Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This was the conclusion of the NS piece:


"But it's surely wrong that the law accords treatment to members of some statutorily-defined minorities and ignores others whose problems may well be experienced in precisely the same way. It's the very definition of privilege. It sends out a message that some forms of irrational prejudice are more acceptable than others, that an unprovoked attack one someone is somehow worse if it's motivated by the colour of their skin, or by their perceived sexuality, than by the colour of their hair or their weight. In truth, there is an infinite number of possible hate crimes. If the concept of has any meaning, it should apply irrespective of the personal characteristic, innate or adopted, cultural or sartorial, that inspires the hate."


So it's wrong that hate crimes are defined in a limited way, and the concept should apply across the board, but there are an infinaite number of possible......


I'm essentially sympathetic to the argument, but no practical good will come of adding gingers, fat people, glasses wearers, Goths oir anybody else to the Equality Act or any other bit of legislation. There are sensible historical reasons for offering specific protection against discrimination on the grounds of race, gender and sexuality, and there are other laws to protect everybody else from assault, harassment etc.


Re the original topic of the thread, I'm afraid my overwhelming reaction was that I can't believe anybody actually watches this kind of cr@p. I also had to google Katie whoever because I have no idea who she is. Tbh, I had no idea who Holly Willoughby was either.


Re kids names, its not exactly news that prejudice based around social class exists, nor that kid's names are widely seen as an indicator of class. It's also unfortunately not news that there is a never-ending supply of stupid people who are willing (nay desperate) to go on TV and try and make some kind of name for themselves by spouting witless rubbish.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Yes they do, but that is not the core tenet of representative democracy. At that level, we are voting for a parliamentary representative, irregardless of whether parties exist or not. It's why candidates can stand as independents. 
    • Sadly I think you will never convince people like this. They think gardens have to be kept chopped back and controlled. My theory is that this comes from being (or trying to be) controlling in every aspect of their lives, so I doubt if anything you could say or show them would have any effect. But are they actually coming into your garden or leaning over into it and pulling up/damaging things? If so, maybe one of our community police people could have a word with them?
    • Dear Nature lovers - advice please. I am being harassed by a neighbour who doesn't like my standard of gardening which she calls 'messy'. (I have rewilded my garden with advice from the London Wildlife Trust and a gardening expert from The Times.) I have twice caught this neighbour and her husband pulling up my plants and damaging my trees. Plus she has photographed my house, and sent a dozen complaints to the Dulwich Estate about my plan to rewild the verge outside my property - approved by the Estate some 4 years ago in line with their stated policy of supporting biodiversity in and around Dulwich. What can I do to introduce these neighbours  to the benefits to us all of returning a portion of our gardens to nature?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...