| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Segragation UK; Casey Review. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 5 2016, 11:07 PM (243 Views) | |
| C-too | Dec 5 2016, 11:07 PM Post #1 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"Dame Louise Casey accused public bodies of ignoring or condoning divisive or harmful religious practices for fear of being called racist. Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said he would study the findings "closely". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38200989 |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Dec 6 2016, 01:53 AM Post #2 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
From what I've read of it every MP and public leader should be forced to read it cover to cover and not be paid a penny of salary until they can show they understand it Because it may be the most expensive 'no shit Sherlock' in history but it's a long needed one and some of the needed remedies aren't exactly rocket science |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Dec 6 2016, 07:02 AM Post #3 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I suspect only in such depth as is needed to brief his spin doctor(s) to come up with a collection of soundbites to be used in the furtherance of demonisation of those who proclaim themselves the losers to the multiculturalist dream. And Dame Louisa Casey should carefully examine the security of tenure of that damehood. The last person who spoke out so openly against government policy was the bloke who stupidly said "in terms of deaths per thousand participants, horse riding was more dangerious than smoking cannabis" and on another occasion put a report in the public domain showing that "vaping released so little nicotine and in normal operation the devices released absolutely no harmful compounds into the atmosphere whatsoever, so the amount of passive smoking occuring when someone vaped was .. zero" The fact the man had peer reviewed evidence to support both statements did not save him from being made redundant for the crime of failing to provide evidence in support of government ideology, indeed the posession of that evidence is probably what cost him his job, for it was he who amassed it and had it reviewed in the first place. Governments do not like people who provide evidence their ideology is barking mad. |
![]() |
|
| Mot | Dec 6 2016, 11:43 AM Post #4 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So it appears the problem is Muslim communities, if I understand the video correctly. Yes well, we did know that. But the proposals are closing the stable door after ... Britain to a lesser extent has already been here before with the good ship Windrush etc, with the tribes of London having to move out. They were not very happy and I understand still not, but the difference is Black communities have become part of the British people, I can't see that ever happening with mainstream muslins. The best that will happen is fire fighting, what we need is a change in laws. As for the future where will present white indigenous people end up, apart from the ones that will pull up their roots and move??? Where white people in this country have been open, maybe moan but generally live and let live, will perhaps in the future change and themselves will also become a segregated group, perhaps the only thing stopping that would be world wide movement of people and becoming one nation with the loss of diversity. An oath of integration only works if you are honest. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Dec 6 2016, 12:04 PM Post #5 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Worth reading the whole report Mot (well at least loading it and scanning it with the text search function) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/574565/The_Casey_Review.pdf While it effectively does say the problem is just about all in muslim communities it doesn't actually say the problem is with muslim communities. IE many/most muslim communities are OK. It also has this worrying paragraph
As for your point about the Windrush surely a triviality compared to the absurdity of the 1948 Nationality Act which in effect made any Commonwealth resident able to choose to be a Brit . And when Uganda decided in the 70s that meant they could dump thousands of Asians on us we had to take them and was the start of these majority muslim communities
|
![]() |
|
| Dan1989 | Dec 6 2016, 12:17 PM Post #6 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, this maybe controversial! Put a halt on immigration and allow a negative within net migration for like ten years, we seem to be having a consistence of about 300,000 leaving each year, so in ten years we lose about 3 million people, well it's an estimate but it's at-least reducing the population which has it's advantages, then stable migration to less then ten thousand a year. But here's the controversial part, voluntary repatriation with help going back, government covers cost and so on, just to reduce the population and social divisions, if people really aren't willing to integrate seems like a good option. I also read on the BBC that 15 millions jobs are estimated to be taken over by machines, so reducing the population and leaving growth to child births which is far more stable and predicable, will help dealing with this eventuality. Edited by Dan1989, Dec 6 2016, 12:37 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Cymru | Dec 6 2016, 01:37 PM Post #7 |
|
Alt-Right
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ditto, although voluntary repatriation won't have many takers which will force the state to take other measures. |
![]() |
|
| Dan1989 | Dec 6 2016, 01:44 PM Post #8 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That would be as far as I'd go, while I do think the artificial population growth should be reduced and the population lowered as-well and replaced with births as the main growth factor, I wouldn't won't to force them. Though, if they aren't happy being here, or finding it hard to integrate which the reports says there's a significant number I can see them taking it, free trip back and so on. Also if you tell them of the issues of automation, could be even a greater incentive to move on. |
![]() |
|
| Alberich | Dec 6 2016, 01:58 PM Post #9 |
|
Alberich
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But this is yet another "no shit, Sherlock" report that comes out not infrequently. We all know that multi-culturalism brings problems. But multi- culturalism is as much human nature as is having sex. We all do it. Brits abroad do it. How to stop it; there's the rub. We have had China towns, little Italy's, the Irish quarter, and today, we have the large Muslim population living in their own areas through choice; Birmingham, Leicester, Bradford to name but a few. Having arrivals take a pledge, or promise to assimilate Britishness isn't really going to alter much. They will still move to be with their own kind whenever they can. Even having compulsory English lessons (how is that going to work) won't alter the fundamental issue...that we all prefer our own kind as neighbours. So, short of a compulsory mix policy, segregation by ethnicity and/ or religion by choice is now the norm. And that in itself is not necessarily bad, as long as the various groupings freely associate with and adopt the mores of the host nation. Most do. But is an undeniable fact that Islam poses unique problems, which are probably unsolvable. Islam preaches separateness as superiority. They want what we have, but dislike our culture, and our freedoms. More of a takeover than an assimilation. And I don't think you can ever cure that mindset. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Dec 6 2016, 02:03 PM Post #10 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We could start by mandating that every child must be fluent in English (or where relevant Welsh) by the time they go to school or the parents will default to be guilty of child abuse Banning the use of other languages in schools (except for the teaching of foreign languages of use) would be a good second step |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Dec 6 2016, 02:14 PM Post #11 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We could of course try removing any incentives to come here where immigrants are concerned. |
![]() |
|
| Dan1989 | Dec 6 2016, 02:18 PM Post #12 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You don't really need to do that, just control immigration, that's it. But you get the distinct feeling that certain groups, like corporations have a good grip on immigration control, because they are completely benefiting from it. Edited by Dan1989, Dec 6 2016, 02:26 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Dec 6 2016, 02:35 PM Post #13 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You mean we vote ourselves into inevitable economic decline? In which case job one surely
|
![]() |
|
| Mot | Dec 6 2016, 02:46 PM Post #14 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
199 pages Sections 1.21, 1.23 and 1.24 is where issues need to be addressed, but without a change of law they won't. Although the problem was spelt out, no recommendations as far as I could see were given. With a continuing growth of soon not to be minority groups the problem will escalate. |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Dec 6 2016, 02:57 PM Post #15 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, not at all, what I am saying is only let in those that can stand on there own two feet and have a decent job to go to and will not need benefits of any kind at all, THOSE are the sort of calibre that we need. |
![]() |
|
| Dan1989 | Dec 6 2016, 03:01 PM Post #16 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I would still argue that, it's depending on what skills, we don't need more carpenters or similar mid-level qualification, another being an office worker. What we really need is scientists, doctors, engineers - those really high skilled positions. We need to reset the market so that jobs are more plentiful for mid to lower end jobs so that wages and benefits can naturally rise through supply and demand. We basically need a more competitive immigration system. |
![]() |
|
| Mot | Dec 6 2016, 04:58 PM Post #17 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What we really need, is for our companies to train people in this country and also re-train when there are industry changes, instead of children leaving school and just doing any old degree, lets give an incentive - free grants for subjects we need as a nation. Lots of engineers were let go, became out of date and private companies buying in cheap skilled labour from aboard. Britain has given away her skills. Edited by Mot, Dec 6 2016, 04:59 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Mot | Dec 6 2016, 05:11 PM Post #18 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well that would have resulted in my parents being locked up. I agree banning the use of other languages in schools including Welsh, (which is divisive) except for the teaching of languages would be a good move. |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Dec 6 2016, 06:52 PM Post #19 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The government of the day (any day) needs to give financial incentives to universities to offer more places for Brits to study "STEM" subjects because that is what we are in dire need of.....home grown brainboxes who know what they are doing and can design and build nuclear power stations just for instance. That is assuming of course that we have the brains in universities to teach..Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM). Edited by Rich, Dec 6 2016, 06:52 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Dec 6 2016, 08:32 PM Post #20 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Is all this another diversion to get the plebs to blame immigrants all over again? Most immigrants are poorer than most natives as the government cares even less about them than working class Brits, segregation and poverty always go hand in hand in modern Britain. |
![]() |
|
| Dan1989 | Dec 6 2016, 08:45 PM Post #21 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Are you not willing to countenance that immigration has its issues and arguably been handled poorly over the last 20 - 30 years. It seems you want to ignore legitimate concerns. I'd argue there's two major failures immigration & economics, which in some terms count as the same thing because those two are so closely linked. My idea has always been reduce migration by a lot, allow unemployment to be as low as possible as to raise wages through supply and demand, also keeping in tone with the debate to help fix social divisions which aren't going to be helped by dog-piling more people in. Also with the ever increasing chance of automation, remember self-drive cars are coming soon, that could easily put a lot of people out of work, so reducing the artificial growth of the population will mean the impact of lot people losing jobs could be handled better. What we need is a far harsher view on immigration and it's failings, not another cover up by people with agendas, companies have abused immigration for far too long. Edited by Dan1989, Dec 6 2016, 08:51 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Affa | Dec 6 2016, 11:09 PM Post #22 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Worthy of a thread of its own. If there were no discrimination, that ethnicity was never a barrier to employment or anything, would there be a more cordial relationship, and importantly fewer ghettos were resentments fester? A truly harmonious multicultural society? Is racism spawned from 'class', 'social standing' prejudice, and nothing to do with culture? There is a case to say so, to know that when people treat other as equals there is less likely resentments. |
![]() |
|
| Dan1989 | Dec 6 2016, 11:53 PM Post #23 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, considering most western nations push positive discrimination employment, it's really on the person. But the main issue with multiculturalism is that there's no plus sides to it, what I mean is that it exists for the sake of existing, there's no empirical evidence to suggest that anything is improved by it. But there is one issue, too many different groups trying to push themselves which in turn causes conflicts, just look at Japan very homogeneous and very stable nation, many western nations were similar but are not anymore. I do believe actual mainstream racism is a thing of the past, no-one(minus extremely small minorities, I've seen more supremacist from non-western nations) thinks they are superior because of their race, maybe they have a negative view, but not superior, I believe the biggest barriers are culture and religion, both exert themselves quite strongly. People tend to cluster around people with the same language, religion, ideology, culture, nationality and yes ethnicity. Basically, we can not encourage people to be British, if they have no reason to which currently they don't, I don't really blame them, mass immigration was poorly thought out from the beginning. Edited by Dan1989, Dec 7 2016, 12:04 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Rich | Dec 7 2016, 12:25 AM Post #24 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
" mass immigration was poorly thought out from the beginning." Dan, please do not get the above mixed up with enforced multiculturalism. |
![]() |
|
| Oddball | Dec 7 2016, 07:27 AM Post #25 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
From what I have gleaned about Islam, it tends to dictate to its followers, that they should not make friends with non-Muslims, nor seek to intergrate with them {I'm just going by what their Qur'an, Hadiths, Sira, etc., have to say]. It also appears that they have to strive to convert the communities they move to into becoming Muslim and accepting Sharia, or dhimmitude/submission. In effect, that they should not intergrate with us, but that we should intergrate with them. Yes, thankfully, there are a significant number of 'Muslims' in the west that seek to genuinely make friends and intergrate, BUT they are in reality flying in the face of what 'their religion' appears to instruct. Edited by Oddball, Dec 7 2016, 07:32 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Dec 7 2016, 09:12 AM Post #26 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't think you'll find any such isolation called for by the Koran but please feel free to post an authoritative link to support your theory Hadiths, Sira etc are niche documents much like Papal pronouncements. They can't be used to broad brush condemn all Islam like you can't use Roman ramblings to condemn all Christians |
![]() |
|
| Dan1989 | Dec 7 2016, 09:14 AM Post #27 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, if you look at the trends in the world, they seem more demanding the larger the number of them, currently while just a large minority, they seem to moderate themselves, but even now when you get a large cluster of them in a town you start to see the worrying effects of it. We only have to look at Islamic nations to see what could be if they gain a larger percentage of the population. As I said, we should have looked at places like Japan who are very stable, but still have a very practical immigration policy. Edited by Dan1989, Dec 7 2016, 09:15 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Dec 7 2016, 09:13 PM Post #28 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No they don't, that's a figment of your imagination bar a few high profile media cases, what immigrants will do however is grovel for a few years to get a start in life, sadly many employers are only too happy to exploit this, and farmers were getting a bit irritated on R4 this lunchtime (nothing to do with the Archers) by saying we'll need to get Commonwealth people in to get the crops out of the fields otherwise food will rot where it grows, incidentally Commonwealth in this case is dark skinned. Stop moaning, jobs aplenty soon!
|
![]() |
|
| Dan1989 | Dec 7 2016, 09:23 PM Post #29 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"Discrimination law is "blind" in that motive is irrelevant to discrimination and both minorities or majorities could make discrimination claims if they suffer less favourable treatment. Positive discrimination (or "affirmative action" as it is known in the US) to fill up diversity quotas, or for any other purpose, is prohibited throughout Europe, because it violates the principle of equal treatment just as much as negative discrimination. There is, however, a large exception. Suppose an employer is hiring new staff, and they have 2 applications where the applicants are equally qualified for the job. If the workforce does not reflect society's makeup (e.g. that women, or ethnic minorities are under-represented) then the employer may prefer the candidate which would correct that imbalance. But they may only do so where both candidates are of equal merit, and further conditions must be met. This type of measure is also known as positive action. Sections 158 and 159 Equality Act 2010 set out the circumstances in which positive action is allowed. Section 159, which deals with positive action in connection with recruitment and promotion (and which is the basis for the example of equally qualified applicants above), did not come into force until April 2011.[9] The Government Equalities Office has issued a guide to the Section 159 rules.[10] Section 158 deals with the circumstances in which positive action is permitted other than in connection with recruitment and promotion, for example in provision of training opportunities. Section 158 does not have the requirement for candidates to be equally qualified." There is, while you can not design quotas for minorities & gender groups, companies are pressured to represent society in their decision. Just look at the BBC, where prominent staff members have been pushed aside for the sake of diversity, not exactly meritocratic. Having more jobs is better, it will raises wages naturally through supply and demand, if companies what people to work they will have to compete for their labour, instead of people competing for a job when about 10 - 50 other people are. I'd thought you'd like increased bargaining power on the side of the workers. Edited by Dan1989, Dec 7 2016, 09:51 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Dec 7 2016, 09:45 PM Post #30 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I was an employer myself for 17 years and I discriminated within the confines of the law, weekly we'd get emails, letters and even people turning up looking for work, with the first two requests were ignored if the person had an obvious foreign sounding name or insisted in communicating in text speak, with the second instance it was contact us in writing. I would not employ immigrant labour for very sound reasons. Firstly some of the work was potentially dangerous or mistakes could be very expensive so good language skills were a must, plus customers prefer articulate tradesmen over grunting oafs, secondly if you are going to spend a lot of money training someone up you want them to hand around and not sod off back to Poland once there was £10k in the bank, and thirdly if you picked the right British workers you always got a better member of staff, unfortunately a lot of other businesses want minimum wage semi disposable workers and anyone will do, especially someone just off the ferry and who has registered with an agency. If there is discrimination it's based on need, ease of dismissal and an ability to exploit people from certain places, it's not based on race in my experience. Edited by Tigger, Dec 7 2016, 09:46 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| C-too | Dec 12 2016, 08:35 PM Post #31 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Based upon the "unacceptable face of capitalism". (Was it Ted Heath that said that ?) |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| « Previous Topic · General Discussions · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



. And when Uganda decided in the 70s that meant they could dump thousands of Asians on us we had to take them and was the start of these majority muslim communities

8:31 AM Jul 11