Eater Sundae Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 So let's put it country simple. In your ideal world the Paedophile Information Exchange would be free to operate without interference? Yes or no? Organisations such as PIE are already free to to operate without interference in their call for a change in the law to reduce (or even remove) age of sexual consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Cats Hat Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 Organisations such as PIE are already free to to operate without interference in their call for a change in the law to reduce (or even remove) age of sexual consent. Of course it is, but 26b-6 seems very reluctant to say that they should be. This suggests that he doesn't really believe his own statement that in his ideal world, no one should be forced to act contrary to their belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branyy Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 Well, I was just thinking in terms of anyone, fortunate or not, who would prefer personal care to be provided by someone of the same gender. Many women's refuges, for obvious resons, may wish only to employ women at their crisis centres. Similarly services that offer support to men who have experienced rape, may want to employ men on the basis that men may need to divulge what happened to those of same gender I actually agree on this with you, it makes sense - you assess individual needs, you assess even risks and create a filter for best candidate. All backed up by logical reasons. But to set a filter only to get more balanced numbers and artificially suppress under-representation? That's just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 I actually agree on this with you, it makes sense - you assess individual needs, you assess even risks and create a filter for best candidate. All backed up by logical reasons. But to set a filter only to get more balanced numbers and artificially suppress under-representation? That's just wrong. That aint what's happening https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/discrimination-at-work/what-doesn-t-count-as-discrimination-at-work/discrimination-at-work-positive-action/ See, best person for the job still gets it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 Well, I was just thinking in terms of anyone, fortunate or not, who would prefer personal care to be provided by someone of the same gender. Many women's refuges, for obvious resons, may wish only to employ women at their crisis centres. Similarly services that offer support to men who have experienced rape, may want to employ men on the basis that men may need to divulge what happened to those of same gender Yep, no problem there Mister M, but I actually had something different in mind... For example, there are not enough purple people working in industry X, so let's hire more purple people (when better trained non-purple people are available) or give them free training opportunities to get them involved, so it doesn't look like we're discriminating against purple people. Some call it positive discrimination, but it is however, discrimination against non-purple people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviathan13 Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 Word semantics again, look at the usage of words, not simply their meaning/definition. Wow, this is from someone who posted that they didn't care if there was refusal of service based on protected characteristics or not. Be careful what you wish for - if you're happy for words and meanings to be taken out of definition to serve a purpose, let's hope you don't suffer the consequence. Where law is concerned, i want my definitions very well... well, defined. If i use the definitions of words to argue, don't be surprised when that comes back to bite you in a court of law or the fascist state in which you so desire to live. If someone is refused service for some reason, i want to know what that reason is so i can choose whether i want to shop there or not. Would you be happy with a Muslim baker being forced to create a cake for the BNP? Because that's what you're advocating. Discrimination runs both ways... good and bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 Be careful what you wish for - if you're happy for words and meanings to be taken out of definition to serve a purpose, let's hope you don't suffer the consequence. Where law is concerned, i want my definitions very well... well, defined. If i use the definitions of words to argue, don't be surprised when that comes back to bite you in a court of law or the fascist state in which you so desire to live. If someone is refused service for some reason, i want to know what that reason is so i can choose whether i want to shop there or not. Would you be happy with a Muslim baker being forced to create a cake for the BNP? Because that's what you're advocating. Discrimination runs both ways... good and bad! Seriously, are you okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 Be careful what you wish for - if you're happy for words and meanings to be taken out of definition to serve a purpose, let's hope you don't suffer the consequence. Where law is concerned, i want my definitions very well... well, defined. If i use the definitions of words to argue, don't be surprised when that comes back to bite you in a court of law or the fascist state in which you so desire to live. If someone is refused service for some reason, i want to know what that reason is so i can choose whether i want to shop there or not. Would you be happy with a Muslim baker being forced to create a cake for the BNP? Because that's what you're advocating. Discrimination runs both ways... good and bad! Nah I think you’re getting a bit mixed up here. The ruling was right because it wasn’t prejudice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil752 Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 May have been said before. Just get a life why are we all intent on getting people to do thing they don't want to do. Did they insult the guys wanting a slogan on the cake, did they deny them a cake no, just didn't want to put a provocative slogan on it. In the world at present does it matter. Now I know I'm going to get caned here, but why do minorities seem to get the majorly of headlines. Is this just a case in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 Why did we ever force businesses to remove those "No blacks, no Irish" signs? Why force them to do things they didn't want them to do? ---------- Post added 20-10-2018 at 06:35 ---------- Would you be happy with a Muslim baker being forced to create a cake for the BNP? Because that's what you're advocating. Discrimination runs both ways... good and bad! I'm not sure why political opinion should be considered a protected characteristic, unlike things like sexual preference, skin colour and so on, politics is something that can change. ---------- Post added 20-10-2018 at 06:36 ---------- Yep, no problem there Mister M, but I actually had something different in mind... For example, there are not enough purple people working in industry X, so let's hire more purple people (when better trained non-purple people are available) or give them free training opportunities to get them involved, so it doesn't look like we're discriminating against purple people. Some call it positive discrimination, but it is however, discrimination against non-purple people. To be clear, there aren't enough purple people because they are somehow systematically disadvantaged. They don't benefit from the same opportunities that non-purple people do. And so additional training is merely an attempt to level the field. ---------- Post added 20-10-2018 at 06:38 ---------- I actually agree on this with you, it makes sense - you assess individual needs, you assess even risks and create a filter for best candidate. All backed up by logical reasons. But to set a filter only to get more balanced numbers and artificially suppress under-representation? That's just wrong. Which is all fine, until you find that you have a police force with very few ethnic minorities, which actually causes an operational problem, because you still have to police those ethnic minorities. And then when you look closely you realise that the fair and even filter was institutionally biased in the past by prejudice and perception. And that even now lower numbers of ethnic minorities apply at all, due to that ongoing perception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts