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

    • Especially when their careers in their current party come to a grinding halt!
    • Well I don't know, and nor do you. Sitting MPs change their parties.
    • The Greens are knocking on the door of Labour in a few wards, so yes, there is some voter swing in play from some local canvassing. Elected officials jumping ship is nothing new. Political careerism is also nothing new. On a local level, all candidates for election start as committed party political activists. That's how they get selected to stand. But politics is also a long game. Far better to stay and be part of any swing when it inevitably comes (as it always does), than to close the door altogether imo. I think James failing to become leader probably was the key factor in his decision, but leaving for another party effectively means there is no way back. Maybe he is going to work himself into the future leadership of the Greens instead. Time will tell.  Edited to add that while I can understand why former Labour supporters feel disillusioned with the current government (both local and national), it's important to remember how bad things were under the last one and the coalition before it. It's going to take time for any government to rebuild the economy and pay down the national debt.
    • Err, are you saying that the Greens are not a political rival to Labour? Funny how those convictions only come to light when many politicians don't get what they want....do you honestly think that Cllr McAsh would have defected had he been allowed to lead Southwark council? Absolutely 1000% not.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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