On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:49:29 +0100, The Iron Jelloid
wrote:

Once upon a time, 1506 wrote:

In my professional life I have observed less qualified women promoted,
rather than better qualified men. That particular form of
"affirmative action" has been fashionable for a while.

Not in the UK it wasn't, ISTR the equality acts ban any form of
discrimination, negative or positive.

There are a number of exceptions, mainly where there is a need to
employ someone fully able to serve the needs in regard to welfare,
training and education of particular groups. This does not necessarily
exclude somebody from another relevant group. Religious employers are
also allowed to discriminate.

I know things were different in
the US, one of the Dirty Harry films partly based on that premise, where
a female cop with no beat experience is promoted to detective in order
to fulfil a mayor's quota. Agree that's a bad way to do it - better to
make discrimination illegal, and then make sure the rule is enforced by
hammering any company that flouts it with large fines.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:22:40 +0100, The Iron Jelloid
wrote:

Once upon a time, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:56:06 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/11 10:13, d wrote:
So whats your solution then? Swing the pendulum so far the other way that
it alienates white heterosexuals?

You got any evidence that white heterosexuals as a group feel alienated
by tolerance of others?

When that tolerance swings to positive discrimination then yes. And also
when that tolerance goes against the public good - ie I have zero tolerance
of the muslim women who cover their faces (france had the right idea there)

No, France has the wrong idea there. Or at least would be wrong if done
here. Banning things, making people carry ID papers, etc, are all
European things. One of the things that has always made Britain great
is that we practice tolerance and do not randomly ban stuff. "Land of
Hope and Glory, mother of the free", and all that.

The way to defeat the kind of primitive, middle-eastern culture that
wants to keep women veiled and in medieval-style servitude is through
thorough and compulsory education of women and girls. It's not that
long ago since western women were able to throw off religious and
cultural discrimination and demand full equality. Muslim women will
follow suit as long as we make sure that they receive a full education.

Not far from me is an area which 100 years ago was full of poor Irish
immigrants. They built numerous churches, most of which are now little
used and some stand abandoned, awaiting redevelopment or ruin. The area
is now heavily populated with Muslim immigrants, and they've built
themselves a large and spectacular mosque at the top of the hill,
complete with minarets and a rather beautiful green dome. 100 years
from now, that will also be a largely disused relic, as advancing
culture steadily leaves mass religion behind as superstition.

or rastas who say that smoking canabis is part of their "religion" (what
religion would that be - the one where you laze around and do bugger
all 24/7?).

I've no problem with those who can afford it lounging around doing
nothing 24/7, after all it's in the hope of being able to do it myself
that I play the lottery! :-)

Cannabis should be legal anyway. It costs more to police than it would
to allow (plus the tax revenue we'd make), and TBH I'd rather streets
full of cannabis smokers than drunks, weed doesn't generally seem to
make people aggressive the way booze does.

Maybe not but it is commonly smoked with tobacco which is carcinogenic
by itself and has other physical and psychological (some of which has
a "chicken and egg" element) disbenefits.

"The Iron Jelloid" wrote in
message ...
Once upon a time, 1506 wrote:

In my professional life I have observed less qualified women
promoted,
rather than better qualified men. That particular form of
"affirmative action" has been fashionable for a while.

Not in the UK it wasn't, ISTR the equality acts ban any form of
discrimination, negative or positive.

Banning something doesn't necessarily stop it happening!

I know things were different in
the US, one of the Dirty Harry films partly based on that premise,
where
a female cop with no beat experience is promoted to detective in
order
to fulfil a mayor's quota. Agree that's a bad way to do it - better
to
make discrimination illegal, and then make sure the rule is enforced
by
hammering any company that flouts it with large fines.

--
- The Iron Jelloid


Envo

On Aug 27, 5:27*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:03:47 +0100

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\08\26 20:51, Arthur Figgis wrote:

I suspect most of the Mail and Guardian journalists could switch papers
and re-slant their stories to suit the different audience with ease.

Melanie Phillips did just such a switch, although switching from left to
right with increasing age is probably normal, as Churchill suggested.

Not surprising really. The older you get the more you see how the world
really works and gain a better understanding of human nature and peoples real
motivations. Idealism rarely survives a long term encounter with life.

B2003

I have to say, I find that profoundly depressing. If anything, one
would expect that encounters with hard times in adult life, when it's
your responsibility - not anyone else's - to pay the bills, and if you
can't, life becomes difficult - would swing people leftwards. A little
over 20 years into adult life and I still have no inclination
whatsoever to vote Conservative or become either a social or an
economic conservative, or both - and I doubt I will even in my fifties
and beyond.

In any case, generally western society's morals have- generally, with
some exceptions, improved with time, (one has only got to go back to
the Victorian era, or the feudal system to see that that is so) though
in my lifetime it appears to have flatlined rather - so I think there
is a general tendency in the human race to want to improve things.

Nick

On 27/08/11 20:02, The Iron Jelloid wrote:
o I'm afraid you'll have to accept that
"gay" stopped having "bright and cheerful" as its primary meaning almost
half a century ago.

It is depressing but predictable that those who moan about the new
meaning of "gay" rarely if ever complain that "faggot" should still mean
"bundle of wood" and that "queer" should still mean "odd".

Ian

On 27/08/11 21:55, Arthur Figgis wrote:
You've not noticed the absence of some previously regular posters, then?

You think Detective Sergeant Hansen might be tied up in someone's
basement rather than just reassigned to a different case?

Ian

On 27/08/11 20:22, The Iron Jelloid wrote:
I've no problem with those who can afford it lounging around doing
nothing 24/7, after all it's in the hope of being able to do it myself
that I play the lottery!

I remember a young American right winger explaining to me at great
length why welfare was ethically wrong and that unearned income caused
inevitable moral decay.

He seemed to see no correlation with the family trusts which supported
him: he had never done, and never intended to do, a day's paid work in
his life.

Ian

On 27/08/11 16:38, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 20:51:28 +0100
Arthur wrote:
I suspect most of the Mail and Guardian journalists could switch papers
and re-slant their stories to suit the different audience with ease.

Yes, I'll give you that. I was thinking more of columnists like Toynbee
and Burchill rather than the day to day journos.

Julie Burchill's major employers have been the Mail on Sunday, the
Guardian, the Times and the Independent.

Ian

On 27/08/11 17:03, Basil Jet wrote:
Melanie Phillips did just such a switch, although switching from left to
right with increasing age is probably normal, as Churchill suggested.

Melanie Philips was a right-wing authoritarian even in her Observer days.

Ian

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message

On 27 Aug 2011 18:39:49 GMT, "Michael R N Dolbear"
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote

a Union that has State Churches, to wit the Episcopalians in
England and Northern Ireland, and the Presbyterians in Scotland.

There is no state church in Scotland and the Church of Ireland was
disestablished in 1869.

What's your reasoning here ?

The Church of Scotland is just as "by law established" as the Church
of England if more independent inasmuch as they won't let parliament
mess with their doctrine.

The Church of Scotland was not created or "approved" by the law of any
government of Scotland or the UK.
The Church of Scotland always disclaimed a state connection and this
was acknowledged by the government in the Church of Scotland Act 1921,
see :-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/11-12/29

The independence from the state is declared in Articles V and VI in
the Schedule to that Act and acknowledged in s.1.

"This Church has the inherent right, free from interference by civil
authority, but under the safeguards for deliberate action and
legislation provided by the Church itself, to frame or adopt its
subordinate standards, .........." [beginning of Article V.]

Not only will the Kirk not tolerate state interference, the state
itself acknowledges it has no business in its government.

What a pity the English situation is different. It seems so bizarre that
in a largely non-religious country that there is still a state religion,
with bishops voting in parliament. And as a taxpayer I strongly
disapprove of state money going into religious schools. I'm perfectly
happy for religions to run schools if they choose to do so, but I don't
want any of my taxes going into them. And it's even worse that parents
have to feign faith so that their children can get into state-funded
schools.