Happ Hazzard Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 If it's a requirement of a job and you want to stay in a job then yes they should do it. If the thing they are signing is sensible and neutral then it's not a problem. The thing I sign at work isn't lefty-ness gone mad. It's a basic set of policies that describe expected behaviour of employees at a major British company. Nobody has yet pointed out exactly what is wrong with the Lincolnshire pledge. People shouldn't have to point out what is wrong with it! Let the voters decide what they want UKIP to do! What is the point of having politicians if they are all forced to agree with the same things? ---------- Post added 19-05-2013 at 16:46 ---------- I can't imagine many companies which have decided to implement a no-racism / no-discrimination policy would want to continue their employment of someone who basically comes out saying "I want to retain my right to be a racist and to discriminate against anyone I feel like". In which case, you're not forced to sign it, but they're not forced to continue their employment of you. You can't sack people for their beliefs, only for their actions. Nobody has the right to dictate what people are and aren't allowed to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 You can't sack people for their beliefs, only for their actions. Nobody has the right to dictate what people are and aren't allowed to believe. oh how we laughed when the BNP list came out and remember our posty friend off here a few years back? the BNP councilor wannabe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 People shouldn't have to point out what is wrong with it! Let the voters decide what they want UKIP to do! What is the point of having politicians if they are all forced to agree with the same things? OK, so they don't agree that Lincolnshire should have diverse communities, can't agree to a basic commitment on not being racist, and can't agree to allow people equal access to services and employment. What is the UKIP alternative? Where are the policies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 What does "diverse communities" even mean? Why is having them better than having "non-diverse communities"? What would UKIP stand to gain by signing this thing? What do they stand to lose by not signing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 What does "diverse communities" even mean? Why is having them better than having "non-diverse communities"? What would UKIP stand to gain by signing this thing? What do they stand to lose by not signing it? We already have diverse communities. The pledge is about respecting that fact and ensuring every person in those diverse communities is respected as opposed to the abuse and inequality endured by ethnic minorities prior to Britain waking up and realising that such treatment was wrong (probably sometime in the eighties and part of the political correctness movement that is so derided). The pledge is not about creating diversity, diversity is already here and the pledge is about dealing with that fact in a civilised manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 What does "diverse communities" even mean? Why is having them better than having "non-diverse communities"? What would UKIP stand to gain by signing this thing? What do they stand to lose by not signing it? Lincolnshire already has diverse communities. The pledge is a recognition of that, a commitment not to discriminate based on that and a commitment to provide equal and fair treatment to all. They've got nothing to lose by signing it. By not signing it they look like they're not fit to have a say in how services are delivered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 If people in towns like Boston and Louth had been given the chance 10-12 years ago to vote for whether they wanted the population of their towns to increase by as much as 60% due to mass immigration, with all that goes with it, pressure on housing, public services and jobs, do you think they would have voted for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 says it all when you class anti racism as left wing slanted, surely being against racism in this day and age is what all civilised, sensible, fair thinking people should do? the anti racism banner is used where ever the left want to have a go at anyone who disagrees with anything other than their views, so in that context it does have a left slant. of course i think racism is wrong i just dont think anyone or any group should be made to shout it from the rooftops in a public pledge! cant see the point. UKIP are against racism like any other party but that doesnt mean they cant have policies that regulate immigration diversity and multiculturism in a mainly anglo saxon christian country, we should be able to preserve our identity and borders without being called racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 ....that doesnt mean they cant have policies that regulate immigration diversity and multiculturism in a mainly anglo saxon christian country, we should be able to preserve our identity and borders without being called racist. An Austrian bloke in the 30s could have written that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Hitler liked dogs as well, so all people who like dogs must be Nazis, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.