No Straight White Men Allowed At Labours Equality Conference

“Labour are a divisive Party who want to divide people into victim groups. They have not learnt from the Equalities Commission ruling last month regarding their discriminatory attempt to sell tickets for their East Midlands Conference at different prices based on ethnicity. Now they are banning white male heterosexuals from attending their Equalities Conference. They seem to believe that white, male heterosexuals have nothing to contribute to the subject of Equality. It seems that in La La Labour land everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.”

“This is yet another example of discrimination by Labour.
“Their lazy assumption that straight white men can’t fight for equality is shocking. It is essential that political parties represent each and every person irrespective of race, sexuality or age.
“The Labour Party should take action now to ensure that this discrimination comes to an end.”

veya_victaous wrote:it's not a private club, it is a Political party.  

and pretty dumb that you can't join the black panthers.
it's still discrimination based on Race, so it's wrong.    

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:it's not a private club, it is a Political party.  

and pretty dumb that you can't join the black panthers.
it's still discrimination based on Race, so it's wrong.    

Hey Einstein. What's the first fucking word in Black Panthers?

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:it's not a private club, it is a Political party.  

and pretty dumb that you can't join the black panthers.
it's still discrimination based on Race, so it's wrong.    

Hey Einstein. What's the first fucking word in Black Panthers?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Hey Einstein. What's the first fucking word in Black Panthers?

The

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:it's not a private club, it is a Political party.  

and pretty dumb that you can't join the black panthers.
it's still discrimination based on Race, so it's wrong.    

Hey Einstein. What's the first fucking word in Black Panthers?

The

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


The

Well, had I typed it correctly, you would be correct.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Hey Einstein. What's the first fucking word in Black Panthers?

and?
you can't support Black rights?


Do you think Racial Discrimination is Fair?

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Hey Einstein. What's the first fucking word in Black Panthers?

and?
you can't support Black rights?


Do you think Racial Discrimination is Fair?

Sure, I could join any number of organizations that fight for equal rights.  

The Black Panthers isn't one of those however. It would be like a black man joining the Klan.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Sure, I could join any number of organizations that fight for equal rights.  

The Black Panthers isn't one of those however. It would be like a black man joining the Klan.

So you answered your own Question?.... Just like the KKK the Black Panthers are Racists,
So both need to change to end racism, why don't you do your part and go sign up for the Black Panthers      

and    

magica wrote:I laughed, where's the equality for straight white men.

Tommy Monk wrote:It's not a private club...

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It's not a private club...

Really?  What branch of government do political parties come under?  Home Department?

And...isn't that a conflict of interest?  Can the government dictate the platform of the Labour Party?  Tory Party?  If the political parties determine the government; and the government dictates to the political parties, who makes policy?  The Illuminati?

eddie wrote:The very same thing happened years ago to Licensed Black Taxi drivers.
Financial help was offered to the public if they wanted to do The London Knowledge.

But only if you wasn’t a white, English male.  

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It's not a private club...

Really?  What branch of government do political parties come under?  Home Department?

And...isn't that a conflict of interest?  Can the government dictate the platform of the Labour Party?  Tory Party?  If the political parties determine the government; and the government dictates to the political parties, who makes policy?  The Illuminati?

sassy wrote:Now, lets see.

LABOUR PARTY MEMBERS put forward suggestions and we run the Party.   If enough members agree with the suggestion, it gets taken up.

The suggestion was put forward that there should be Equalities Officers to make sure that the main groups that suffer from inequality should have a voice.   It was also decided that they should come from Young Labour, so that they could give the most up to date views and know that we valued their opinions.

So, guess what, it was decided that those who were are risk of suffering the inequality should be the ones to be Equality Officers, so a conference was called where they could have a voice and vote as to which of them would take the positions.

Simple really, making sure those that suffer from inequality have a voice.

sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Really?  What branch of government do political parties come under?  Home Department?

And...isn't that a conflict of interest?  Can the government dictate the platform of the Labour Party?  Tory Party?  If the political parties determine the government; and the government dictates to the political parties, who makes policy?  The Illuminati?

The Labour Party sets it's own agenda and can decide which way they want to do it.   Would that it was the same for the Cons.

sassy wrote:Now, lets see.

LABOUR PARTY MEMBERS put forward suggestions and we run the Party.   If enough members agree with the suggestion, it gets taken up.

The suggestion was put forward that there should be Equalities Officers to make sure that the main groups that suffer from inequality should have a voice.   It was also decided that they should come from Young Labour, so that they could give the most up to date views and know that we valued their opinions.

So, guess what, it was decided that those who were are risk of suffering the inequality should be the ones to be Equality Officers, so a conference was called where they could have a voice and vote as to which of them would take the positions.

Simple really, making sure those that suffer from inequality have a voice.



So, what are the Cons doing about enequality?   Fuck all.

As for James Cleverly, he's the most unCleverly person around, and you only have to speak his name for people to burst out laughing..


And of course, James Cleverly and Andrew Bridgen both voted to take £30 a week from disabled people.   Their remit is to make sure the inequality is entrenched.

veya_victaous wrote:Didge has a good point

White men are not a homogenous group it is incredibly racist to put all white men in the same category.
It's like saying Indians, Africans and Aboriginals are all the same because of their skin colour.
SO Labour are effectively 'Part of the Issue' and Will never make any ground on equality as they perpetuate it.

Sorry Sassy, All your post points out is Labour members are Racists. they Voted to Pursue a Racist Discriminatory policy, their intention is Irrelevant ask the Aboriginals of the stolen generation what good intentions are worth.

Raggamuffin wrote:Gypsies and Jews can go if they're female, or identify as female.

Didge wrote:And there you have it from Sassy, some of the most mind boggling nonsense I have ever heard to endorse discrimination and prejudice.

All the groups I meantioned cannot have a voice, even more worryingly this includes Jews, who suffer many hate crimes.

They cannot be represented due to being white and another example how Labour whitewashes antisemitism.

Sassy is ill concened Gypsies and Roma  is 12 years lower than the rest of the population in lif expectancy and infant mortality is 3 times higher. They cannot be represented, due to being white.

As seen equality means involving all people from all walks of life and the best people for the job. The lunacy of left wishes to go against laws on equality and actively discriminate against many groups of white people, based on no valid reasons

sassy wrote:

Didge wrote:And there you have it from Sassy, some of the most mind boggling nonsense I have ever heard to endorse discrimination and prejudice.

All the groups I meantioned cannot have a voice, even more worryingly this includes Jews, who suffer many hate crimes.

They cannot be represented due to being white and another example how Labour whitewashes antisemitism.

Sassy is ill concened Gypsies and Roma  is 12 years lower than the rest of the population in lif expectancy and infant mortality is 3 times higher. They cannot be represented, due to being white.

As seen equality means involving all people from all walks of life and the best people for the job. The lunacy of left wishes to go against laws on equality and actively discriminate against many groups of white people, based on no valid reasons

Oh dear, thought I would have a laugh and read one of the arrogant one's posts.  And a laugh it is.  Now Dodge, what part if BAME don't you understand.  That would be Black Asian and ETHNIC MINORITIES, ie people like Roma, Jews etc DOH.  White men are very well represented in every other committee,in fact some would say, over represented.  It's called balancing the scales and giving everyone a voice, something the Cons don't give a shit about, they only represent the Haves, which is why they are going down the pan.  Labour already have more members than all the other parties put together and within a few days Momentum will have more members than the Con Party, and every one if those members has a voice in what we do, unlike the Cons who are told what to do.  Now you are back on ignore, one bit of dumbfuckery is quite enough fir this month.

BAME
ABBREVIATION
British
Black, Asian, and minority ethnic (used to refer to members of non-white communities in the UK).

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bame

A Labour spokeswoman defended the exclusion of straight white men, saying: "There is nothing new about spaces for people with protected characteristics meeting to discuss the inequalities and obstacles they face.

"The purpose of this conference is to ensure that members from disadvantaged groups are able to elect representatives to Young Labour's National Committee."

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/labour-excludes-straight-white-men-equality-conference-1660599

nicko wrote:Momentum,   another name for violent thugs !

Raggamuffin wrote:Protected characteristics? Does that not include being white and male then?

sassy wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Didge has a good point

White men are not a homogenous group it is incredibly racist to put all white men in the same category.
It's like saying Indians, Africans and Aboriginals are all the same because of their skin colour.
SO Labour are effectively 'Part of the Issue' and Will never make any ground on equality as they perpetuate it.

Sorry Sassy, All your post points out is Labour members are Racists. they Voted to Pursue a Racist Discriminatory policy, their intention is Irrelevant ask the Aboriginals of the stolen generation what good intentions are worth.

Veya, you ain't often ridiculous, but you are here. So, recognising that a particular group of people (and BTW, that group includes YOUNG WHITE DISABLED AND YOUNG WHITE GAY OR TRANS etc) have a problem and help them to come up with REPRESENTATIVES to put forward their case is wrong?   In which case, why did Australia have the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People?  or why did the UN have United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities etc etc.

What you don't seem to get, is that those Equalities Officers will be part of a Committee that will look at all aspects of inequality, but will be representing the troubles faced by those particular groups.


Kinda reminds me of this:

EQUALITIES COMMISSION WARN LABOUR BANNING STRAIGHT WHITE MEN COULD BE “UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION”

Labour have been rebuked again by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission for banning straight white men from their Equalities conference. The EHRC warns this could even be “unlawful discrimination”. Certainly seems that barring people from voting on party positions because of their race seems unwise. This is the second time Labour have been told off by the EHRC in three weeks. Lot of Labour pundits who vocally defended the party on this looking a bit silly now…


https://order-order.com/2018/02/14/equalties-commission-warn-labour-banning-straight-white-men-could-be-unlawful-discrimination/



Opps

Jules wrote:Let me try to explain this equality shit - which  TBH should really be renamed ''fairness'' or "parity'' , instead of ''equality'' ... to ward off all the usual smug forum jokes, and taunts of irony blah blah.

Sometimes this drive for ''equality'' [between genders, sexualities, ethnicities or whatever]  is quite simply a question of 'playing catchup'. I can probably best explain it with an analogy, which I've come up with.



-------------------------------------------------
ANALOGY:

OK, imagine an affluent banker  decides to send his twins away for 2years to boarding school. 1 boy & 1 girl. He issues instructions to his accountant to pay in £100 per month into each one's separate account, as pocket money, for the entire 2 year period.


OK? so far so good!

Unfortunately, the accountant discovered he'd mistakenly paid  only £80 into the girl's account during the entire first year. The boy had beeen getting the correct amount, the full sum of £100 per month.


So to REDRESS this problem, the accountant decides that the girl gets an extra £20 per month during the entiree second year, [to correct the deficit that she unwittingly suffered during the first 12 months] ... in addition to the intended sum of £100 per month which the dad ordered. So she now receives £120 per month in total ..... whilst the boy of course carries on recieving the usual £100 payment during the second year.



When the boy accidentally discovers that the girl was getting £120 per month, he becomes outraged and makes a terrible fuss about the ''irony '' of equality  .... refusing point blank into take into account the error that had gone on before. He is either congenitally retarded or being disingenuous.



-------------------------------
This attitude is what I see all around me on forums - very bemusing indeed lol.

Jules wrote:Let me try to explain this equality shit - which  TBH should really be renamed ''fairness'' or "parity'' , instead of ''equality'' ... to ward off all the usual smug forum jokes, and taunts of irony blah blah.

Sometimes this drive for ''equality'' [between genders, sexualities, ethnicities or whatever]  is quite simply a question of 'playing catchup'. I can probably best explain it with an analogy, which I've come up with.



-------------------------------------------------
ANALOGY:

OK, imagine an affluent banker  decides to send his twins away for 2years to boarding school. 1 boy & 1 girl. He issues instructions to his accountant to pay in £100 per month into each one's separate account, as pocket money, for the entire 2 year period.


OK? so far so good!

Unfortunately, the accountant discovered he'd mistakenly paid  only £80 into the girl's account during the entire first year. The boy had beeen getting the correct amount, the full sum of £100 per month.


So to REDRESS this problem, the accountant decides that the girl gets an extra £20 per month during the entiree second year, [to correct the deficit that she unwittingly suffered during the first 12 months] ... in addition to the intended sum of £100 per month which the dad ordered. So she now receives £120 per month in total ..... whilst the boy of course carries on recieving the usual £100 payment during the second year.



When the boy accidentally discovers that the girl was getting £120 per month, he becomes outraged and makes a terrible fuss about the ''irony '' of equality  .... refusing point blank into take into account the error that had gone on before. He is either congenitally retarded or being disingenuous.



-------------------------------
This attitude is what I see all around me on forums - very bemusing indeed lol.

veya_victaous wrote:


that is a disingenuous analogy and just an extension of discrimination.

INDIVIDUALS should be treated as Individuals their gender, race, sexual orientation should be irrelevant.
women in their Mid 30's (My age) grew up in the era of 'girl power' they were never short changed and due to poor Policies like this (extending from the bad old days of the 90's) we have seen females Put into positions based on their gender alone, that's Fact, I have been on employment panels where we were told we have to accept every female applicant that could meet the minimum requirements even if they were not the best candidate      


Sorry Jules but Morden Progressive left wingers have already abandoned such terrible policies as the failures of yesteryear.