carosio Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Have you read the telegraph report? Here's an excerpt... "Roger Owen, the administrator for Making Links, said: "We have had an issue with men turning up before and back then we told them the group is strictly for mothers so it's nothing to do with racial discrimination. "It is a group for ladies from other countries. It is not for British people...." Seems to contradict you on both issues...ie you must be a woman and not British.. The issue about single fathers was in answer to Newboy's question alluding to gender discrimination. The reasons as to why "Making Links" have excluded single fathers (ones that might hold the same immigrant status as the mothers) I have no idea. You are wrong on my gender and country of origin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Personally, I do not want to see any public funds spent on anything that favours any one particular minority group. We have a very open society, with opportunities there for all who will take them, we are an equal society and have stringent anti-discrimination laws and pro equal opportunities laws. Everybody gets a fair crack of the whip, so these groups are not needed and certainly should not get public funds. I see your point - there are plenty of British people posting here who would benefit from the translation services offered to teh ethnics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 There are certain minority groups that should be favoured. The disabled, per se. The disabled have a right to swim without the world watching them. Within a context there is room for some segregation. I could take my point further with abused wives or rape victims. They should have groups open to any man who wants to come along? Sorry I should have been more specific. By minority groups I mean by race, religion, nationality. I'm sure you would agree an illness or disability could effect anybody regardless of race or religion or nationality. If you start to introduce any of these into the mix you also start to introduce inequalities. A white disabled person might go to a disabled persons support group with their black disabled friend. They both get some help they need. If the black disabled person then has access to a special support group that only provides support to black disabled persons, which the white disabled person cannot access, then there is an inequality there and the white person is disadvantaged, which is why government should only be in the business of funding things that will provide a service to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 White British Boys are now the poorest performers in schools. Will the champions of these support organisations be as zealous to support white British boys? There is a report about it here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/white-workingclass-boys-are-the-worst-performers-in-school-454171.html It largely seems to be a failure of the parents. That said there is a role for Govt to address the issue. Subsidised employment schemes, to get the parents in to work and out of the low pay\benefits culture - like the successful future job schemes the Govt is cutting? Increasing the availability of childcare - funding for which the Govt is cutting? As for your question.... not sure who these supporters are that you are referring to but you will find the TUC opposing all these cuts, at any rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 If the black disabled person then has access to a special support group that only provides support to black disabled persons, which the white disabled person cannot access *throws a firework* There is a Black Disabled Peoples Association in Camden. "A support group for black disabled people and groups in Brent, Camden and Westminster." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Sorry I should have been more specific. By minority groups I mean by race, religion, nationality. I'm sure you would agree an illness or disability could effect anybody regardless of race or religion or nationality. If you start to introduce any of these into the mix you also start to introduce inequalities. A white disabled person might go to a disabled persons support group with their black disabled friend. They both get some help they need. If the black disabled person then has access to a special support group that only provides support to black disabled persons, which the white disabled person cannot access, then there is an inequality there and the white person is disadvantaged, which is why government should only be in the business of funding things that will provide a service to all. But it is likely to cost more to provide language support for generic services than it does to allow community groups to provide the service that is needed directly. Why spend more than you need to? As the IRR points out it is the outcomes that are important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 But it is likely to cost more to provide language support for generic services than it does to allow community groups to provide the service that is needed directly. Why spend more than you need to? They should only need to support one language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 They should only need to support one language. Quite obviously they do, not least under international law for dealing with refugees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy2011 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 It seems wrong that you can be barred from somewhere because of your nationality..don't you agree? yes it is wrong, i do agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Personally, I do not want to see any public funds spent on anything that favours any one particular minority group. We have a very open society, with opportunities there for all who will take them, we are an equal society and have stringent anti-discrimination laws and pro equal opportunities laws. Everybody gets a fair crack of the whip, so these groups are not needed and certainly should not get public funds. 360 deg out. You're assuming perfection. Any free and tolerant society should recognise that not everyone can operate on one level and certain sections of society may need specific support...even if that support is seen as a negative by the intolerant. There are many individual groups in our society which operate on specifics..and that's where it gets easy if your brain is fully functional. It doesn't take a genius to understand that barging in on any group or event and get all outraged because your 'BRITISH' isn't going to get you labelled pretty quickly as a frothy. What contribution could they have made without drawing on the groups limited resources? Maybe if these women took a crash language course in Somali and it's dialects then maybe they could be regarded as volunteers and contributed to their specific needs. As for your taxpayers penny, support groups and charities are probably more cost effective. If we have such "stringent anti-discrimination laws" why is this group and many like them operating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.