Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
This is pure jargon, right ... you seem to be ignoring the question, distancing yourself behind complexity so that even "The answer should be No" is ambiguous. Sometimes it's easier for politicians to discuss language, creating a sort of metadialogue (or, often, metamonologue) which pushes into the background the thing being discussed.  |
...and though the post made reference to public spending on the 'elderly, women, and children', Graham totally misses the point.
Those three groups are universal.
Except for 'women'. Which applies to just over half of the population.
We were ALL children.
Hopefully, we'll ALL be old.
We will NOT all be 'black, or minority ethnic'.
That's why it is WRONG these organisations should receive funding from the tax payer, to carry on their discriminatory practices. As they openly state they are doing.
Any M.P. worth his salt, on finding out a local, publicly funded organisation is guilty of such blatant discrimination and prejudice, wouldn't be umming and ahing, and bothering about puerile semantics. They'd be finding out just who the bloody hell is responsible for this, and if the organisation continues promoting discrimination, withdraw all public funding, and make sure they're closed down.
Yet again, another example of the public clearly being able to see something is very wrong.
Whilst our politicans can't.