Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that howling at people that they are racist is not...

590 replies

fidelineish · 23/04/2014 15:35

..the best way to challenge their thinking or change their views?

It crops up on here frequently and it is only going to become more frequent as UKIP campaigning steps up.

OP posts:
Original poster
fidelineish · 25/04/2014 00:22

Well i'm not on the merry-go-round. I've wandered back in having missed half, looking for respite from the bitch-fest ocurring elsewhere I'm just asking you a question.

OP posts:
TillyTellTale · 25/04/2014 00:22

Actually my favourite site on the internet, wikipedia, suggests that the terms under discussion aren't that current, anyway.

My highlights:

"Negroid (also known by the more precise term Congoid[1]) is a term that is used by some forensic and physical anthropologists to refer to individuals and populations that share certain morphological and skeletal traits that are frequent among most populations in Sub-Saharan Africa.[2][3][4] The term is commonly associated with notions of racial typology which are disputed by a majority of anthropologists.[5] For modern usage it is associated with racial notions, and is discouraged, as it is potentially offensive."

"In physical anthropology the term is one of the three general racial classifications of humans — Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. Under this classification scheme, humans are divisible into broad sub-groups based on phenotypic characteristics such as cranial and skeletal morphology."

"Criticism

The term "Negroid" is still used in certain disciplines such as forensic and physical anthropology.[3] In a medical context, some scholars have recommended that the term Negroid be avoided in scientific writings because of its association with racism and race science.[29] This mirrors the decline in usage of the term Negro, which fell out of favor following the campaigns of the American civil rights movement — the term Negro became associated with periods of legalized discrimination, and was rejected by African Americans during the 1960s for "black".[30]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid#cite_note-6

Original poster
fidelineish · 25/04/2014 00:26

Come on Caruthers come and play soccer in no man's land with me.

OP posts:
caruthers · 25/04/2014 00:32

I'm just asking you a question

You asked me a question?

I must have missed it.

Original poster
fidelineish · 25/04/2014 00:38

yes Car @ 00:19:33 Smile

OP posts:
caruthers · 25/04/2014 00:38

Caruthers If you found yourself PM with a good solid majority and so were free to legislate at will, what would you do about immigration?

just have a solid points based system that was separate from asylum registrations.

I'd make sure poor people had the same scope of entry as the affluent registration applicants.

But I would cap it and try to get a diverse financial and ethnic make up of successful candidates. These caps would have to be looked at in some depth before deciding.

Original poster
fidelineish · 25/04/2014 00:40

What about EU migration?

OP posts:
caruthers · 25/04/2014 00:41

What about EU migration?

I wouldn't differentiate between EU and worldwide immigration.

Original poster
fidelineish · 25/04/2014 00:43

So we would have leave the EU?

OP posts:
Original poster
fidelineish · 25/04/2014 00:44

have to....

OP posts:
caruthers · 25/04/2014 00:44

So we would have leave the EU?

We would have to if that would be my mandate yes.

Original poster
fidelineish · 25/04/2014 00:47

Well without leaving, your points-based system couldn't be applied to EU countries. So you'd need to have been elected on that platform for any of this to work.

What about family/spouse/fiance applications?

OP posts:
caruthers · 25/04/2014 00:51

What about family/spouse/fiance applications?

All this would be considered at point of application and the immediate family of the applicant if successful would of course have access in the same way as the applicant.

I wouldn't put restrictions that prohibit poor applicants but would include them in the quota with positive discrimination to ensure the mix of wealth/background and culture were met.

Once residency is applied then No restrictions on that applicant or their immediate family would apply.

caruthers · 25/04/2014 00:52

So you'd need to have been elected on that platform for any of this to work.

which is the scenario you gave me to work with.

Original poster
fidelineish · 25/04/2014 00:55

which is the scenario you gave me to work with.

Yes just re-confirming that that was a given.

OP posts:
Original poster
fidelineish · 25/04/2014 00:56

So what would your overall quota be? Would it be annual?

OP posts:
caruthers · 25/04/2014 01:01

So what would your overall quota be? Would it be annual?

I really don't have those numbers and it wouldn't be right to just spit out a guess...I should suspect that's why PM's have advisors so they can get those figures.

I doubt it would be anything as rigid as an annual figure it would have to be more flexible than that.

My main priority would be to ensure than poor immigrants from anywhere in the world get a decent shot at becoming British/UK citizens without restrictions and with complete equality and standing that we all enjoy.

Original poster
fidelineish · 25/04/2014 01:09

TBH I doubt I have the energy to find the current and historical figures tonight anyway.

What I'm driving at is (if you ever got to the unlikely point of being able to make these changes) what difference do you think it would make? How fast? Would one term be futile? What form would the backlash take?

(There you go - interview yourself Wink)

OP posts:
caruthers · 25/04/2014 01:17

I'll concentrate on this question because it's late.

what difference do you think it would make?

It would prevent the immigration bias from the EU and be more welcoming to people outside of the EU.

Self determination means you can adjust the numbers as they develop without having to have an open door policy which many politicians agree was/is a mistake.

More social housing would have to be built to house both the incumbent poor and the incoming poor but together with housing there has to be aspirational tools/schemes created within the positive discrimination arena to give those people a chance at a better life.

Original poster
fidelineish · 25/04/2014 01:25

I'm going to have to pick this up tomorrow. I can't get any further without checking figures.

OP posts:
caruthers · 25/04/2014 01:29

Call t half time on the western front Fide Smile

Original poster
fidelineish · 25/04/2014 01:31

Exactly. Goodnight.

OP posts:
caruthers · 25/04/2014 01:33

Goodnight Brew

LtColGrinch · 25/04/2014 07:56

The "if you vote for UKIP you're racist" statements are just pure laziness and ignorance from lazy twats that don't have the cognitive power to come up with anything to actually discuss.

And that's why they're all ignored like all the other aggressive "shouty" gits....

AmberLeaf · 25/04/2014 08:51

I think this thread proves that laziness and ignorance are things the typical UKIP voter is guilty of;

The majority haven't ever bothered to familiarise themselves with the parties manifesto/broader aims, yet feel qualified to blindly defend calls of racist.

The majority don't seem to have the first clue what their beloved party actually represents, even when faced with written evidence, they tend to continue to deny that X or Y is a UKIP policy.

"if you vote for UKIP you're racist"

I prefer, 'if you vote UKIP, you are either racist, xenophobic, not capable of independant thought and gullible/stupid' any one of those, all of them or any combination tends to sum it up.