Do you consider UKIP good or bad?

And now you're being an idiot YET AGAIN, or do you think that every last person in the country has to be in the heartland of one party or the other? Or are you now selectively being pedantic on cities and not on rural? Or do you define rural to be "not a city"?

Sigh... Just because a racist puts on a suit doesnt make them less racist. UKIP understand they cant go around beating up minorities so instead have formed a political party and will use it to get what they want in a legal way which wont result in prison. Its really not hard to workout... Not even worth debating.

You think wanting out of the EU means you are racist?

And you think thats all they want...?

Not all. But it is why they were set up, you implied it was set up for other nefarious reasons. I'd say you got that bit wrong.

Do I really need to post links to all the racist comments farge and his party have made?

You do know he wants to scrap race related laws to do with workplace racisim?

And even blamed immigration for the reason he was late for a meeting saying there was traffic due to immigrstion LOL!

theres a reason UKIP appeals to the thousands of racist people who support them and actively post on their fb page etc.

You do know he wants to scrap race related laws to do with workplace racisim?

And even blamed immigration for the reason he was late for a meeting saying there was traffic due to immigrstion LOL!

theres a reason UKIP appeals to the thousands of racist people who support them and actively post on their fb page etc.[/QUOTE]

So do you think the radical, extreme muslims who preach hatred of the west represent muslims as a whole?

Do you believe the BNP represents Britain as a whole?

There IS a reason UKIP appeals to lots of different people.. a lot of the new breed is mostly due to disenfranchisement with the previous labour governments policy of settling immigrants into marginal constituencies. This has caused a strain on public services in those particular constituencies. People living in nearby constituencies have probably witnessed the result and don't want the same to happen to them.

I don't agree with everything UKIP say or do, in fact my political position is as confused as it is neutral.

That said, I have read the last few pages about race discrimination laws and jobs for British people with great interest. We have a problem in this country that we have been bullied by previous government's whenever people discuss the negative impact of immigration, especially low skilled workers filling up employment places that could have been filled by a national it's seen as racism.

Oh we've already had the utter rubbish spoon-fed to us that "they are taking the jobs no one wants" (a slight dig at the unemployed that can't afford to risk working on a zero hours contract at McDonald's). Create jobs that pay fair that have security and British nationals will gladly work for them.

The people who refuse to acknowledge this problem are most likely the same people that blindly label UKIP as racist without much thought. Take a look at recent Tory and Labour governments and tell me there hasn't been racist MP's with racist policies in either party. You can't.

The fact is this, immigration is a problem in this country. Why? Because we don't have the infrastructure to support the amount coming in compared to the amount going out. We don't build schools, houses or hospitals fast enough to manage our 'commitment' to the EU. That doesn't make someone racist.

In fact, what the media and other parties are continuing to do, is the same thing they have done for years which is to make discussion immigration, foreign aid etc a taboo subject and immediately label someone racist because they have alternative views that aren't actually discriminative.

I lived in HK for 7 years and similar to other countries they have a policy where they can only employ an immigrant if the company can prove the role cannot be fulfilled by a national. Oh wait they are being so racist. No, they are sensible.

It's all very well waxing lyrical that we are in the EU and those are the rules but there is an imbalance and the EU isn't necessarily correct.

I'm really not sure how one should respond to your reply, considering you only read 20% of my post

So men should only get such jobs if women don't want them?

So if a law enabled sexual discrimination, would the party who voted for such a law be, in your view, sexist?

Unless there were scientifically, indisputably backed reasons for enabling the sex discrimination then yes that party would be sexist

Que? Reasons such as?

if an idiot were to say the army (im completely for women serving on the frontline) sexual discrimination could ostensibly be justified through physical strength differences.

Ok I understand that. So if this hypothetical idiot were instead to say the army should have more women (say close to 50%) and there were only 10% women, would you say this person was reasonable to disqualify men from joining the army? Or would that be discrimination?

if you properly advertise frontline jobs for women, and then during the next recruitment women still fail to apply (due to perhaps lack of interest), then you should give the vacancies to anyone

So men should only get such jobs if women don't want them?

there should be a fair application process for both but there needs to be driven recruitment towards women as they have been traditionally excluded from these jobs

By a fair application process for both (men and women) , do you mean that some jobs under certain circumstances should be advertised for women only? Because that's how you make it sound when you say :

if you properly advertise frontline jobs for women, and then during the next recruitment women still fail to apply (due to perhaps lack of interest), then you should give the vacancies to anyone

Seems to me you are advocating quotas.

Nah im not.

What im saying is that to offset the prejudices of women joining the army which are ingrained in society, a recruitment drive should advertise strongly for women as men already have society encouraging them to join. There should be initiatives and incentives for women to join but not quotas.

So why say this:



You are talking about advertising a job for women and only allowing men to apply for the job if women refuse to.

Im not talking about advertising a job for women only. im saying emphasize advertising funds towards women

Your words betray you...



Why would you wait until after seeing whether women apply before giving the vacancies to anyone (which by definition means men)? Giving the vacancies to men after first giving them to women means you have withheld them from men in the first place.

man you are pedantic