[Metrobeans]

M109 - Motion on Tube and bus announcements, barnetlad

'This House is bored with hearing Boris's voice about 'getting ahead of the Games' and feels that someone from East London near to the Olympic Park should be chosen. This House believes that Dizzee Rascal for one, or one of the local athletes such as Philips Idowu or Christine Ohuruogu would do a better job and stop us being fed up with hearing Boris's voice'.

[thunder_chunky]

As long as the Queens English is spoken. Know what I mean guv'nor?

[Morgsie]

This is a TfL (Transport for London) matter. Based on this technicality, I am voting no

Friendly and informative

[toronto353]

Aye go on then. I have to give in to these joke motions at some point and this one doesn't seem that bad.

[Birchington]

I'm sure the people of London can bear Boris' voice for a few more weeks

[Mazzini]

I love Boris' voice though

[Life_peer]

Those are just black people there, which is a bit strange. Anyway, I have not heard a single black person using proper English and their accents are terrible. Their physiological predisposition to African languages makes them unsuitable for public announcements in London or anywhere else in the UK. I would probably vote for an Englishman, though.

[meenu89]

(Original post by Mazzini)
I love Boris' voice though

Same here...

[Mazzini]

(Original post by meenu89)
Same here...

I'm not sure whether the hair trumps it, though.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by Life_peer)
Those are just black people there, which is a bit strange. Anyway, I have not heard a single black person using proper English and their accents are terrible. Their physiological predisposition to African languages makes them unsuitable for public announcements in London or anywhere else in the UK. I would probably vote for an Englishman, though.

You don't get out much then. What about David Lammy?

[CLS94]

(Original post by Life_peer)
Those are just black people there, which is a bit strange. Anyway, I have not heard a single black person using proper English and their accents are terrible. Their physiological predisposition to African languages makes them unsuitable for public announcements in London or anywhere else in the UK. I would probably vote for an Englishman, though.

I find that really offensive to be honest with you, many black people use as you call it "proper" English with perfectly clear accents. With those that do speak in a different (not worse) fashion to a stereotypical white English person, it is to do with culture and heritage, not physiology. Saying you don't want someone to do a job because they are black is racism, pure and simple. And by the way, you can be both black and English, with barnetlad's suggestion of Dizzee Rascal being a good example.

[JPKC]

(Original post by Life_peer)
Those are just black people there, which is a bit strange. Anyway, I have not heard a single black person using proper English and their accents are terrible. Their physiological predisposition to African languages makes them unsuitable for public announcements in London or anywhere else in the UK. I would probably vote for an Englishman, though.

That's pseudo-scientific nonsense. And yeah, really racist.

[Life_peer]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
You don't get out much then. What about David Lammy?

Very good, I must admit, though still distinguishable.

(Original post by CLS94)
[…] With those that do speak in a different (not worse) fashion to a stereotypical white English person, it is to do with culture and heritage, not physiology. Saying you don't want someone to do a job because they are black is racism, pure and simple.

You obviously know nil about human physiology. The anthropological difference is in far more than skull, muscles, brain, …

I do not want them to do the job because of how they speak. It would be the same with the Chinese, Filipinos, Pakistanis, Hungarians, etc. I care about preserving the culture.

(Original post by JPKC)
That's pseudo-scientific nonsense. And yeah, really racist.

Sod off.

http://jslhr.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/37/4/738
http://jslhr.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/3/642
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/sea...accno=ED063613

There are many more; sadly not so these days due to the stupid political correctness and positive discrimination. When I get a PhD., I shall send you one more.

[RoryS]

Aye to this - I get the bus to places quite a lot and Boris usually comes on when we're in traffic or waiting at the traffic lights. Everyone looks at each other and smiles or laughs.

I don't think people are taking his message seriously, so I agree to the motion and do hope it passes to be honest!

[CLS94]

(Original post by Life_peer)

You obviously know nil about human physiology. The anthropological difference is in far more than skull, muscles, brain, …

I do not want them to do the job because of how they speak. It would be the same with the Chinese, Filipinos, Pakistanis, Hungarians, etc. I care about preserving the culture.

Well, that's not what you said earlier. "I have not heard a single black person using proper English and their accents are terrible." sounds like a pretty specific complaint about black people to me. You also reckon it's to do with a "physiological predisposition to African languages", which even if it did exist would probably not be found in "Chinese, Filipinos, Pakistanis, Hungarians, etc". And you didn't so much as allude to culture before, your post was entirely about how their language skills made them unsuitable for public service announcements. And anyway, it doesn't matter if you want to discriminate against black people or all non-English people, it's still racism, and is completely unacceptable.

[Lipvig]

(Original post by Mazzini)
I'm not sure whether the hair trumps it, though.

It so does.

[Life_peer]

(Original post by CLS94)
Well, that's not what you said earlier. "I have not heard a single black person using proper English and their accents are terrible." sounds like a pretty specific complaint about black people to me. You also reckon it's to do with a "physiological predisposition to African languages", which even if it did exist would probably not be found in "Chinese, Filipinos, Pakistanis, Hungarians, etc". And you didn't so much as allude to culture before, your post was entirely about how their language skills made them unsuitable for public service announcements. And anyway, it doesn't matter if you want to discriminate against black people or all non-English people, it's still racism, and is completely unacceptable.

Come one, it is not… The term racism is so abused these days that I do not even know what you mean. Let us stick to the OED definition, which I use:

(Original post by Oxford English Dictionary)
The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

According to it, I and every anthropologist are partially racist, because there indeed are well-documented differences between different races of the human species. However, I do not believe that these differences make us superior in that we should lead them, for example, or something like that. Given the usual anti-pseudoracist response and people's obsession with it, I shall refrain from setting out examples of Caucasian excellence and rather point out that the Negroid race is superior in physical endurance and joke about Mongoloids, or more specifically the Asians, who are seemingly good at mathematics.

However it sounds, I was simple stating the truth – that I have not heard them use English properly. It was either the “wazzup maaan” type, incorrectly pronounced or distorted by their accent.

Their physiological predisposition to African languages is also a fact. I am not a linguist so I can not provide a professional explanation without a further study, but they have common differences to our German or Slavic languages and I believe I have read that even phonological attributes are genetically affected.

So yes, I care about cultural preservation – I would wholeheartedly oppose e.g. Slovak announcements on London's public transport, just as there are Polish ones, I believe.

The unacceptability of racism is another wobbly point. We clearly distinguish between people whose appearance we like and advantage them while we disadvantage those ugly ones, yet no one protests against it and—Simon Cowell's crap coming handy—when Susan Boyle came on stage, almost everyone did not hesitate to express their disapproval. On the other hand, when someone does not like black people just because they are black, it is suddenly morally wrong and the poor person is close to be lynched. I mean, the whole anti-racism movement outgrew this society and while it thankfully ended slavery (which I condemn), it had another and maybe even worse effect – strong positive discrimination. Anyone who dislikes anything about black people is immediately the worst immoral scum, regardless of not calling for anything unlawful, just disliking their appearance, language, speech, etc., the very same thing we do for centuries with the ugly, poor, smart, asocial, stupid or otherwise different ones and consider it perfectly normal (maybe not you, but the majority does).

[Morgsie]

The Greater London Authority Act 1999 established TfL which is the Body responsible for many many aspects of London Transport. It is not this House's responsibility.

[JPKC]

(Original post by Life_peer)
Sod off.

http://jslhr.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/37/4/738
http://jslhr.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/3/642
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/sea...accno=ED063613

There are many more; sadly not so these days due to the stupid political correctness and positive discrimination. When I get a PhD., I shall send you one more.

This is a great example of someone taking scientific research and distorting its conclusions to suit their own racist agenda. Let's see if any of those studies you link to support your idea that "physiological differences" make black people unable to use "proper English" without a "terrible accent".

http://jslhr.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/3/642

Nope. It only suggests that there's a difference between the average VOT of white and black Americans - why have you assumed that this is caused by racial distinctions when the study says no such thing? It's also interesting that it includes, in the summary, this line: "These results suggest that the normative data presently available is probably inadequate because it does not accurately reflect the normal distribution of either gender or race within the American population."

http://jslhr.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/37/4/738

Exactly the same. The study shows a difference between two racial groups and your racist mind is wrongly assuming that race is the causal factor. If you're going after a science PhD you're going to have to turn-off your prejudice when evaluating research.

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/sea...accno=ED063613

Shockingly, this again shows no evidence of these so-called "physiological differences".

Conclusion: you're a pseudo-science-touting racist.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Morgsie)
The Greater London Authority Act 1999 established TfL which is the Body responsible for many many aspects of London Transport. It is not this House's responsibility.

Morgsie, it's a joke motion so it doesn't really matter as such. It's the joke that matters.