Perhaps the Lord Chancellor can explain this...
 

...though somehow I doubt it.

Nonetheless, The Times seems full of interesting stuff this morning, just like the buses, you wait ages for one and then three come along at once.

However, flippancy aside, there are serious considerations begged by the following article...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...901952,00.html

However worrying this might be, it is, sadly, is not the only example of inconsistency in sentencing, as even a cursory glance at the doings of the local Magistrature will clearly demonstrate.


"The Law is the true embodiment
of everything that is excellent.
It has no kind of fault or flaw
and I, My Lords, embody The Law."

(W.S. Gilbert: "Iolanthe")


How is the public served and protected by this motley collection of well meaning local busy-bodies and bumbling old fools in drag? Is there not a case to be made for a shake up in the legal system?

If you were, god forbid, Tony Bleuuuugh, how would you reform the Judiciary?

Note: The present Lord Chancellor is Lord Falconer who is paid £180,000pa (2003) for the honour, when he retires he will receive a pension of 50% of his salary - nice! No need to worry about "means testing" and keeping warm in the winter for him!

Re: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor can explain this...
 

ahh but what you forget AB is that if you accuse a coloured person of commiting a racist attack you are been racist to them because you are saying it was a racist attack just because they were coloured ..

catch 22 :rolleyes:

Re: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor can explain this...
 

Now I see the point of Ali G's comment, "Is it coz I's Black?"

Re: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor can explain this...
 

Positive discrimination has been taking place for many years A-b. Equally alarming is the following article from Tuesday's Times. 200 applicants for the Police Force turned down because they are white and male.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...895364,00.html

Re: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor can explain this...
 

Stinks of the PC and minority brigades getting on their high horses again. :(

Re: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor can explain this...
 

It is madness to suggest that people from an ethnic minority can't be guilty of racism.

The most blatent racism I saw on a daily basis was by wealthy Asians against Africans in Kenya. They treated them and spoke to them like they were animals.

As for the highlighted crimes in The Times, the law should apply equally to everybody regardless of colour.

Re: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor can explain this...
 

The law fears the minority and a lot of people have said that certain minorities are more racist than any caucasian person.

Re: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor can explain this...
 

If the Law does not reagrd people equally then the law itself should be disregarded!

It has lost what little worth or respectability it had.

Re: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor can explain this...
 

It is also a sad to pointer to the fact that multi cultural society is a myth and simply does not work. It is about time society woke up to this fact!

Re: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor can explain this...
 

Better start with the high and mighty of the land. They are so far removed from the reality of this situation they are blind to it. Chuck them out of their ecxclusive clubs into the mixed race inner cities and give them a wake up call.

Re: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor can explain this...
 

Thirty years ago Desmond Morris wrote a surprisingly successful book called "The Naked Ape". Some of you may remember it. It's subject was human beings, how we developed and why we behave in the way that we do. In his book Morris tackled the subject of Racism and posited the idea of humans being generally split into two groups, which he labelled the "in" group and the "out" group. Morris went on to explain that both were necessary to the way in which society worked.

The "out" group is always on the periphery of the "in" group and as such is the focus for the fears and resentments of the "in" group. The "out " group is always, according to the "in" group, about to take away houses, jobs, livlihoods etc. etc. They are suitable targets for anything that the "in" group cares to accuse them of, because generally they are small in number and easily cowed.

When the British ruled India, the "out" group for Indians was the British; we were pretty much universally hated because we had taken control of their country from them. When the British agreed to leave India the Hindu majority sought another scapegoat and found it in Indian Muslims (now known as Pakistanis) and the most horrific period of persecution and brutal slaughter followed and continues sporadically to this day. For Indian muslims the "out" group was Indian christians.

For Britain, on the other hand, the rise to political and economic greatness which followed the civil war and continued unabated until the second world war convinced the British that they were right to consider themselves the "in" group par exellance! The acquisition of an Empire fostered the notion that the British system was so equitable and reasonable that it was felt that God himself must be an Englishman.

This partly explains our antipathy and suspicion of the French as well as our immediate distrust of former colonials.

The idea that racism is a phenomenon peculiar to white western europeans is a complete and utter fallacy. Racism occurs in all societies where the "in" group feels insecure or threatened by an easily identified group. It is instinctive and does not generally respond to legislation for the simple reason that you cannot argue with instinct. The annals of history are awash with the tales of slaughter and persecution visited by the majority on the minority, often for the flimsiest of reasons.

Enoch Powell was right in concluding that the present difficulties with asian immigration would end in bloodshed. He has been proved right on more than one occaision, though not necessarily for the reasons which he ascribed, for it is demonstrably true that there is nothing intrinsically different in any human society. It is the dangerous folly of multiculturalism, which is so at odds with basic human nature, which is the tinder awaiting a suitable spark.

Re: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor can explain this...
 

On a similar subject, I am always annoyed by the fact that the only people who seem to get jobs with the race relations board or equality board or whatever the thing's called now, have to be a certain colour. Surely that's giving just as a bad a message. It would be far better if both blacks, whites, yellows, pink with orange dots on, worked together - that way we might start to get some sort of harmony and it wouldn't be about minorities, it would be about people who want to unite everyone together and ensure that everyone was treated fairly.

we have this in our country but it was called the religious discrimination act ..it doesnt work i will tell you why ,for to ensure one religion , or in your case race get whatever job they apply for, you have to discrimate against another and its usually the QUIET majority who are discriminated against ..the very same citisens who are law abiding and work hard to pay there taxes ,and especially most important are the ones who vote for these idiots ,the times of employing people on merit are over!!!
who are these faceless people in goverment this pc brigade ,were do they get their ideas from ,who is accountable ..let me quote abraham lincoln's gettysburg address "and the goverment of the people,by the people,for the people shall not perish from the earth "

Re: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor can explain this...
 

Re: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor can explain this...
 

i could not have worded it any better willow .....we create racisim by discriminating against each other ...the best man or women for the job regardless of colour or religion ....although i do prefer chelsea myself