fARAGE FINALLY SAYS WHAT HE REALLY MEANS

well at least THAT is more honest than "positive discrimination"

which never can be (honest)

Ukip would scrap much of Britain’s equality law, Nigel Farage has said, claiming that racial discrimination was no longer a problem.

The Ukip leader said that there was no need for legislation guarding against prejudice based on race because his party was “colour blind”. He said that his children “wouldn’t know what I was talking about” if he raised the issue of race.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4379484.ece

What an idiot!

What positive discrimation? Return to the time when employers could turn people down because of their colour? Over my dead body!

Race hate crimes have rocketed in parts of Manchester over the last year, according to shocking new statistics obtained by the M.E.N.

Greater Manchester Police say racially-motivated crimes rose a massive 43 per cent last year in north Manchester

There were 371 race-motivated offences in the north Manchester division between January and September in 2014 – up from the 250 in the same period previously.

The division covers the city centre, east Manchester out towards Abbey Hey and north of the city up to Higher Blackley.

And race hate crimes across the whole of Greater Manchester also rose nearly 10 per cent in the same period, from 1,976 in 2013 to 2,144 last year.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/race-hate-crime-manchester-rochdale-8455694

He's a total dick head!

risingsun wrote:What positive discrimation?   Return to the time when employers could turn people down because of their colour?  Over my dead body!

unless they are white...as in "positive discrimination"

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Race hate crimes have rocketed in parts of Manchester over the last year, according to shocking new statistics obtained by the M.E.N.

Greater Manchester Police say racially-motivated crimes rose a massive 43 per cent last year in north Manchester

There were 371 race-motivated offences in the north Manchester division between January and September in 2014 – up from the 250 in the same period previously.

The division covers the city centre, east Manchester out towards Abbey Hey and north of the city up to Higher Blackley.

And race hate crimes across the whole of Greater Manchester also rose nearly 10 per cent in the same period, from 1,976 in 2013 to 2,144 last year.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/race-hate-crime-manchester-rochdale-8455694

Yeah thats right BEN...of course crimes committed by "other ethnicities" against whites are "just crimes" aren't they.....wheareas every crime committed by a white on the "others " is a "race crime"

darknessss wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Race hate crimes have rocketed in parts of Manchester over the last year, according to shocking new statistics obtained by the M.E.N.

Greater Manchester Police say racially-motivated crimes rose a massive 43 per cent last year in north Manchester

There were 371 race-motivated offences in the north Manchester division between January and September in 2014 – up from the 250 in the same period previously.

The division covers the city centre, east Manchester out towards Abbey Hey and north of the city up to Higher Blackley.

And race hate crimes across the whole of Greater Manchester also rose nearly 10 per cent in the same period, from 1,976 in 2013 to 2,144 last year.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/race-hate-crime-manchester-rochdale-8455694

Yeah thats right BEN...of course crimes committed by "other  ethnicities" against whites are "just crimes" aren't they.....wheareas every crime committed by a white on the "others " is a "race crime"

You see no difference in a black guy mugging a white guy for money and a white guy beating up a black guy because he's black?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:

Yeah thats right BEN...of course crimes committed by "other  ethnicities" against whites are "just crimes" aren't they.....wheareas every crime committed by a white on the "others " is a "race crime"

You see no difference in a black guy mugging a white guy for money and a white guy beating up a black guy because he's black?

hmm depends doesnt it....

you see whilst its impossible to gather statistics about this it is almosr certain thatin many many cases the "black mugger" specifically tagets "white victims"..impossible to prove....but observation says tis so...

moreover

is there a difference between the white guy beating on a black guy becasue of his colour and the Muslim paedo gangs preying almost exclusively on young western girls (priciply becasue they are seen as a "prize" (not to mention that rape as a weapon of war is not exactly frowned upon in certain sections of their society)......

Employers should have the right to discriminate on the basis of nationality - that’s the view of Nigel Farage, who said Britain's race laws that prevent prejudice in the workplace should be scrapped.
The former City trader added that Ukip would not retain laws against discrimination on the grounds of race or colour, because, "We as a party are colour-blind.” He also said race is not a significant issue in modern Britain.
Echoing the BNP mantra "British jobs for British workers," the Ukip kingpin made the outlandish remarks during an interview for the Channel 4 documentary: Things We Won't Say About Race That Are True, scheduled for broadcast next week.
The eurosceptic politician, who is white, said concerns over preventing racial discrimination in employment "would probably have been valid" 40 years ago, adding: "I don't think it is today. If I talked to my children... about the question of race, they wouldn't know what I was talking about.”
On employment law, the Ukip leader said: “Employer[s] should be much freer to make decisions on who she or he employs… I think the situation that we now have, where an employer is not allowed to choose between a British-born person and somebody from Poland, is a ludicrous state of affairs."
He went on: "I would argue that the law does need changing, and that if an employer wishes to choose, or you can use the word 'discriminate' if you want to, but wishes to choose to employ a British-born person, they should be allowed to do so."
Labour shot back accusing Farage of making comments of "breathtaking ignorance." Shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan said: "This is one of the most shocking things I have ever heard from a mainstream politician and demonstrates breathtaking ignorance."
Khan added: "We have made huge progress on tackling racial inequality and discrimination in this country, partly because of Labour's strong anti-discrimination laws, but things are still far from perfect. When my parents moved to London they frequently saw signs saying 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish'; what Ukip is suggesting would take us back to those days."


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03/11/farage-makes-breathtaking-remark-that-employers-should-be-allowed-to-recruit-on-the-basis-of-nationality_n_6852220.html?utm_hp_ref=uk


I always thought that an employer should employ based off those best suited for the job based off skills, experince and qualifications.

I guess he fails to see how scraping such laws will pave the way back to the years of untold discrrmination against people based on ethnicity.
What next, those who are LGBT, women, disabled having the same law that protects them from discrmination removed?

Farage should be an American Tea Party or Libertarian Party candidate. They all seem to think that if you own a business, you're akin to a king or to a god.

Sure hoping the NHS doesn't fund abortion procedures. Here in the U.S. we have business owners saying they should be able to refuse to help pay for any procedure they don't believe in because of their religious stupidity superstition caveman-mentality tide goes in tide goes out you can't explain that beliefs.

I wish the opposite were true, and we could refuse to pay for police and fire protection for any business owner who acts like a penis.

Okay from what I understand he is saying that employers have to employ a certian amount of ethnic minorities at the moment yes?

So if an English person goes for a job, but the employer hasn't fulfilled his quota of employing ethnic minorities....the english guy won't get it?

Isn't that racism, against the english, right there?

eddie wrote:Okay from what I understand he is saying that employers have to employ a certian amount of ethnic minorities at the moment yes?

So if an English person goes  for a job, but the employer hasn't fulfilled his quota of employing ethnic minorities....the english guy won't get it?

Isn't that racism, against the english, right there?

No he is saying emplyers should be able to employ someone only if they are British.
There is no quota to have a percentage of ethnic groups in the vast majority of employers, where in fact the vast majority of ethnic groups are under represented in employment. It is the other way round. He wants positive discrimination which I think should only be viable with those suffereing mental health or disabilities not any race.


In the UK, any discrimination, quotas or favouritism due to sex, race and ethnicity among other "protected characteristics" is generally illegal for any reason in education, employment, during commercial transactions, in a private club or association, and while using public servicesThe Equality Act 2010 established the principles of equality and their implementation in the UK.

He wants to make discrimination legal Eddie.
The fact he fails to understand many employers lap up Eastern Europeans as workers because many are hard working and have a good work ethos in the lower skilled based jobs. If you want to change something in this country it needs to be the poor work ethos found amongst some Brits, who believe that some work is beneath them and that it is better off to be on benefits than employment.
One thing that will help is to have a living wage, but this also has other affects, that if you increase the wage, you will still entice people to come here for work where actually now the wages in places like Poland is catching up with the UK. So whilst we should have a living wage, the reason we have so many industries in this country is due to cheap labour, which you have to find the right balance or lose them to where it can be done cheaper abroad. This is the bad point of the EU because there is such an imbalance of wages in each country, which if there was an equal pay structure you would see less migration movements.

Okay.
I get it

But the fact that we made the rule that employers HAD to employ a certain amount of blacks chinese Polish etc..... Isn't that racist against any engkish person going for that job?
He won't get it because the employer HAS TO employ his quote that year?

It's reverse racism, is it not?

Can't we leave these sensible employers and alow them the courtesy of having the intelligence to pick the right person for the job?? The right person???

If I as polish and was employed becasue of my race rate he than my credentials Id be insulted!

eddie wrote:Okay.
I get it

But the fact that we made the rule that employers HAD to employ a certain amount of blacks chinese Polish etc..... Isn't that racist against any engkish person going for that job?
He won't get it because the employer HAS TO employ his quote that year?

It's reverse racism, is it not?

Can't we leave these sensible employers and alow them the courtesy of having the intelligence to pick the right person for the job?? The right person???

If I as polish and was employed becasue of my race rate he than my credentials Id be insulted!

There is no such rule.There is a law to protect them from being discrminated apllying for employment. Employers in the main do pick the right people for the job and race should play no part in this where again and I stress that a nationality is just a concept to identify a group of people.
So I have no idea where you get this view they have to employ a quota.

In the UK, any discrimination, quotas or favouritism due to sex, race and ethnicity among other "protected characteristics" is generally illegal for any reason in education, employment, during commercial transactions, in a private club or association, and while using public servicesThe Equality Act 2010 established the principles of equality and their implementation in the UK.


If such a quota existed you would see at least 50% female MP's etc.
You do not, so no idea where you get this view of a quota. The Police set targets to emply more ethnic minroities but fall short of the targets, which is one of the few industries that does.

But surely they must have to employ a certain amount or what farage is saying will make no difference to the current situation??

eddie wrote:But surely they must have to employ a certain amount or what farage is saying will make no difference to the current situation??

Only some do like the Police for example have targets which vary dependent on the area, of which is more about promoting more ethnic groups into employment. The fact is that target overall is 7%, where at present ethnic groups employed in the Police is 5%. What he wants is to have positive discrmination where people who are not British can be passed over in employment soley on the bases they are not British.
This appeals to some people because they wrongly view jobs in this country should go to British people first. That is a discrminating view, because you are not employing someone fairly but on their place of birth over the skills, experince abilities of people.
Equality in employment is about all have a fair chance, he wishes to change that, because it appeals to some of the electorate.
Basically you open the door here Eddie to disriminate, then what next?
Women denied jobs because they are female, homosexuals, because they are gay.
Once you allow inequality in employment you open up a massive can of worms for people to activelly discrminate based on their preferences to gender, race, sexuality etc.

I'm not saying I agree with him!!
I'm trying to see how this is any different to what is?

eddie wrote:I'm not saying I agree with him!!
I'm trying to see how this is any different to what is?

Never claimed you did agree with him Eddie.