy Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 I’d endorse the recommendation for Frances Wheen’s book and, as they say on Amazon, if you liked that you might also like “50 People Who Buggered Up Britain” by Quentin LettsUnfortunately, I wasn’t able to watch last night’s programme on race and intelligence. I’m surprised that the debate is still going on. Even in the 70s when I was doing my teacher training it was known that intelligence tests were badly flawed and attempts were being made to devise tests which were ‘culture fair’.For my part I can’t see why we need to know. If we all did what we should do and that is treat each new person we meet as an individual then it should be irrelevant. I can’t see what this has to do with immigration: intelligence has never been used as an entry qualification for the UK.Hoddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 [quote user="Hoddy"] For my part I can’t see why we need to know. If we all did what we should do and that is treat each new person we meet as an individual then it should be irrelevant. . Hoddy[/quote]Amen to that.[:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted October 30, 2009 Author Share Posted October 30, 2009 [quote user="cooperlola"] I know what you mean about Wheen's book. However, there are plenty of follow-up websites and "further reading" ideas at the end - some of which are well worth following up. But my take on both books is not so much the detail of what they set out to argue but with the basic point of both (hence my response to Dog's comment) is surely that society is tending more and more to take notice of somebody's (often crackpot) ideas which have no basis in fact, and have not been emprically proved? The point both make is that true science is being taken less and less seriously - we are inclined to believe that some potion sold by an "alternative" practitoner, must, ipso facto, be better than something proved scientifically to work, just because we read an article in the Daily Redtop, or because we read it on the internet or a bloke in the pub said it worked for him.We seem to do the same thing with these assumptions about race and sexuality. Nobody has proved a link between inteligence/inclination to violence or any other thing and our origins or sexuality - so much of this is anecdotal, or based on unproved, poorly carried-out research where the benchmarks (as in IQ tests) are fatally flawed in themselves. That, to my mind Q, is the central premise of both books and I think it's a point Wheen makes well. Although I'll admit he's a raging leftie so he speaks from an already biased point of view with which I have a lot of sympathy so of course everybody is welcome to take his ideas with a pinch of salt if they wish. But it's an entertaining read.[/quote]I agree with most of what you say. I remember the bit about 'alternative' practitioners and it is an area where a lot of damage can be done to those using them. Likewise it can also be dangerous to ignore that some modern drugs did start off coming from plant extracts. I don't take homeopathic remedies myself but thats not to say they have zero benefit to some people.The biggest problem is all the junk that is around particularly on the Internet created by those that either have a specific agenda or don't know what they are talking about and have done little or no research. I prefer to go to the source of the information rather than read somebodies 'twist' on it but unfortunately it gets harder and harder by the day.I think Hoddy's last paragraph was about the best and I totally agree with it. Take people for what they are not their colour, sex, religion etc. Lets not also forget that EVERY group has its good and bad but sadly we only ever seem to recognise the bad, probably because its newsworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gardengirl Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 ''Take people for what they are not their colour, sex, religion etc. Lets not also forget that EVERY group has its good and bad.''Amen to that.GG [:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill<br><br>Jill (99) Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 I'd say it is impossible to define being English. Very few of us are able to trace our families back to the 11th century (on every single line? or just on the male line of each generation). I traced my family on whichever lines I could get a lead on, and got back to 1648. But I suspect my Durrant/Durrance ancestors may have come from France at some stage prior to the mid 18th century, where I found them. It would actually be interesting for Nick Griffin and other members of their party to have their DNA tested. According to one website I looked at, the Celts were dark haired and came from Spain, yet they have been considered by some to be the indigenous people of this country!!! The English language has been developed from various old languages. We are all a complete mix, just as immigrants are mixes from their part of the world. You may remember a few years ago when there was some DNA testing and a Black Caribean discovered he actually had German DNA. So many immigrants may have had British DNA established 10 generations ago in different parts of the world. So, how do we decide who is indigenous? How many generations should we go back? If people are to be sent back to their original countries, how could this be done at the same time as keeping them alive!? The British have always been mixed, as is the case in most countries.I agree with those who said that it is about how English/British you fees and being proud of being British. There are people who choose to be called British Asians, and why not? I know Asians who are very British. If they were born here and speak English. I agree that there does need to be some controls on people coming in, but the French probably feel the same way about those of you who live in France. Gosh, imagine if the Americans wanted to send everyone back from where they came from! There are many British people who don't have any pride in Britain. I'm English, but I'm also European and proud to be both, but also proud to be part of a multicultural society which makes life more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thibault Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Well said, Jill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.