Comments on: Straw and Letwin are right

By: Gav

Gav — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 13:35:15 +0000

Unity, Dave’s comments are fair — I did say “Council Housing”.

By: Unity

Unity — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 11:52:13 +0000

Dave…

Who says the taxpayer has to foot the bill?

If there’s a need for larger properties then there is a demand for them, and if there’s a demand then you have the conditions for a market to supply that demand.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:32:02 +0000

Ahem Unity and why should tax payers be forced to pay to house the families of men who refused to use birth control and therefore have more children than they can afford to keep.
I’m all for the state helping desperate people but not those who intentionally create their own problem expecting others to pick up the tab.

I agree with Toque, it is offensive to have anything deliberately obscuring your face while talking to someone. Facial expression is an important part of human interaction.

My brother has a hearing difficulty he is often asking people to move their hands away from their face when he is talking to them because he partially lip reads.

Gav, normally I would agree and I am against most laws like that, but what would be wrong with a simple law like you can’t wear permanent face masks in public, such as helmets, veils, some types of hoody etc.
One EU country has such a law but I forget which one, maybe Belgium?

By: leanne

leanne — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:16:31 +0000

Good comments Gavin.

By: Gav

Gav — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 13:34:20 +0000

That’s the common mistake Unity — it’s not about race but demographics or cultural tendency. Brown people are not more likely to have more children (larger families). Catholics and Muslims and African Christians may be more likely to have larger families, but that’s a pragmatic observation. What colour are catholics?

You can use demographics as a guide to making sensible decisions, but you cannot use race as it doesn’t work like that.

My colleague is right and the sooner we stop attributing stereotypes to colours or creeds the sooner this nonsense will be behind us as we can return to being the most tolerant and welcoming country in the world.

By: Toque

Toque — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 12:13:04 +0000

‘Offensive’ seems to be a word that the ‘Muslim community’ (as if there is any such clearly defined one), and those operating in their defence, use rather a lot these days.

Well if they can use it so can I. I am offended by people that cover their face and avoid eye contact and deprive me of what I see as an essential part of human communication: expression.

I don’t care whether it’s a muslim veil, a hoody and baseball cap, a balaclava or a motorcycle helmet. Kindly remove it if you expect a response from me.

By: Unity

Unity — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 12:07:18 +0000

I hate to say this, Gav, but housing is not an area in which to pitch your argument because one can evidence that certain minority communities (and not necessarily black communities) have quite specific housing needs that differ from the general population arising from prevalent family structures – either a propensity to have more children than avergage or, as commonly, the maintenance of traditional extended family structures.

Ultimately this will influence, to some degree, how you look at housing/planning policy in order to arrive at the right mix of housing stock for your area.

Some might see that as special treatment, personally I don’t as taking into account the need of some communities for larger properties is no different to considering whether the age demographics of your area might require more bungalows and low-rise developments suitable for older people.

If I were you, I’d have a word with your collegaue and point out that he’s missed a trick with his comments, as from a Tory point of view the answer to considering the housing needs of ethnic minorities lies in allowing the market to drive development policy – after all if you do have a local minority community that does require more 4 and 5 bedroom properties to meet its needs then you have demand that the market can fulfill.

By: Gav

Gav — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 10:21:57 +0000

Actually Unity, you make a good point about the DDA. I do accept that the role of government should be to protect the minority from the majority. The DDA is wholly good legislation unless it is taken too far.

The trouble with race discrimination legislation is that it is trying to legislate something that is not based in logic in the first place. Why, for example, would any businessman not employ a more merit-worthy Hindu instead of a white person? You’d be shooting yourself in the foot.

To legislate so that people are compelled to do this doesn’t stop the bigotted employer from being bigotted, it just causes a lack of self-worth to surface within the quota-employee and it causes resentment amongst those who believe (wrongly or not) that they didn’t get a job because of quotas.

The difference, as far as I am concerned is that a disabled person will need more help to work in a particular workplace. A wheelchair user, for example, may need ramps to be installed etc. A white, brown or black person needs no extra assistance — their skin colour is irrelevant.

An example that occurs to me is something I saw for the first time at a Housing Committee on Monday. When providing Council Housing we must “consider the needs of black and ethnic minority [people]“. As my colleague said, what needs does a black person have that are different from a white person: “What? I need a space for the pot in da middle of da kitchen?”

By: Gav

Gav — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 10:14:26 +0000

Google’s adverts are based on the page’s content and choose key words so that they are most appropriate…

It wouldn’t be the first time “Gav” and “gay” have been confused!

By: james higham

james higham — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 09:44:58 +0000

I was just answering this with Bryan Appleyard’s words when I caught sight of your Goodle ad for Gay Conservatives. Do you have any control over whom they advertise, Google?