• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

eric pickles, can someone explain to me something

Danishfurniturelover

Danishfurniturelover

the prettiest spice girl
He is coming in for a lot of flack over todays announcement with regards travellers.

But in reading some of the detail, in how travellers will not get special treatment and how under the last labour government that changed the planning system. To this:

He has revoked Labour's Equality and Diversity in Planning guidance, which he said told councils not to take enforcement action against unauthorised travellers, and suggested planning rules should be applied differently to individuals depending on their background.

So the last labour government decided that one section of society should be treated differently to the rest of society, in this case that the travellers should get preferential treatment.

So my question is does that not prove labour were racist all along? because i always thought the doctrine of the left was that we were all the same.

It is crazy that i had to get planning permission to build the extension over the garage but councils were told to by our national government give special treatment to travellers many of whom i doubt pay tax could park up their four by fours were ever they liked.

So really to reitriate, i have two questions which i was hoping someone on here of a left bent could answer for me as i try to become more tolerant and understanding of other views.

1) Why is pickles coming in for criticism?

2) Did labour show a racist attitude in it guidlines on planning laws?
 
The argument is that travellers are unfairly denied planning permission in many cases where non travellers would be permitted in similar circumstances.

Not saying I agree with that but its thier justification
 
The 'left' does not think everybody is the same. Read some Marx and get an education before you start spouting off about the 'left'. Did Marx think the proletariat and the bourgeoisie were the same ?
 
Paxtonloudmouth said:
The 'left' does not think everybody is the same. Read some Marx and get an education before you start spouting off about the 'left'. Did Marx think the proletariat and the bourgeoisie were the same ?
Click to expand...

Labour are hardly the left these days anyway. They're center left, Tories are center right. Not like they're complete opposites.
 
As I have said before, its a great way to build a voter base letting a minority thonk you are 'for them' hence the benefit culture. A benefit tourist has a great life too with the international health service, a financial inducement in the form of 30k benefits and a free house.
 
Paxtonloudmouth said:
The 'left' does not think everybody is the same. Read some Marx and get an education before you start spouting off about the 'left'. Did Marx think the proletariat and the bourgeoisie were the same ?
Click to expand...

No your alright thanks.

But i have been told by New Labour and the Guardian that we should all be treated equally. I believe a black or Asian person who lives and works in the UK should have the same rights as a white person. I do not believe British citizens should be treated differently because of skin colour or if they came from a different country originally or because of their sexuality.

This is what the PC agenda was about to start with and i agreed with it up to a point. But now we are having clear cases of labour showing their true racist colours here.

Why did i when we had the extension on the garage have to go twice through planning to prove that a sky light did not over look my neighbour(the thing was pointing up at the sky for gods sake) But they decided that a section of society should be treated differently and not have to live by the same rules?

Im sure i have seen Millband going into the cantens in ASDA and telling staff infront of the film crews that we are all "One Britain" and labour wants "One Britain" i could get the links up for you but im knackered i have been at the beach all day.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Simplistic, irrational anti-left rants are all they are good for.
Click to expand...

Ok Mr Gilzeantoscore sorry if it was to simplistic for you, but i guess im a pretty simple guy.

I understand your quite intelligent so can you explain it to me in good old fashioned english how it is ok for labour to campaign against racism and victermisation but then to have a set of planning rules that is different for different sections of society?

I always maybe naively thought we were all part of the same country and should have to live by the same rules. In your answer could you please just answer the above question and not in your reply use the excuse of bankers or anything else.

how it is ok for labour to campaign against racism and victimization but then to have a set of planning rules that is different for different sections of society?

how it is ok for labour to campaign against racism and victimization but then to have a set of planning rules that is different for different sections of society?
 
Last edited:
Paxtonloudmouth said:
The 'left' does not think everybody is the same. Read some Marx and get an education before you start spouting off about the 'left'. Did Marx think the proletariat and the bourgeoisie were the same ?
Click to expand...

Wondering if you could answer the questions for me in my original post. Im sure you have a great education so will be able to do so with no problems.

1) Why is pickles coming in for criticism?

2) Did labour show a racist attitude in its guidlines on planning laws?
 
japenesegardenlover said:
Wondering if you could answer the questions for me in my original post. Im sure you have a great education so will be able to do so with no problems.

1) Why is pickles coming in for criticism?

2) Did labour show a racist attitude in its guidlines on planning laws?
Click to expand...

I, for one do not hold the view that positive discrimination is racism per se. In fact the decision taken by Labour was to be sympathetic to a tiny minorities cultural differences. By the way Chich, just because I argue that the right wingers on here make simplistic rants, in no way suggests that they are stupid. Quite the contrary in fact. It is a proven winner in propaganda efforts.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
I, for one do not hold the view that positive discrimination is racism per se. In fact the decision taken by Labour was to be sympathetic to a tiny minorities cultural differences. By the way Chich, just because I argue that the right wingers on here make simplistic rants, in no way suggests that they are stupid. Quite the contrary in fact. It is a proven winner in propaganda efforts.
Click to expand...

Ok so i understand your point of view that positive discrimination is not racism per se, i would agree with that in some instances. The MET saying they want more black police officers and the tories wanting black only selection lists are two examples where i can see it being ok. If it makes for better community relations and black or asian people are under represented in the police and house of commons.

But in this instance where labour give prefential treatment to the travelling community do you think that was the right thing to do?

For me it has nothing to do with helping out a minority because travellers are not what they say they are. They rarely travel but set up camps ruinning the local countryside and do not pay the local council for services, working cash in hand and not paying taxes, and im not sure what sort of an education their children get.

Also most of the travelling community in this country from different reports i have read from a number of sources they come from Ireland and are not even British residents. Makes me wonder why labour felt the need to "protect them" when all that happened is they ended up by default persecuting the indigenous population.

If labour had done positive discrimnation for second generations asains who were finding it hard to get into university or something like that i could have got on board with it. But as it is i think labour behaved badly..again.
 
Also with regards to Labour and their true racist colours now coming through quite strongly. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/11/labour-ciriticse-tesco-next-cheap-labour

Trying to make political capital out of British workers being under cut by eastern europeans is just jaw dropping and not something the public is ever going to fall for.

I quote the shadow immigration minister::

"It is unfair that unscrupulous employers whose only interest seems to be finding labour as cheaply as possible will recruit workers in large numbers in low-wage countries in the EU, bring them to the UK, charge the costs of their travel and their substandard accommodation against their wages and still not even meet the national minimum wage. "That is unfair. It exploits migrant workers and it makes it impossible for settled workers with mortgages and a family to support at British prices to compete."

Bryant will make it clear that neither firm has broken the law.

"Take the case of Tesco, who recently decided to move their distribution centre in Kent," he will say. "The new centre is larger and employs more people, but the staff at original site, most of them British, were told that they could only move to the new centre if they took a cut in pay. The result? A large percentage of the staff at the new centre are from [the] eastern bloc."
 
Exploitation of cheap labour has aways been a good stand by of the capitalist class. What's the shock? They're labour, they are meant to represent the interests of workers by up-holding their pay and conditions. I'd be disappointed if they did not do this!
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Exploitation of cheap labour has aways been a good stand by of the capitalist class. What's the shock? They're labour, they are meant to represent the interests of workers by up-holding their pay and conditions. I'd be disappointed if they did not do this!
Click to expand...

Why is employing someone exploitation? Giving someone a job's a good thing isn't it?
 
Let me ask this, would you be happy if it was decided that at least half of the men in the 100m final have to be white due to positive discrimination? I personally hate that idea.
 
THFC said:
Let me ask this, would you be happy if it was decided that at least half of the men in the 100m final have to be white due to positive discrimination? I personally hate that idea.
Click to expand...

This is a very good point!

Although I personally think its a great idea. Might give our sprinters a chance to get in the medals, whatever the colour of their skin!

Unfortunately the political arena has its own set of rules compared to the sports arena, or any other for that matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back