Thread: What the F*** is goin on in the UK

Were Muslims exempt?

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

Yes, but they rightly got told to eff off

Something which Blue and extremists like him have decided to totally ignore.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by blue

The National Trust has reversed a decision to make some volunteers work away from the public after they refused to wear sexual equality symbols.

It is truly scary and bizarre stuff with the big brother poove thought police these days.

What are you talking about? A charity tried to make its employees wear a badge. Some employees said no. The charity then backed off. No normal person would consider that bizarre or scary.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by blue

The National Trust has reversed a decision to make some volunteers work away from the public after they refused to wear sexual equality symbols.

It is truly scary and bizarre stuff with the big brother poove thought police these days.

What are you talking about? A charity tried to make its employees wear a badge. Some employees said no. The charity then backed off. No normal person would consider that bizarre or scary.

It wasn't "just a badge" and they only backed off after they got put under a magnifying glass. They were going to actively punish people for their refusal by moving them to posts that were out of sight.

It wasn't voluntary until after the fact.

And asking people to wear that nonsense would be like asking a liberal to wear a Republican pin & lanyard, then attempting to punish them for refusing.

Not everyone has to support LGBT rights in their entirety, and thats what those symbols mean.

I don't really care if a dude wants to suck some cock, but I'm not gonna celebrate it by wearing faggy rainbow accessories & be all "how sweet"

These people really push their agenda pretty hard. Its like a Jehovah witness beating on your door at 6AM everyday and not fucking off.

when i was living in UK we had to call the council for 2 months beggging to come and collect rubbish from the back of my house. The fined us twice but we managed to get it lifted,
It was a bit ridiculous.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by blue

The National Trust has reversed a decision to make some volunteers work away from the public after they refused to wear sexual equality symbols.

It is truly scary and bizarre stuff with the big brother poove thought police these days.

What are you talking about? A charity tried to make its employees wear a badge. Some employees said no. The charity then backed off. No normal person would consider that bizarre or scary.

You're being disingenuous there... this is not just "a badge", its a political act, a an an act of cultural aggression... this is about a particular lobby pushing to colonise territory... you could equally just call Mao's little red book, just a little red book, but it wasn't, was it...
It is a way of trying to demand that overt and unusual statements of support for this issue are considered the mainstream, and that other perspectives are sidelined... it's a frontline. When you see people marching with banners, what's the difference between communist military parades, religious mania rallies, and "marches" of various kinds... they are all sinister and disturbing political/religious acts trying to assemble a mob to enforce a set of values and views on everyone else. If you think it's abnormal to consider it "bizarre and scary", you ought to read about how typical cults and totalitarian states started... they all started small somewhere, with little acts like this.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by blue

The National Trust has reversed a decision to make some volunteers work away from the public after they refused to wear sexual equality symbols.

It is truly scary and bizarre stuff with the big brother poove thought police these days.

What are you talking about? A charity tried to make its employees wear a badge. Some employees said no. The charity then backed off. No normal person would consider that bizarre or scary.

I find the presumption that people should want to celebrate and cheer-lead LGBT rights, as if any alternative were unthinkable, to be a bit scary.

Some people think the gay community has done pretty well over the past 2 or 3 decades and maybe they don't need mandatory involuntary political support from unwilling members of an organisation unrelated to the gay rights movement.

It is especially scary when the expectation is presented by your employer and that if you refuse you are punished by being relegated to non public facing roles.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Just to point out again, some employees said "no" and the employer said "OK".

You left out the part where they only said "OK" when the magnifying glass was upon them by the media.

And only then did they issue a statement stating how "understanding" they were and how "optional" it was.

Originally Posted by Slick

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Just to point out again, some employees said "no" and the employer said "OK".

You left out the part where they only said "OK" when the magnifying glass was upon them by the media.

And only then did they issue a statement stating how "understanding" they were and how "optional" it was.

That is what is called "Western civilization in action". I don't need to point it out because that is the way our system works and what has happened shows that it works well. Melonheads like you may prefer to scream and cry and shout and go bang-bang with your penis substitutes but us grown-ups know how to use the system we've developed over the last thousand or so years.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

That is what is called "Western civilization in action"

Nah not really.

Id call it more along the lines of: "I have these feelz and you must support my feelz and if you don't support my feelz then you have to go away because your feelz don't matter and my feelz are the superior feelz"

"Oh shit, people are looking, never mind I'm tolerant and understanding - its optional"

Originally Posted by Slick

Originally Posted by DrB0b

That is what is called "Western civilization in action"

Nah not really.

Id call it more along the lines of: "I have these feelz and you must support my feelz and if you don't support my feelz then you have to go away because your feelz don't matter and my feelz are the superior feelz"

Good God! Are you a negro?

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Are you a negro?

Straight white male is the new negro.

Originally Posted by Slick

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Are you a negro?

Straight white male is the new negro.

So, you're definitely not a negro. Understood.

The National Trust had initially said it was committed to promoting equality and inclusion

How about equality for homophones?

They are playing it by the PC book, making sure any kind of refusal to bend to their religion is challenged., and keep pushing their sick agenda .

It's also time the rainbow was reclaimed.
Strange that gays who live half their lives covered in or thinking of excrement, didn't choose brown?

Next up in the PC mob pushing their bent and bizarre agenda.
Prediction within 10 years the gender is removed from birth certificates and later passports.

BBC new low: experimenting on children for propaganda by attempting to 'gender neutralise' 23 primary school kids.



Send in the bbc wog to experiment on 'white kids '
Not content to be using them in the faggot adoption experimentation , they want to get to the other children at school.

A class of seven-year-old pupils were given a “gender neutral bookcase” which featured stories about a princess saving a prince and a princess with superpowers during the six-week trial.
Class teacher Graham Andrew, who is also the head of Lanesend Primary School on the Isle of Wight, was banned from using affectionate terms such as “sweet pea” and “mate”.
Education experts fear the experiment could cause the children involved psychological distress and harm, both in the short and long-term.




The BBC describe the show as a “bold, engaging and provocative exp
eriment” which is the inspiration of medical doctor Javid Abdelmoneim.


According to the BBC, the doctor “aims to remove all differences in the way boys and girls are treated to see if, after six weeks of “gender neutral” treatment, he can even out the gaps in their achievement across a range of important psychological measures from self-confidence to spatial awareness”.


Dr Abdelmoneim said: “Girls significantly underestimate how clever they are and have less self esteem. Boys can’t express their emotions except for anger, which is really disturbing.

Dr Javid Abdelmoneim introduces a series of 'interventions' to 'gender neutralise' the class

The doctor introduces a series of “interventions” to “gender neutralise” the class of 23 children, but by the end of the programme he has misgivings.
“I’m worried that all I’ve done is upset a load of kids and none of this has had the slightest effect,” he says.


A BBC spokeswoman declined to comment.


The results of the experiment will be shown in two-part BBC2 documentary No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free? on August 16.

BBC criticised for using children in 'social experiment' to create 'gender neutral school' | UK | News | Express.co.uk

Originally Posted by blue

The National Trust had initially said it was committed to promoting equality and inclusion

How about equality for homophones?

Indeed. It's well past time to put an end to the disgraceful way in which fine upstanding words like "chute" and "shoot" are treated differently.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Just to point out again, some employees said "no" and the employer said "OK". You may now stop being scared and stop standing with your backs to the wall. Pathetic.

The employees said no. They were then threatened and punished with reassignment to non-public facing duties.

The policy was then exposed to the press and only then did the employer reluctantly reverse their decision.

That, to me, is borderline scary.

Originally Posted by blue

BBC new low: experimenting on children for propaganda by attempting to 'gender neutralise' 23 primary school kids.

What is the weird obsession with trying to deny gender. Gender is very real. men and women are very different creatures. What is the benefit to society in trying to redefine reality?

Sure, it is good if unfair discrimination against women is dealt with, but that should not involve a bizarre exercise in sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la-la-la to try and deny that gender exists.

Originally Posted by blue

A class of seven-year-old pupils were given a “gender neutral bookcase” which featured stories about a princess saving a prince and a princess with superpowers during the six-week trial.

How did they make the words "prince" and "princess' gender neutral?

Originally Posted by blue

homophones

iPhone 6. White.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by blue

A class of seven-year-old pupils were given a “gender neutral bookcase” which featured stories about a princess saving a prince and a princess with superpowers during the six-week trial.

How did they make the words "prince" and "princess' gender neutral?

They didn't. As many people would know "gender neutral" in this context means that most roles are open to both male and female. It takes a special kind of person, looking at blue, to misconstrue gender-neutral as androgynous. This inability among some native English-speakers to distinguish between gender and sex is a classic sign of a lack of education.

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

once they realised that they were about to alienate most of their volunteers

errm...less than 10% is not "most".

Originally Posted by blue

But 30 of the 350 volunteers were offered duties away from the public after choosing not to wear them.

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

it's still not legal to have a different-sex civil partnership - it was thrown out of court! I mean it's beyond laughable.

Yeah, that's just plain silly. In fact it's discriminatory.


Overall the story is a non story. An organisation staffed by volunteers had a promotion of non-discrimination, some lowly superviser at ONE of the many properties made a bad decision to sequester the few volunteers that didn't want to go along with the promotion, and when senior people at the organisation found out, that bad decision was reversed.
Non-story.

Originally Posted by blue

Making people wear badges, never the sign of a tolerant society...

Not at all. It was completely voluntary, only a dumb superviser got the wrong end of the stick and asked the ones that didn't wear the badge to work behind the scenes.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

to misconstrue gender-neutral as androgynous

But there is a worrying tendency to blur this distinction.

Men are evolved as hunter warriors. This means men are 20% larger and 40% stronger than women on average. So a prince rescuing a princess from mortal physical danger is a far more likely scenario than vice versa. This is not sexism. This is evolutionary biology.

Men are also evolved with a stronger desire to seek positions of power and influence than women are (due to the evolutionary advantage to the philandering male). So it is not likely that nature would produce a society where a 50% 'quota' of people in positions of power would be women. This is not sexism. This is evolutionary psychology.

We do not do society any favours by trying to pretend that reality is something other than what reality actually is.

Good solutions to problems such as sexual discrimination in society take account of reality, they do not deny reality.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by blue

The National Trust has reversed a decision to make some volunteers work away from the public after they refused to wear sexual equality symbols.

It is truly scary and bizarre stuff with the big brother poove thought police these days.

What are you talking about? A charity tried to make its employees wear a badge. Some employees said no. The charity then backed off. No normal person would consider that bizarre or scary.

I find the presumption that people should want to celebrate and cheer-lead LGBT rights, as if any alternative were unthinkable, to be a bit scary.

Some people think the gay community has done pretty well over the past 2 or 3 decades and maybe they don't need mandatory involuntary political support from unwilling members of an organisation unrelated to the gay rights movement.

It is especially scary when the expectation is presented by your employer and that if you refuse you are punished by being relegated to non public facing roles.

Written 60 years ago in the New York Times "Letters To The Editor":
"I find the presumption that people should want to celebrate and cheer-lead coloured people's rights, as if any alternative were unthinkable, to be a bit scary.

Some people think the black community has done pretty well over the past 2 or 3 decades and maybe they don't need mandatory involuntary political support from unwilling members of an organisation unrelated to the civil rights movement.

It is especially scary when the expectation is presented by your employer and that if you refuse you are punished by being relegated to non public facing roles."

I think "punished" is rampant hyperbole. Those that didn't want the lanyard and badge were offered alternative posts.
The situation was more like, "C'mon guys, lets all do this in support of the cause. If you don't want to, that's ok, but we'd rather be uniform, so those that choose not to can do their bit away from the public eye."

Originally Posted by Maanaam

only a dumb superviser got the wrong end of the stick and asked the ones that didn't wear the badge to work behind the scenes

That sounds like a convenient explanation to save face after the organisation was pulled up on its unfair treatment of employees.