|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 29, 2023 19:48:42 GMT
Collective inheritance. Hahahahaha. Where do I go to claim my collective inheritance. Your collective inheritance is in the rights you enjoy as a UK citizen, the right to be part of framing a democratic path for your country and the expectation as a British Citizen that the same stability and rights will be inherited by your issue without being modified or changed without your express collective democratic decision. Yes. It's like having a vote on what to do with a clubhouse. The more members in the club, the less influential your vote and the less use you get. If you inherited membership and new members were added, your inheritance has been dissolved / reduced by the additions. I'm surprised so many are finding this tricky. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Nov 29, 2023 19:50:06 GMT
As long as persons of migration background are allowed to own real property in England the amount of territory available to the indigenous population as their collective inheritance is reduced accordingly. Many countries, including several of those which have contributed most to the incoming migrant stream in the last sixty years, have laws in effect to restrict or even disallow such ownership. India being a very prominent example. Didn’t British India have 200 years to acclimatise to British rule? Is it any wonder if some of those people — now Bangladeshi, Indian and Pakistani — feel they are as entitled to live in the UK, albeit in lesser roles, as their former rulers? Seems to me that keeping in with India, especially, and its growing and strengthening economy would be a good move for the UK. Trade and freedom of movement are certainly on the agenda… |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2023 19:56:33 GMT
As long as persons of migration background are allowed to own real property in England the amount of territory available to the indigenous population as their collective inheritance is reduced accordingly. Many countries, including several of those which have contributed most to the incoming migrant stream in the last sixty years, have laws in effect to restrict or even disallow such ownership. India being a very prominent example. Didn’t British India have 200 years to acclimatise to British rule? Is it any wonder if some of those people — now Bangladeshi, Indian and Pakistani — feel they are as entitled to live in the UK, albeit in lesser roles, as their former rulers? Seems to me that keeping in with India, especially, and its growing and strengthening economy would be a good move for the UK. Trade and freedom of movement are certainly on the agenda… Did they not tell Britain to piss off though after 200 years? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 29, 2023 20:02:11 GMT
Not in this case because nobody was ever entitled to inherit every single square inch of the British isles. It's not like having another sibling and losing a chunk of your inheritance. It's clear i'm not talking about anyone in particular owning the whole of the UK.The people of the UK share its territory as an inheritance from their forebears. If you similar entitle large numbers of extra people, the number of people holding such is larger, making each share smaller. Even if I had a hundred kids it wouldn't affect your kids inheritance. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 29, 2023 20:06:09 GMT
The white British live in Britain and don't live (in significant numbers) anywhere else. They can't import more of themselves to act as replacements for some other group present in the British isles, so the broad rule that the British must import outsiders is effectively suicidal for that group - it is insisting that white British have a moral duty to replace themselves in their homeland with another group and this rule will always act to reduce their relative numbers. If you look at the results of the policy, you can see that this is (quite predictably) exactly what has happened. If you apply the same rule to anyone (ie target their homeland), you will get the same entirely predictable result. This is all by-the-by and a pretty obvious corollary. My central point is that the notion that some group has a persistent and special moral duty to hand over its territorial inheritance to people other than their children, is genocidal All your arguments hinge on the idea that any dilution of white British is a bad thing unwelcome to the British people. I disagree, I don't think many people care. I think they care about too many new migrants but not what colour their neighbour is. No. My arguments do not hinge on it being a bad thing. I am simply arguing that this is what is being engineered / offered. - ie a genocide brought about by systematic, lopsided targeting of a particular strain If you feel exterminating (say) the English by refusing to allow them any significant exclusive territorial control is a good thing, that's up to you. However, i really think people like yourself should be more upfront. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 29, 2023 20:08:48 GMT
"You managed to ignore the point nicely. I will try again. For over 60 years almost every single party that stood for election had as intended policy that they put to the electorate that immigration control and limitation of immigrants was a particular policy they would follow." Governments have failed to deliver countless promises, voting for parties that pledge to reduce immigration is not evidence of hostility towards British citizens of immigrant extraction. "Aggressive anti-immigration policies have been the hallmark of most UK manifestoes for 60 years" Pledging to reduce immigration isn't aggressive anti-immigration policy. No successful political party has pledged to stop immigration entirely or failed to talk about the positives of controlled immigration. "Equality laws may be designed to prevent discrimination but they have the added effect of creating division and actively discriminating against the white population." They were brought in to counter divisive racism against ethnic minorities, where's your proof they actively discriminate against the white population? "Being a child of immigrant parents should in democratic theory entitle you to the same rights as everyone else, but it does not, it entitles you to rights in law greater than the white majority and the children of that majority" Bullshit. Name me the legal rights I have that you don't. Voting for what is in a manifesto is kind of an indication of what the electorate wish to happen. If that manifesto says "we will bring in only those we need and end chain migration" or if it says " we will reduce net migration to tens of thousands" these are statements that the electorate get to vote for. They say nothing about who is here already at that time but then those two manifesto promises are about 20 and 12 years old respectively. In such ways are the seeds of anger and division sown. Positive action actively discriminates against the white population as do the programmes to increase diversity. Even more so since the proportions are changing. The Equality duty in all public bodies is also discriminatory. Assuming your ethnic grouping is not white British then your rights are based on being an active ethnic minority with preference considered due to the Equality duty, the diversity programme and positive action. As an example many companies have overall a lower proportion of ethnic minorities that currently exists in the UK. This is in part due to many employees being taken on when the proportions were much lower possible ten twenty years ago so the current intake has to be skewed to a higher proportion than currently exists to make up the shortfall. You will be selected for training programmes because you are an ethnic minority and be the recipient of the 'equally qualified' selection process which is largely just an allowance to take on ethnic minorities as needed. "Positive action actively discriminates against the white population as do the programmes to increase diversity. Even more so since the proportions are changing. The Equality duty in all public bodies is also discriminatory. Assuming your ethnic grouping is not white British then your rights are based on being an active ethnic minority with preference considered due to the Equality duty, the diversity programme and positive action." Positive action is not on the statute books. Show me a law that is that gives me rights that you don't have. My ethnic grouping is white British, my father is an Irish immigrant, my kids are mixed race their mum is Asian. Where is your proof of preference considered due to the Equality duty, the diversity programme and positive action? I don't mean speculation and inneundo, I mean hard statisticscal data from reputable sources? Because all of the data I've seen points to the opposite of what you're saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 29, 2023 20:08:52 GMT
It's clear i'm not talking about anyone in particular owning the whole of the UK.The people of the UK share its territory as an inheritance from their forebears. If you similar entitle large numbers of extra people, the number of people holding such is larger, making each share smaller. Even if I had a hundred kids it wouldn't affect your kids inheritance. You appear not to understand English fully. I say we not bother trying to communicate. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 29, 2023 20:10:14 GMT
All your arguments hinge on the idea that any dilution of white British is a bad thing unwelcome to the British people. I disagree, I don't think many people care. I think they care about too many new migrants but not what colour their neighbour is. No. My arguments do not hinge on it being a bad thing. I am simply arguing that this is what is being engineered / offered. - ie a genocide brought about by systematic, lopsided targeting of a particular strain If you feel exterminating (say) the English by refusing to allow them any significant exclusive territorial control is a good thing, that's up to you. However, i really think people like yourself should be more upfront. So allowing non-white people to live in the UK is genocide? When were you told that you had the right to dictate the ethnic makeup of our country? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 29, 2023 20:11:06 GMT
Even if I had a hundred kids it wouldn't affect your kids inheritance. You appear not to understand English fully. I say we not bother trying to communicate. More white people would also lessen your territorial inheritance as well wouldn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Nov 29, 2023 20:13:04 GMT
Didn’t British India have 200 years to acclimatise to British rule? Is it any wonder if some of those people — now Bangladeshi, Indian and Pakistani — feel they are as entitled to live in the UK, albeit in lesser roles, as their former rulers? Seems to me that keeping in with India, especially, and its growing and strengthening economy would be a good move for the UK. Trade and freedom of movement are certainly on the agenda… Did they not tell Britain to piss off though after 200 years? Certainly the independence movement told the British that they should piss off from direct managerial control after independence. But, even then, India saw how working together with Britain could prove beneficial. And their innate pacifist leanings mean they haven’t aped the British need in seeking new lands, and taken over the UK by force. They’ve just installed a PM… |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 29, 2023 20:18:13 GMT
Your collective inheritance is in the rights you enjoy as a UK citizen, the right to be part of framing a democratic path for your country and the expectation as a British Citizen that the same stability and rights will be inherited by your issue without being modified or changed without your express collective democratic decision. Yes. It's like having a vote on what to do with a clubhouse. The more members in the club, the less influential your vote and the less use you get. If you inherited membership and new members were added, your inheritance has been dissolved / reduced by the additions. I'm surprised so many are finding this tricky. That's true regardless of the ethnicity of the members though isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 29, 2023 20:22:30 GMT
You appear not to understand English fully. I say we not bother trying to communicate. More white people would also lessen your territorial inheritance as well wouldn't it? Indeed. ..but not the territorial inheritance of white people. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2023 20:25:43 GMT
Voting for what is in a manifesto is kind of an indication of what the electorate wish to happen. If that manifesto says "we will bring in only those we need and end chain migration" or if it says " we will reduce net migration to tens of thousands" these are statements that the electorate get to vote for. They say nothing about who is here already at that time but then those two manifesto promises are about 20 and 12 years old respectively. In such ways are the seeds of anger and division sown. Positive action actively discriminates against the white population as do the programmes to increase diversity. Even more so since the proportions are changing. The Equality duty in all public bodies is also discriminatory. Assuming your ethnic grouping is not white British then your rights are based on being an active ethnic minority with preference considered due to the Equality duty, the diversity programme and positive action. As an example many companies have overall a lower proportion of ethnic minorities that currently exists in the UK. This is in part due to many employees being taken on when the proportions were much lower possible ten twenty years ago so the current intake has to be skewed to a higher proportion than currently exists to make up the shortfall. You will be selected for training programmes because you are an ethnic minority and be the recipient of the 'equally qualified' selection process which is largely just an allowance to take on ethnic minorities as needed. "Positive action actively discriminates against the white population as do the programmes to increase diversity. Even more so since the proportions are changing. The Equality duty in all public bodies is also discriminatory. Assuming your ethnic grouping is not white British then your rights are based on being an active ethnic minority with preference considered due to the Equality duty, the diversity programme and positive action." Positive action is not on the statute books. Show me a law that is that gives me rights that you don't have. My ethnic grouping is white British, my father is an Irish immigrant, my kids are mixed race their mum is Asian. Where is your proof of preference considered due to the Equality duty, the diversity programme and positive action? I don't mean speculation and inneundo, I mean hard statisticscal data from reputable sources? Because all of the data I've seen points to the opposite of what you're saying. You need to read the equality act as regards positive action, www.thesun.co.uk/news/15335853/bbc-sparks-discrimination-row-minorities/"Under the Equality Act passed in 2010, positive discrimination is unlawful, but “positive action” is allowed for trainee and internships when minorities are under-represented in the industry." Your kids may be positively actioned, you maybe, but you are white so really on loser. I keep supplying proof as regards what the act says and people keep ignoring it. I will keep on trying. "Some groups of people who share a particular characteristic may suffer disadvantage connected to that characteristic, have different needs compared to others without that characteristic, or are underrepresented in certain activities. The positive action provisions in the Act[footnote 2] allow employers to take action that may involve treating one group that shares a protected characteristic more favourably than others, where this is a proportionate way to enable or encourage members of that group to: overcome or minimise a disadvantage have their different needs met participate in a particular activity This is called taking ‘positive action’." www.gov.uk/government/publications/positive-action-in-the-workplace-guidance-for-employers/positive-action-in-the-workplace#what-is-positive-actionThis not innuendo it is law.. What statistical data do you want? Ethnic minorities as a proportion of the British population are increasing and therefore the need to increase the intake now to meet the current levels is self evidently needed if diversity is supposed to reflective of the proportions in teh country. This seems like simple self evident logic |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2023 20:32:20 GMT
Did they not tell Britain to piss off though after 200 years? Certainly the independence movement told the British that they should piss off from direct managerial control after independence. But, even then, India saw how working together with Britain could prove beneficial. And their innate pacifist leanings mean they haven’t aped the British need in seeking new lands, and taken over the UK by force. They’ve just installed a PM… Not sure if I agree with the 'innate pacifist leanings'. New lands of course had not been sought for many decades. Having a PM of foreign extraction is at best a risk. Is it not the case that when white people are in government then ethnic minorities say they are not represented. Does that work both ways? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 29, 2023 20:55:01 GMT
More white people would also lessen your territorial inheritance as well wouldn't it? Indeed. ..but not the territorial inheritance of white people. More white people to share it with means less for each white person. |
|
