The BBC are now calling for ethnic minority quotas, along with a few others. It is technically illegal as all discrimination is, but why no one has bothered to use the Race Relations Act (I expect they found a loophole, they always will if it suits them) I don't know. Unless it excludes white people from it, which presumably it must do. But that would mean if a black club in Brixton or an Asian shop in Southall refused to serve a white person they would be allowed to, and how could that be legal?
Legal or not, by setting the precedent of social engineering the BBC are creating one of the most dangerous and totalitarian rules we have seen in the 21st century. Think about it, besides women and ethnic minorities, like everyone else, only applying for the jobs they are qualified for and interested in, they must now reject qualified candidates for the only criterion of being white while there may not even be a qualified ethnic candidate to replace them. And then imagine if this extended to professions like medicine and law? Would you really accept doctors' jobs being restricted to certain races as they hadn't yet reached their quota? But the really clear picture forms when you turn it round the other way, and not just in Britain but any country in the world. That could allow quotas for white footballers and boxers, and a minimum number in the 100 metres. And if not why not?
Further consequences of such policies mean white unemployment will directly fall, with more accusations they are lazy as a result, and calls for even more immigration to do those jobs they will not, except they are not being allowed to. This in turn will continually increase the ethnic makeup and increase the quota ad infinitum. Using the principle fairly and evenly you would have to make sure every third shop in Southall was white run, schools in Brixton had to have a quota of white pupils (schools are already making efforts to introduce at least some mixing with ethnic minorities, since a school in Devon was classed as 'too white'). Imagine them saying it the other way round, yet they easily got away with that. In the end once you outlaw discrimination then women, ethnic minorities and the disabled have a free run at every job as anyone else, it is a level playing field. Simply comparing the ultimate numbers with society as a whole, complaining if it isn't the same, and then forcing more people in until it is, despite there being no tolerance of deliberate exclusion, is simply creating discrimination by law instead of stopping it. There are endless reasons certain types of people prefer any job. The latest study saying forcing women into technical jobs is pointless as most simply aren't that interested in them is the first example of solid academic evidence. Just as not many women I spoke to cared at all about the World Cup or competitive sport in general. You may as well force every football crowd to be 50% female for the same reasons, dragging them off the street each Saturday and kicking men out until the numbers are even. If you think that's crazy why don't you think the other ideas are as well?
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Sunday, July 06, 2014
I realised something the other day, the major reason for my entire attitude to life is based on the freedom my parents gave me from day one. I was never told what to do in any way, just guided and advised, and was trusted to go out and come back whenever I wanted and never did worse than get lost when I didn't know where the bus went. The contrast when I spent a month away with my grandparents, the exact opposite, who watched me the whole time and interrogated me- have I washed my hands, combed my hair, been to the toilet, why do you want to eat that, why are you wearing that, told me (they actually phoned my bedroom every morning) when to get up, and I was so relieved after a month when my parents arrived on holiday and I had my freedom back.
The same thing applied when I worked in their shop. The manager had a daily schedule which kept us busy cleaning and stocktaking every spare moment for years. I assumed as it was so busy we needed to do this, until he went away for a couple of weeks, no schedule, and we got everything done on the list in half a day a week. What had been a really tough and demanding job turned into a relative holiday although exactly as much got done.
This taught me a lesson that people are best left to their own devices, with simple rules for work and school and otherwise trusted to know or learn themselves. We are not designed to be ruled by anyone, but helped and guided, our governments are our servants not our masters, and this has set my philosophy in life through direct experience at home and at work equally. You can either enjoy your life or it can be a chore, but it's the only one we've got so may as well be left to make the most of it with as few restrictions as possible. The difference is total between the two.
The same principle applies in every single aspect of life. Rules and limitations must be only if necessary rather than by default. This means you can do everything you want unless it isn't safe and only applies the minimum amount of force and restrictions required to do so, while if you look around you you will see this is far from the case, especially compared with the last ten years. Try driving in Britain, and perfectly safe roads used for a century with no problems have now had their speed limits reduced, often to 20mph, and covered with the enforced cancer of humps.The excuses given of increased safety etc are not even justified by reduced accidents and injuries, partly because the emergency services have an annual report (actually published a few years ago in the Hendon Times, much to my amazement) of how many people die or lose vital treatment as they are delayed by having to slow down for them both on the way to a call and with a patient in the ambulance, often with tubes or needles attached to them which would be displaced if they went over a hump at more than 10-20 mph whatever the speed limit.
Anyone wanting to extend their house in the last ten years will also find it a lot harder, with the building regulations now imposing combinations of EU and local impositions of added insulation (which often causes condensation and reduces ceiling height), fire doors and smoke alarms in every private house despite no others ever being there until the extension is added, and bans on new side windows even when they overlook the street with a hedge between them. What are the reasons for all these increasingly restrictive rules on what was till now a fairly safe and harmless set of activities (driving) and physical requirements (building) making it harder and harder to both get anywhere easily (remember public vehicles all have to use the same roads as well as everyone else) or choose what you want to do and pay for in your own house which does not affect anyone else besides the immediate neighbours? The reasons for my purposes are less important than the principles. Wherever you pay a greater price for an item or a service than you get in return you have been shafted. You do not spend twenty pounds to earn fifteen. The simple answer is it is based on power for its own sake, and politicians and businesses working together to provide work for each other and keep the businesses supplied with work to build road humps at £10,000 a go, and double the time required to convert a loft as so many more materials are now required. Cynical but true, as if you look back to the 60s or 70s when speed limits were generous, road humps were illegal, and new rooms had to be built so as not to overlook or block the light from neighbours and not fall down, rather than become a fortress ten times stronger than the rest of the house which was clearly fine as it was. Look at the MoT test for cars. When they brought in emission tests they were either passed or failed by all vehicles. Then, when under an EU plan to remove cars from cities, Boris Johnson brought in new requirements for vans and lorries which either cost thousands to convert or were impossible, despite every single one of them already passing the MoT test. That meant legally he had declared by implication the MoT test was inadequate, or his test was superfluous. You be the judge of that.
A normal road journey, as well as my initial example of a job which can be done better without a slave driver in charge, is a fairly easy to follow one to represent every single other area of life, where the welfare of others has to be considered, but especially in the case of drivers, their own welfare is reduced equally when having an accident as all parties suffer. We are all familiar with the uncontrollable traffic jams, so when the council narrow roads and remove lanes, they are creating more ways to ruin a journey by a fairly large amount. The humps are not suitable for road vehicles as the suspension and bodywork were not designed for a vertical drop more than occasionally, not many times a day. Councils have a fund for claims which costs each hundreds of thousands every year for broken exhausts and suspension which they rarely dispute as the damage from them is well known. Even small alterations, like fixing the traffic lights to stay red longer all add up as negative marks to spoil a journey. You get the general picture. How many drivers would have not missed a hazard without the humps to stop them, or worse still the barriers that make people have to overtake them and face oncoming traffic head on. While you're busy watching them and speed cameras your attention is diverted from children and animals running into the road, so they do the exact opposite of what they are supposed to.
So to sum up, whether bringing up or educating children, right through the workplace and public and private spaces, every journey is harder to gain exactly the same things with more rules than the bare minimum. It is the principle of libertarianism, which we all enjoy but few understand and many wish to impose the opposite on others while not wanting it themselves, (it's called hypocrisy, conscious or unconscious), where left wing intellectuals whinge about equality while paying accountants to reduce their tax bills, or send their own children to private schools as they abolished the free grammar schools which they would have gone to otherwise. People are generally not stupid and all aim for self preservation. So once a child knows why it's better not to stay up late before work the next day they will self police, as will drivers or anyone else going about their normal lives. Businesses need regulations to stop them cutting corners with shoddy goods and waste dumping etc, as they are dangerous and need regulating as a consequence, as their interests conflict (in their eyes, they don't really) with the customers. In fact any business who supplies what people want at a fair price will do better than the ones trying to cheat them.
But as citizens we are all working together, we are not essentially enemies however many cults and religions tell you otherwise, and apart from criminals and idiots who the law has no effect on anyway as it does not stop them breaking it, just punishes them if they are caught doing so, meaning everyone else will drive safely and look after themselves without an outside authority both forcing them to, or using measures ten times more than required to enforce it. Think of that next time you go on a trip somewhere and apply the comparison to everything else.