|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 14, 2023 9:14:14 GMT
I have to say I wondered if your response was some sort of reaction to conflict between your business and a local authority. Dan has rather moved this thread on with bringing up the great Wolverhampton Turban wars issue and its shocking airbrushing by the wokerati from its rightful place leading our history syllabus in our schools but in answer to your points 1) Sorry no. Planning rules do have a role in protecting our towns and cities character from private companies private interests. Whether they have applied that correctly in your companies case, I can't obviously say. 2) The taxi licensing rules in Shropshire were entirely uncontroversial until one bloke wanted to be different and the tabloid media chose it as that days outrage story. Nobody is suggesting the Union Jack is offensive or the french flag or polish flag come to that. They just want uniformity. Don't get con ned by the tabloids exploitation of non-storys to control their silo. 1, To a certain extent yes, but I was talking about the amount of say they want rather than a right to say. Perhaps other examples might do better, like the council that will only give planning permission for the sort of business that they think the town needs. Or the one that will only give planning permission if the property is in the town centre, because their town centre is dying because of all the traffic restrictions etc they put in place. These two examples lead my company to abandon said towns completely. 2, But in these times when a sizeable chunk of the population are open to the suggestion that they are being disenfranchised, do you think banning the British flag was a sensible thing to do? If said council had banned Turbans because them's the rules, would you have taken the same stance you are with this? That rules are rules and it shouldn't be a problem? Without knowing the specifics of what your business is, it is hard for an outsider to comment on planning issues you may have encountered. I think it is true that there can be occasions when the interests of an individual business and the interests of a town as a whole are not aligned and in principle I think it is right that the community through its elected representatives sometimes puts its collective interest ahead of the business. Obviously that is a matter of judgement and I have no doubt that the Council will sometimes get it wrong - they are only human - and also have no doubt that some councils will have councillors and officers of higher quality than others - sadly inevitable. I am afraid those wanting to provide outrage for its outrage dependent audience will always find an outlet for their outrage. This story was just one such 24 hour news outrage fest. The cabbie had his 24 hours of fame, the outrage fetishists got their outrage fix the world moved on to another story. The taxi licensing regulations in Shropshire were just a tool and part of the game. Should they be changed to allow union jacks but not english flags or union jacks and english flags but not scottish flags or any UK nation flag but not say a polish flag or any flag you want - well frankly who cares? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 14, 2023 9:53:32 GMT
I would have to add. Population size has to be part of the picture because had we not introduced any migrants to our country then our population would have shrunk considerably by now and that in itself has effects on the cohesion and well being of the population. Actually not. The white British population has been in a gentle but steady decline since the late 1980s when it reached its historical peak following the post-war baby boom. It is now around the same as it was in the 1950s, that is a little over 50 million for the UK.
In the absence of immigration and the natural growth that results from differential birth-rates for various ethnic minorities, the (white British) population would continue its recent trajectory of decline of around 1% each decade.
If that was considered to represent a problem then measures could be taken to halt or reverse the trend, as indeed was the case after both world wars.
I suppose it depends on what we measure. In real terms a decrease of about 3% (Circa 1.5m) In comparison to the growth we have actually seen considerably more. I think you know my views on over all population growth in the UK. I think we're full. But in this conversation we are looking at whether the lack of population growth and change in dynamic would have had a detrimental or positive effect. By example. If the Uk population had remained at 50m but the enthic percentage had increased to 40% would we see positive or negative effects? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 14, 2023 9:59:51 GMT
1, To a certain extent yes, but I was talking about the amount of say they want rather than a right to say. Perhaps other examples might do better, like the council that will only give planning permission for the sort of business that they think the town needs. Or the one that will only give planning permission if the property is in the town centre, because their town centre is dying because of all the traffic restrictions etc they put in place. These two examples lead my company to abandon said towns completely. 2, But in these times when a sizeable chunk of the population are open to the suggestion that they are being disenfranchised, do you think banning the British flag was a sensible thing to do? If said council had banned Turbans because them's the rules, would you have taken the same stance you are with this? That rules are rules and it shouldn't be a problem? Without knowing the specifics of what your business is, it is hard for an outsider to comment on planning issues you may have encountered. I think it is true that there can be occasions when the interests of an individual business and the interests of a town as a whole are not aligned and in principle I think it is right that the community through its elected representatives sometimes puts its collective interest ahead of the business. Obviously that is a matter of judgement and I have no doubt that the Council will sometimes get it wrong - they are only human - and also have no doubt that some councils will have councillors and officers of higher quality than others - sadly inevitable. I am afraid those wanting to provide outrage for its outrage dependent audience will always find an outlet for their outrage. This story was just one such 24 hour news outrage fest. The cabbie had his 24 hours of fame, the outrage fetishists got their outrage fix the world moved on to another story. The taxi licensing regulations in Shropshire were just a tool and part of the game. Should they be changed to allow union jacks but not english flags or union jacks and english flags but not scottish flags or any UK nation flag but not say a polish flag or any flag you want - well frankly who cares? You assume the council represents the electorate in this stuff. But (For example) the council that tries to prevent retail leaving the town centre does not represent the populace who want out of town shopping. In our case the town lost the service we supply altogether because their vision of all shops in the town centre with no exceptions would make our business unviable in that town because of the service we supply. You forgot to answer this point. If said council had banned Turbans because them's the rules, would you have taken the same stance you are with this? That rules are rules and it shouldn't be a problem? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 14, 2023 10:17:38 GMT
Dappy did say earlier that "The local authorities rules have been written such that all its cabs as much as possible look the same. Some guy wants to be an exception. There is no need for him to be so..."
To avoid a charge of hypocrisy dappy would have to also say the same for uniform rules, and that there was no need for the Sikh to claim an exemption.
Interestingly enough, almost half of Wolverhampton's 800-odd bus drivers at the time were Indian, most of Sikh. Previously they had all complied with the corporation's uniform rules which included neat haircuts and clean-shaven and were apparently content to do so in order to get the job.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2023 10:20:36 GMT
I would have to add. Population size has to be part of the picture because had we not introduced any migrants to our country then our population would have shrunk considerably by now and that in itself has effects on the cohesion and well being of the population. So, it has nothing to do with diversity, and that DanDare is correct in suggesting that it has more to do with race replacement. Considering England is one of the most densely populated nations on Earth, where the public institutions are struggling, I see absolutely no case for your claim. I can only conclude that this has nothing to do with your false demonstrated need to fatten us up or diversity. As for your so-called business it is completely irrelevant.
You may now throw a tantrum.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 14, 2023 10:58:57 GMT
Without knowing the specifics of what your business is, it is hard for an outsider to comment on planning issues you may have encountered. I think it is true that there can be occasions when the interests of an individual business and the interests of a town as a whole are not aligned and in principle I think it is right that the community through its elected representatives sometimes puts its collective interest ahead of the business. Obviously that is a matter of judgement and I have no doubt that the Council will sometimes get it wrong - they are only human - and also have no doubt that some councils will have councillors and officers of higher quality than others - sadly inevitable. I am afraid those wanting to provide outrage for its outrage dependent audience will always find an outlet for their outrage. This story was just one such 24 hour news outrage fest. The cabbie had his 24 hours of fame, the outrage fetishists got their outrage fix the world moved on to another story. The taxi licensing regulations in Shropshire were just a tool and part of the game. Should they be changed to allow union jacks but not english flags or union jacks and english flags but not scottish flags or any UK nation flag but not say a polish flag or any flag you want - well frankly who cares? You assume the council represents the electorate in this stuff. But (For example) the council that tries to prevent retail leaving the town centre does not represent the populace who want out of town shopping. In our case the town lost the service we supply altogether because their vision of all shops in the town centre with no exceptions would make our business unviable in that town because of the service we supply. You forgot to answer this point. If said council had banned Turbans because them's the rules, would you have taken the same stance you are with this? That rules are rules and it shouldn't be a problem? The councillors are elected by the electorate to manage the affairs of the council. For all its imperfections, its the best way we have come up with to determine and reflect the electorates wishes. Again hard for me to form an opinion on the specific case in question without knowing the nature of the business in question, the town in question and why they are keen to discourage out of town developments. I repeat though, I do think that there are occasions that the best interests of the town and the best interests of a company will not necessarily be aligned and I do think a planning system is necessary to protect the town's inhabitants from undesirable development. Whether they got it right in your case obviously I am not in a position to know. In respect of the Great Wolverhampton Turban Scandal, honestly I am not particularly qualified to discuss this as I don't know the detail. As I understand it, but I am not expert, but I believe that some (or all) people from Sikh faith are required by their religion to wear head coverings eg a turban, and hence a rule banning them would preclude them from working in that field so as a ban would have a direct effect on a human being's ability to do that job with no obvious offsetting health and safety or other benefit to society from banning them, I would advocate changing the rule. Until the rule was changed I would advocate it being enforced. In the Great Shrewsbury Taxi Regulations Scandal, I can see the logic of keeping all cabs the same and hence banning all flags and advertising and can't see the offsetting material negative impact on anyone of the ban being in place. No one is prevented from working as normal by this ban. Fqually I can't say I have a particular objection to the law being changed. I do think it would be hard to define exactly what was and was not allowed though - are you allowing just the union jack, or union jack and english flag or union jack english flag and scottish saltire or union jack, english flag, scottish saltire and say the polish flag, or union jack, english flag, scottish saltire, polish flag and the confederate flag or union jack, english flag, scottish saltire, polish flag confederate flag and the flag of the ku klux klan. Seems hard to me to determine and justify exactly where you would draw the line. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 14, 2023 17:45:25 GMT
Dappy did say earlier that "The local authorities rules have been written such that all its cabs as much as possible look the same. Some guy wants to be an exception. There is no need for him to be so..." To avoid a charge of hypocrisy dappy would have to also say the same for uniform rules, and that there was no need for the Sikh to claim an exemption. Interestingly enough, almost half of Wolverhampton's 800-odd bus drivers at the time were Indian, most of Sikh. Previously they had all complied with the corporation's uniform rules which included neat haircuts and clean-shaven and were apparently content to do so in order to get the job. I suspect they weren't content, which is why we accommodated a change. The very same thing we would like for a proud British cabby. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 14, 2023 17:51:28 GMT
You assume the council represents the electorate in this stuff. But (For example) the council that tries to prevent retail leaving the town centre does not represent the populace who want out of town shopping. In our case the town lost the service we supply altogether because their vision of all shops in the town centre with no exceptions would make our business unviable in that town because of the service we supply. You forgot to answer this point. If said council had banned Turbans because them's the rules, would you have taken the same stance you are with this? That rules are rules and it shouldn't be a problem? The councillors are elected by the electorate to manage the affairs of the council. For all its imperfections, its the best way we have come up with to determine and reflect the electorates wishes. Again hard for me to form an opinion on the specific case in question without knowing the nature of the business in question, the town in question and why they are keen to discourage out of town developments. I repeat though, I do think that there are occasions that the best interests of the town and the best interests of a company will not necessarily be aligned and I do think a planning system is necessary to protect the town's inhabitants from undesirable development. Whether they got it right in your case obviously I am not in a position to know. In respect of the Great Wolverhampton Turban Scandal, honestly I am not particularly qualified to discuss this as I don't know the detail. As I understand it, but I am not expert, but I believe that some (or all) people from Sikh faith are required by their religion to wear head coverings eg a turban, and hence a rule banning them would preclude them from working in that field so as a ban would have a direct effect on a human being's ability to do that job with no obvious offsetting health and safety or other benefit to society from banning them, I would advocate changing the rule. Until the rule was changed I would advocate it being enforced. In the Great Shrewsbury Taxi Regulations Scandal, I can see the logic of keeping all cabs the same and hence banning all flags and advertising and can't see the offsetting material negative impact on anyone of the ban being in place. No one is prevented from working as normal by this ban. Fqually I can't say I have a particular objection to the law being changed. I do think it would be hard to define exactly what was and was not allowed though - are you allowing just the union jack, or union jack and english flag or union jack english flag and scottish saltire or union jack, english flag, scottish saltire and say the polish flag, or union jack, english flag, scottish saltire, polish flag and the confederate flag or union jack, english flag, scottish saltire, polish flag confederate flag and the flag of the ku klux klan. Seems hard to me to determine and justify exactly where you would draw the line. Yet you found it OK for the council to change the rules to make Sikh's more comfortable. Once again you avoid addressing this. The elephant in the room is getting bigger and bigger. As for your opinion of councils, I think you stand very much alone on thinking they act on the publics behalf. My experiences aside. When did the council ask its voters if they wanted the union jack removed from a cabbies car? Did they presume that's what the public wanted? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 14, 2023 19:45:38 GMT
I would have to add. Population size has to be part of the picture because had we not introduced any migrants to our country then our population would have shrunk considerably by now and that in itself has effects on the cohesion and well being of the population. Not quite right I am afraid, part of the problem in the decline of the 'British' population is the inability to call on close family ties in discrete areas for working mothers to call on grandmothers and other kin to take care of children whilst going to work. Once migrants in numbers were accepted and with extended families then the needs of the migrants became superior to the needs of a smaller family unit for social housing in a specific area in many areas of the UK. This resulted in the 'white flight' scenario whereby areas lost their close family ties as options for housing were usually some distance from family ties and working mothers had to restrict the number of children able to be supported. The need for the workforce to be mobile also entailed child bearing restrictions as absent fathers during the week could not be available for child minding duties. Immigration was a contributing factor to the declining birthrate of the British. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 14, 2023 20:10:06 GMT
The councillors are elected by the electorate to manage the affairs of the council. For all its imperfections, its the best way we have come up with to determine and reflect the electorates wishes. Again hard for me to form an opinion on the specific case in question without knowing the nature of the business in question, the town in question and why they are keen to discourage out of town developments. I repeat though, I do think that there are occasions that the best interests of the town and the best interests of a company will not necessarily be aligned and I do think a planning system is necessary to protect the town's inhabitants from undesirable development. Whether they got it right in your case obviously I am not in a position to know. In respect of the Great Wolverhampton Turban Scandal, honestly I am not particularly qualified to discuss this as I don't know the detail. As I understand it, but I am not expert, but I believe that some (or all) people from Sikh faith are required by their religion to wear head coverings eg a turban, and hence a rule banning them would preclude them from working in that field so as a ban would have a direct effect on a human being's ability to do that job with no obvious offsetting health and safety or other benefit to society from banning them, I would advocate changing the rule. Until the rule was changed I would advocate it being enforced. In the Great Shrewsbury Taxi Regulations Scandal, I can see the logic of keeping all cabs the same and hence banning all flags and advertising and can't see the offsetting material negative impact on anyone of the ban being in place. No one is prevented from working as normal by this ban. Fqually I can't say I have a particular objection to the law being changed. I do think it would be hard to define exactly what was and was not allowed though - are you allowing just the union jack, or union jack and english flag or union jack english flag and scottish saltire or union jack, english flag, scottish saltire and say the polish flag, or union jack, english flag, scottish saltire, polish flag and the confederate flag or union jack, english flag, scottish saltire, polish flag confederate flag and the flag of the ku klux klan. Seems hard to me to determine and justify exactly where you would draw the line. Yet you found it OK for the council to change the rules to make Sikh's more comfortable. Once again you avoid addressing this. The elephant in the room is getting bigger and bigger. As for your opinion of councils, I think you stand very much alone on thinking they act on the publics behalf. My experiences aside. When did the council ask its voters if they wanted the union jack removed from a cabbies car? Did they presume that's what the public wanted? Zany, I have to be honest I am a little puzzled. You say I have avoided addressing the Great Wolverhampton Turban Scandal yet the whole second paragraph of my post addressed it. I can't help wondering if the giant elephant in your room has obscured your screen..... Honestly mate, I don't understand your point here. You understand how representative democracy works. We elect representatives asking them to make decisions on our behalf about matters within their control. Honestly the good people of Shropshire don't want or have the time to consider taxi licensing regulations in their area so they choose some people to do it on their behalf. Actually on a matter such as this, I suspect a paid officer of the council (the "civil service" equivalent") will have drawn them up probably copying those of the council next door or some national template and the elected councillors nodded them through in a committee. The rules they chose banned all flags and the like (not specifically the Union Jack) and those have been applied. It may be that there is a case for changing the rules and that's fine of that is what they want to do but as I said above I suspect it might be quite complicated where to draw the line if they do. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 15, 2023 8:12:22 GMT
I would have to add. Population size has to be part of the picture because had we not introduced any migrants to our country then our population would have shrunk considerably by now and that in itself has effects on the cohesion and well being of the population. Not quite right I am afraid, part of the problem in the decline of the 'British' population is the inability to call on close family ties in discrete areas for working mothers to call on grandmothers and other kin to take care of children whilst going to work. Once migrants in numbers were accepted and with extended families then the needs of the migrants became superior to the needs of a smaller family unit for social housing in a specific area in many areas of the UK. This resulted in the 'white flight' scenario whereby areas lost their close family ties as options for housing were usually some distance from family ties and working mothers had to restrict the number of children able to be supported. The need for the workforce to be mobile also entailed child bearing restrictions as absent fathers during the week could not be available for child minding duties. Immigration was a contributing factor to the declining birthrate of the British. Interesting idea. Yes you might be right to some extent, though I think other factors play a larger role than that. The growth in adult entertainment and travel lead many families to restrict the number of children they wanted. If I compare us to America which has similar living standards etc, but no shortage of housing we see similar figures for children per family at 1.9% That said, I think the lack of building enough homes to match the ever increasing population (From whatever quarter) is the biggest harm done to the British public this century. Three further factors. The need for both parents to work to earn enough to live. (In part due to housing costs) The extended working life span of grand parents meaning that at the time child care is needed it is not available. The legislation bought in by government making child minding much harder to provide on a financial basis. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 15, 2023 8:25:04 GMT
Yet you found it OK for the council to change the rules to make Sikh's more comfortable. Once again you avoid addressing this. The elephant in the room is getting bigger and bigger. As for your opinion of councils, I think you stand very much alone on thinking they act on the publics behalf. My experiences aside. When did the council ask its voters if they wanted the union jack removed from a cabbies car? Did they presume that's what the public wanted? Zany, I have to be honest I am a little puzzled. You say I have avoided addressing the Great Wolverhampton Turban Scandal yet the whole second paragraph of my post addressed it. I can't help wondering if the giant elephant in your room has obscured your screen..... Honestly mate, I don't understand your point here. You understand how representative democracy works. We elect representatives asking them to make decisions on our behalf about matters within their control. Honestly the good people of Shropshire don't want or have the time to consider taxi licensing regulations in their area so they choose some people to do it on their behalf. Actually on a matter such as this, I suspect a paid officer of the council (the "civil service" equivalent") will have drawn them up probably copying those of the council next door or some national template and the elected councillors nodded them through in a committee. The rules they chose banned all flags and the like (not specifically the Union Jack) and those have been applied. It may be that there is a case for changing the rules and that's fine of that is what they want to do but as I said above I suspect it might be quite complicated where to draw the line if they do. Yes I probably wasn't clear enough and should have answered your paragraph more directly. There is no reason other than religious why Sikhs need to wear a turban. It is just a desire they have to display a value. In broad terms no different to a soldier wishing to display his countries flag. So the rule would not preclude them, simply discourage them. Anyway my point was separate to this. My point was that where it was considered expedient to do so the council found itself able to change the rules to suit a minority. Did they say one size fits all (Excuse the pun) Did they say if we allow Turbans then we must allow any hat? To use your own analogy. A Viking helmet, an Ku Klux Klan hood? Of course they didn't. As for the rule being changed, this wasn't a rule that needs a due process, its a council regulation that could be changed in one meeting. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 15, 2023 9:46:35 GMT
As I say I am not an expert on the Great Wolverhampton Turban Scandal or on the Sikh religion. I believe but might be wrong that some (or all) Sikh men are required by their religion to wear a head covering - a Turban. If you legislate to prevent them in a certain job , that precludes them from working in that role unless they are prepared to compromise their religious beliefs. It feels right (and indeed might well be a legal requirement) for the rules to be changed to accommodate this.
I don't think that is a good analogy for the issue in the Great Shrewsbury Taxi Regulations Scandal where one individual wants to display a flag but the Councils regulations for taxis proscribe this. While it might be desirable for the individual to show his flag, there is nothing making it hard or impossible for him to work as a taxi driver if it is banned.
That is not necessarily to say that the rule should not be changed. As I said at the start of this thread, frankly I am not overly bothered each way. Clearly the Council should not ignore its own rule while it exists but it is perfectly free to do so if it so wishes. Which then leads us and them to work out what any change should be and where you draw the line. I have sort of asked you before but I'll ask you explicitly this time
Where do you feel, if you feel their rules should be changed, the line should now be drawn. Wherever you draw the line how do you justify the next one on the list being banned
Union Jack
English flag
Scottish Saltire
Shrewsbury Town Fc
Polish flag
Palestinian/Israeli Flag
Vote Tory/Labour/Reform/Lib Dem poster
Confederate flag
Ku Klux klan flag
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 15, 2023 10:11:12 GMT
It's seems that dappy is not 'overly bothered' that the official mind should consider the national flag and the KKK flag to be of equal worth when it comes to public display. Perhaps he feels the same about the rainbow flag and the hammer and sickle and would be happy to either flown from public buildings.
But then we've known for a while that that they have some funny ways over there in Dappyland.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 15, 2023 10:14:54 GMT
It seems that Dan is unable to understand the English language....
|
|
