I doubt alot of the people who are shifting on their vouchers for cash will be arsed protesting. It will probably be bleeding heart liberals and crazy attention seekers like the SWP who will be protesting on their behalf while they are down at the corner shop trying to trade their vouchers for booze.
Oh dear. You've got yourself in to a wee bit of a snit about the SWP. Each to his own. Everyone deserves to be heard. We're all in this together ... don't ya know.
Well if they are able they will just have to go out and get a job wont they.
Probably need a lot more in the fire service following the riots. How do they do about applying ? Is there training -- well, ofcourse there is training, but how long?
You can tell people how to think - you can only offer up laws which point the way. Education is the key - but I don't mean just schools. The fact that gay people are seen all over the place, that you can come out at work if you feel ok about it (without getting the sack), and be more open generally, shows people that there are gay people in society. We've always been here, but when I started work you would have never said you were gay or chances are you could have been sacked and had no defence against it.
The distinction on hate crime currently is that whilst you don't have to assult someone who is a different race to be charged, you will have to actually assult a gay person before the police can charge you. That's wrong.
I don't agree with the laws on "hate crime" full stop. Really is it appropriate that someone gets a longer sentence because they attack someone because they hate them because they are black than if they hate them because they have shagged their wife/daughter/etc. Punish the crime and not the thoughts.
Education is a good point but I don't agree that we need more laws telling people how to think or law about "hate crimes" or "encitement to haterid" or such things.
btw. Were you at Pride as part of LGBT Tory ?
No I was just watching and taking lots of photos of the drag queens in glitter to send to my gran. She was terribly dissapointed when someone told her Soho live was a parade and it turned out not to be.
I just find the SWP a amazingly negative organisation.
PS not everyone see the Tories as "nasty". I've talked to many people who believed that Labour bribed the poor for votes by handing out benefits, what should they do to rectify that image?
I don't agree with the laws on "hate crime" full stop. Really is it appropriate that someone gets a longer sentence because they attack someone because they hate them because they are black than if they hate them because they have shagged their wife/daughter/etc. Punish the crime and not the thoughts.
Education is a good point but I don't agree that we need more laws telling people how to think or law about "hate crimes" or "encitement to haterid" or such things.
Is it ok for, as an example, a religious cleric in the UK to incite his followers to seek out and kill army service personnel?
Is it ok for religious groups to incite people to kill gay people (not quite thinking Anglican here, more WestBoro Baptist Church - who are setting up here btw).
Hate Crime laws are there for two reasons. One is to set an example. The second is to increase the punishment because the crime is seen as a special case.
But I do get what you are saying. An assult is an assult and simply shouldn't be tolerated. Technically you can commit a hate crime with words, if that person is, for example black, but we're still waiting for the equivalent for gay people. However, I wouldn't advise testing this - the police already have plenty of powers to arrest. The point is to make it unlawful to abuse people verbally in the street.
You do favour a UK where gay people can walk down the street without being verbally abused ... don't you ?
Is it ok for, as an example, a religious cleric in the UK to incite his followers to seek out and kill army service personnel?
Is it ok for religious groups to incite people to kill gay people (not quite thinking Anglican here, more WestBoro Baptist Church - who are setting up here btw).
Hate Crime laws are there for two reasons. One is to set an example. The second is to increase the punishment because the crime is seen as a special case.
But I do get what you are saying. An assult is an assult and simply shouldn't be tolerated. Technically you can commit a hate crime with words, if that person is, for example black, but we're still waiting for the equivalent for gay people. However, I wouldn't advise testing this - the police already have plenty of powers to arrest. The point is to make it unlawful to abuse people verbally in the street.
You do favour a UK where gay people can walk down the street without being verbally abused ... don't you ?
Encitement to violence is already a crime so why do we need a law banning encitement to "hate".
Probably need a lot more in the fire service following the riots. How do they do about applying ? Is there training -- well, ofcourse there is training, but how long?
3 months intense initial training and then 4 years at a fire station (sprog) taking exams and drills befire you become a firefighter instead of a recruit firefighter and earn a full firefighters wage,
Partnerships - at present no religious ceremony can take place.
In Hate Crime. You will be sentenced more severely if you shout "****", "queer", "bumboy" at me before you kick my head in - but you do need to assult me -- AFAIK. If you racially abuse someone from an ethnic group, the police have the power to bring charges against you even if nobody brings a complaint.
There is still a lot of homophobic bullying in schools - which has led to violence against teenagers, including suicides. Gay teens are 4x more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual counterparts. This is due to stimga / homophobia / bullying, etc.
The Equality Act hasn't yet been placed in to law. Was due Oct 2010, might now be Oct 2011. There are various issues which are tackled there.
Various issues in law to do with transgender individuals - for example, removing 'transgender' from a list of recognised mental illnesses. Remember that 50 years ago homosexual were considered to be mentally ill.
Attitudes in society are changed by laws, but in many other ways also. You can't just change the law and suddenly the way people think changes too. But it's a start. The government, by either ignoring, or enforcing laws, sends out a message. Homophobic hate crime needs to have the same focus and attention that has made racism completely unacceptable.
We've got a long way to go. In your case, I'd say it might take a while. Hope not tho.
I would like to add, that Why arent gay people allowed to give blood , it is unjustified now.
Reading threads like this really highlights why newspapers go for the shocking headlines with the not very shocking facts buried in the articles. Most people never get to the facts.
Bloody hell you can't say things like that about the Guardian ! :eek::p
The distinction on hate crime currently is that whilst you don't have to assult someone who is a different race to be charged, you will have to actually assult a gay person before the police can charge you. That's wrong.
Wasting valuable time and money on verbal "crimes" (aka. name calling) is wrong.
Wasting valuable time and money on verbal "crimes" (aka. name calling) is wrong.
You see it as a waste of money, clearly most of us want to live in a civilised society where prejudice against someone because they are a different colour, shade of white, have different physical characteristics such a disability, or because (despite you can't see it) someone is Gay. Most people can't be bothered going through their life hating others for one reason or another, most of us just want to get along and live life to it's fullest. When you get a little bit older and you start to realise you have more years behind you than in front, you'll know what I mean.
Verbal abuse towards Gay people is totally unacceptable. It can lead to low self-esteem, upset, depression, and in the most serious cases suicide.
If you want to be seen to be condoning this behaviour, because it is "Wasting valuable time and money on verbal "crimes" (aka. name calling) " that is your opinion. But I hope nobody else sees it as a frivolous waste to allow people to live without fear of persecution, hatred and abuse.
3 months intense initial training and then 4 years at a fire station (sprog) taking exams and drills befire you become a firefighter instead of a recruit firefighter and earn a full firefighters wage,
and priority goes to ethnic minorities, women, gays, and disabled,
Yeah, man. Nobody likes a revolution like an aging hippy.
I am sure we will see you at the top of the barricades, be sure to say hi to Wolfie for all of us.
AHH that will be me being stereotyped then?
As my dear mum used to say, "just because it says Persil on buses it doesn't mean they sell it"
I am not now, nor have I ever been a "hippy" I see my name more as "redneck bait" works quite well sometimes,
But, having said that, when it "kicks off", as it more than likely will, as this "we" are all in it together but it's all the fault of the poor the unemployed and the disabled, who, as 'we' all know, are "scroungers" and anyway "we" need a scapegoat and we don't want to 'have a go' at the rich and powerful, because, well, because, A they are rich, and B they are powerful, but most importantly, (and strangely apt)
"C" they vote for us,
gains momentum,
I know which side of the, actual, or proverbial barricade I will be on,
we have, so far, had the, force 'them' to work option, run up the proverbial flag pole, just to 'test the waters' followed by get 'them' (who are most certainly not 'us') to move to where the jobs are, now we are 'testing' lets give 'them' vouchers instead of cash,
I predict a seperate health system for 'them' and perhaps some sort of 'work camp' system where 'they' could be 'concentrated' as a ready source of cheap Labour (supporters) and perhaps 'they' should have to wear some form of identification mark so that 'we' know who 'they' are,
OH I dunno perhaps a red star sewn onto 'their' outer clothing with the word "scrounger" writen on it?
But remember citizens, "WE" are all in it together, except SOME are RIGHT 'in it' ,
divide and conquer, create division and mistrust, while "we" still have our limos and land and homes and big fat off shore bank accounts , here, have a cigar boy,
I'm sure people don't read the stories they're moaning about.
This scheme is intended to provide an alternative for people that apply for crisis loans but don't get them, who would currently leave the Jobcentre empty handed and presumably unable to eat.
It in no way is intended to replace any aspect of the current system, it actually supplements it in an area which is currently lacking - how shockingly outrageous :rolleyes:
Agree with you 100%.
Problem with posts like this is they allow the trolls to feed and the bigots ('all the out of work do is smoke and booze' type of folk) to spew out their nonsense again:rolleyes:
Problem with posts like this is they allow the trolls to feed and the bigots ('all the out of work do is smoke and booze' type of folk) to spew out their nonsense again:rolleyes:
“Intoleration: The Rise of Bigotophobia in Britain” by Professor Gabriel Smirk, released next Monday, argues that it has become commonplace for bigots to be badmouthed, subjected to verbal abuse and spoken of unkindly by an establishment that is deaf to their needs as a community and fails to uphold their basic human rights.
“The fact is that it’s the last acceptable prejudice,” Professor Smirk said yesterday. “Bigots are treated like second-class citizens. We supposedly live in a country where freedom of speech is sanctity and yet the unwritten rule is that people are not allowed to express their hatred for minority groups without being shouted down or subjected to withering retorts.
The views of bigots are simply not respected and that’s simply got to change.”“You hear a lot about sexism, racism, ageism,” said Reginald Baron, chairman of Rally for Bigotry, an organisation dedicated to fighting for bigots’ rights, “but you don’t hear so much about sexistism or racistism – that is, prejudice against people who are racist or sexist.
I'm gonna have a lot more respect for bigots in future because they're now a persecuted minority But I'm not sure if they'll thank me for supporting them
btw, how we doin on trolls - are they becomming an endangered species? Do we need to force some of them to breed ? Do we need a facebook group ?
AHH that will be me being stereotyped then?
As my dear mum used to say, "just because it says Persil on buses it doesn't mean they sell it"
I am not now, nor have I ever been a "hippy" I see my name more as "redneck bait" works quite well sometimes,
But, having said that, when it "kicks off", as it more than likely will, as this "we" are all in it together but it's all the fault of the poor the unemployed and the disabled, who, as 'we' all know, are "scroungers" and anyway "we" need a scapegoat and we don't want to 'have a go' at the rich and powerful, because, well, because, A they are rich, and B they are powerful, but most importantly, (and strangely apt)
"C" they vote for us,
gains momentum,
I know which side of the, actual, or proverbial barricade I will be on,
we have, so far, had the, force 'them' to work option, run up the proverbial flag pole, just to 'test the waters' followed by get 'them' (who are most certainly not 'us') to move to where the jobs are, now we are 'testing' lets give 'them' vouchers instead of cash,
I predict a seperate health system for 'them' and perhaps some sort of 'work camp' system where 'they' could be 'concentrated' as a ready source of cheap Labour (supporters) and perhaps 'they' should have to wear some form of identification mark so that 'we' know who 'they' are,
OH I dunno perhaps a red star sewn onto 'their' outer clothing with the word "scrounger" writen on it?
But remember citizens, "WE" are all in it together, except SOME are RIGHT 'in it' ,
divide and conquer, create division and mistrust, while "we" still have our limos and land and homes and big fat off shore bank accounts , here, have a cigar boy,
Who still has limos and off shore bank accounts? Not me, that's for sure.
Most people are normal hard-working people, who do the best they can for themselves and their families.
To compare the ****less unemployed to the Jews during WW2 is disingenous.
So this is what the 'big society' means? Leave people to beg for charity? If this is the level our nation has fallen to, I'm trully ashamed
I'm not against food vouchers per se, but they should at least allow people the dignity of using them in Tesco and such. Basically, the government are saying that the poor are no longer welcome in the same shops as 'hard-working families', whatever that means.
I'm speechless, and to think millions voted for this.
If this means that poor families get these vouchers in addition to their benefit then it might be worth considering. However, if it is in place of actual benefit money then that's a disturbing and dangerous development and it could be a start to whittling away the UK's benefit system and I would be against that.
Either way, these food vouchers could regrettably stigmatise poor families as they would be handing over these coupons in their local supermarkets and their neighbours could see them. This could result in the bullying and torment of such poor families. Perhaps better targetted benefits would be a preferable option.
Judging from various pronouncements in these past few weeks, the Tory element of the coalition seems to be reverting to the Nasty Party of old and I hope that the Liberal Democrats stick up for the poor or, better still, pull out of this coalition with the morally rotten-to-the-core Tories as soon as next year's voting referendum is out of the way.
PS We've not seen one announcement/initiative yet to counter the tax evasion/avoidance of the rich and wealthy, have we?
Who still has limos and off shore bank accounts? Not me, that's for sure.
Most people are normal hard-working people, who do the best they can for themselves and their families.
To compare the ****less unemployed to the Jews during WW2 is disingenous.
My comments were mainly meant to be tongue in cheek,
but the cynical stereotyping of certain sections of the public in order to create scapegoats to blame for all thats wrong with this country is certainly not a new tactic by the Tories, last time it was all the fault of the unions, they managed to castrate them, and removed most of the 'power' that the working class had
this time it's the turn of the poor the unemployed and the sick to be singled out as "the enemy within"
I don't find it at all strange that Cameron has no problem using, and thereby promoting the term "scroungers" when talking about some sections of the people out of work or claiming benefits,
and yet I don't recall him ever calling some sections of the rich "parasites" or greedy, and I won't be holding my breath waiting for it either.
Well said All too often people on benefits can afford to drink, smoke and by big TVs yet still claim to be poor :eek:
Is there any credible evidence for this? I don't think so. The £104,000 per annum housing benefit bill, for example. Apparently the DWP said they don't hold such information on their system, and someone else said the government admitted that it was based on a ficticious calculation. The occasional stories you hear of benefit fraud, and of people who appear to have a nice big TV, are at the extreme end of reality. In the cases of big TVs -- how do you know that they bought them -- perhaps they stole them :eek::eek::D Seriously, people don't always buy things outright, sometimes people buy them on HP. If they were on benefits it's possible they borrowed the money, or that they bought via BrightHouse.
There are a lot of assumptions being made about a very few isolated examples which I know are not representative of those on benefits. To use those one or two isolated examples to extrapolate to everyone who claims benefits is absolutely absurd. It has no basis in fact.
Is there any credible evidence for this? I don't think so. The £104,000 per annum housing benefit bill, for example. Apparently the DWP said they don't hold such information on their system, and someone else said the government admitted that it was based on a ficticious calculation. The occasional stories you hear of benefit fraud, and of people who appear to have a nice big TV, are at the extreme end of reality. In the cases of big TVs -- how do you know that they bought them -- perhaps they stole them :eek::eek::D Seriously, people don't always buy things outright, sometimes people buy them on HP. If they were on benefits it's possible they borrowed the money, or that they bought via BrightHouse.
There are a lot of assumptions being made about a very few isolated examples which I know are not representative of those on benefits. To use those one or two isolated examples to extrapolate to everyone who claims benefits is absolutely absurd. It has no basis in fact.
Fair enough, but the point is that some people are spending their benefits inappropriately.
Comments
Oh dear. You've got yourself in to a wee bit of a snit about the SWP. Each to his own. Everyone deserves to be heard. We're all in this together ... don't ya know.
btw. Were you at Pride as part of LGBT Tory ?
Probably need a lot more in the fire service following the riots. How do they do about applying ? Is there training -- well, ofcourse there is training, but how long?
I don't agree with the laws on "hate crime" full stop. Really is it appropriate that someone gets a longer sentence because they attack someone because they hate them because they are black than if they hate them because they have shagged their wife/daughter/etc. Punish the crime and not the thoughts.
Education is a good point but I don't agree that we need more laws telling people how to think or law about "hate crimes" or "encitement to haterid" or such things.
No I was just watching and taking lots of photos of the drag queens in glitter to send to my gran. She was terribly dissapointed when someone told her Soho live was a parade and it turned out not to be.
I just find the SWP a amazingly negative organisation.
PS not everyone see the Tories as "nasty". I've talked to many people who believed that Labour bribed the poor for votes by handing out benefits, what should they do to rectify that image?
Is it ok for, as an example, a religious cleric in the UK to incite his followers to seek out and kill army service personnel?
Is it ok for religious groups to incite people to kill gay people (not quite thinking Anglican here, more WestBoro Baptist Church - who are setting up here btw).
Hate Crime laws are there for two reasons. One is to set an example. The second is to increase the punishment because the crime is seen as a special case.
But I do get what you are saying. An assult is an assult and simply shouldn't be tolerated. Technically you can commit a hate crime with words, if that person is, for example black, but we're still waiting for the equivalent for gay people. However, I wouldn't advise testing this - the police already have plenty of powers to arrest. The point is to make it unlawful to abuse people verbally in the street.
You do favour a UK where gay people can walk down the street without being verbally abused ... don't you ?
Encitement to violence is already a crime so why do we need a law banning encitement to "hate".
3 months intense initial training and then 4 years at a fire station (sprog) taking exams and drills befire you become a firefighter instead of a recruit firefighter and earn a full firefighters wage,
I would like to add, that Why arent gay people allowed to give blood , it is unjustified now.
Bloody hell you can't say things like that about the Guardian ! :eek::p
Wasting valuable time and money on verbal "crimes" (aka. name calling) is wrong.
You see it as a waste of money, clearly most of us want to live in a civilised society where prejudice against someone because they are a different colour, shade of white, have different physical characteristics such a disability, or because (despite you can't see it) someone is Gay. Most people can't be bothered going through their life hating others for one reason or another, most of us just want to get along and live life to it's fullest. When you get a little bit older and you start to realise you have more years behind you than in front, you'll know what I mean.
Verbal abuse towards Gay people is totally unacceptable. It can lead to low self-esteem, upset, depression, and in the most serious cases suicide.
If you want to be seen to be condoning this behaviour, because it is "Wasting valuable time and money on verbal "crimes" (aka. name calling) " that is your opinion. But I hope nobody else sees it as a frivolous waste to allow people to live without fear of persecution, hatred and abuse.
and priority goes to ethnic minorities, women, gays, and disabled,
AHH that will be me being stereotyped then?
As my dear mum used to say, "just because it says Persil on buses it doesn't mean they sell it"
I am not now, nor have I ever been a "hippy" I see my name more as "redneck bait" works quite well sometimes,
But, having said that, when it "kicks off", as it more than likely will, as this "we" are all in it together but it's all the fault of the poor the unemployed and the disabled, who, as 'we' all know, are "scroungers" and anyway "we" need a scapegoat and we don't want to 'have a go' at the rich and powerful, because, well, because, A they are rich, and B they are powerful, but most importantly, (and strangely apt)
"C" they vote for us,
gains momentum,
I know which side of the, actual, or proverbial barricade I will be on,
we have, so far, had the, force 'them' to work option, run up the proverbial flag pole, just to 'test the waters' followed by get 'them' (who are most certainly not 'us') to move to where the jobs are, now we are 'testing' lets give 'them' vouchers instead of cash,
I predict a seperate health system for 'them' and perhaps some sort of 'work camp' system where 'they' could be 'concentrated' as a ready source of cheap Labour (supporters) and perhaps 'they' should have to wear some form of identification mark so that 'we' know who 'they' are,
OH I dunno perhaps a red star sewn onto 'their' outer clothing with the word "scrounger" writen on it?
But remember citizens, "WE" are all in it together, except SOME are RIGHT 'in it' ,
divide and conquer, create division and mistrust, while "we" still have our limos and land and homes and big fat off shore bank accounts , here, have a cigar boy,
this comment made me laugh --- if only.
Agree with you 100%.
Problem with posts like this is they allow the trolls to feed and the bigots ('all the out of work do is smoke and booze' type of folk) to spew out their nonsense again:rolleyes:
I had no idea that bigots were under such threat.
http://www.dailyfortnight.com/news/uk/361-bigotophobia-on-the-rise
“Intoleration: The Rise of Bigotophobia in Britain” by Professor Gabriel Smirk, released next Monday, argues that it has become commonplace for bigots to be badmouthed, subjected to verbal abuse and spoken of unkindly by an establishment that is deaf to their needs as a community and fails to uphold their basic human rights.
“The fact is that it’s the last acceptable prejudice,” Professor Smirk said yesterday. “Bigots are treated like second-class citizens. We supposedly live in a country where freedom of speech is sanctity and yet the unwritten rule is that people are not allowed to express their hatred for minority groups without being shouted down or subjected to withering retorts.
The views of bigots are simply not respected and that’s simply got to change.”“You hear a lot about sexism, racism, ageism,” said Reginald Baron, chairman of Rally for Bigotry, an organisation dedicated to fighting for bigots’ rights, “but you don’t hear so much about sexistism or racistism – that is, prejudice against people who are racist or sexist.
I'm gonna have a lot more respect for bigots in future because they're now a persecuted minority
btw, how we doin on trolls - are they becomming an endangered species? Do we need to force some of them to breed ?
Who still has limos and off shore bank accounts? Not me, that's for sure.
Most people are normal hard-working people, who do the best they can for themselves and their families.
To compare the ****less unemployed to the Jews during WW2 is disingenous.
If this means that poor families get these vouchers in addition to their benefit then it might be worth considering. However, if it is in place of actual benefit money then that's a disturbing and dangerous development and it could be a start to whittling away the UK's benefit system and I would be against that.
Either way, these food vouchers could regrettably stigmatise poor families as they would be handing over these coupons in their local supermarkets and their neighbours could see them. This could result in the bullying and torment of such poor families. Perhaps better targetted benefits would be a preferable option.
Judging from various pronouncements in these past few weeks, the Tory element of the coalition seems to be reverting to the Nasty Party of old and I hope that the Liberal Democrats stick up for the poor or, better still, pull out of this coalition with the morally rotten-to-the-core Tories as soon as next year's voting referendum is out of the way.
PS We've not seen one announcement/initiative yet to counter the tax evasion/avoidance of the rich and wealthy, have we?
Women and ethnic minorities a definate yes, but disabled
You missed off gays from the original list. But they are already working in the Fire Brigade - and always have been.
http://www.fbulgbt.org.uk/
My comments were mainly meant to be tongue in cheek,
but the cynical stereotyping of certain sections of the public in order to create scapegoats to blame for all thats wrong with this country is certainly not a new tactic by the Tories, last time it was all the fault of the unions, they managed to castrate them, and removed most of the 'power' that the working class had
this time it's the turn of the poor the unemployed and the sick to be singled out as "the enemy within"
I don't find it at all strange that Cameron has no problem using, and thereby promoting the term "scroungers" when talking about some sections of the people out of work or claiming benefits,
and yet I don't recall him ever calling some sections of the rich "parasites" or greedy, and I won't be holding my breath waiting for it either.
Well said
Is there any credible evidence for this? I don't think so. The £104,000 per annum housing benefit bill, for example. Apparently the DWP said they don't hold such information on their system, and someone else said the government admitted that it was based on a ficticious calculation. The occasional stories you hear of benefit fraud, and of people who appear to have a nice big TV, are at the extreme end of reality. In the cases of big TVs -- how do you know that they bought them -- perhaps they stole them :eek::eek::D Seriously, people don't always buy things outright, sometimes people buy them on HP. If they were on benefits it's possible they borrowed the money, or that they bought via BrightHouse.
There are a lot of assumptions being made about a very few isolated examples which I know are not representative of those on benefits. To use those one or two isolated examples to extrapolate to everyone who claims benefits is absolutely absurd. It has no basis in fact.
Discrimination!
Fair enough, but the point is that some people are spending their benefits inappropriately.