Has to be Racist Surely

Originally Posted by Escapee

Thats all I would expect!

In an ideal world there would be no "race card" to play to gain preferential treatment. It has already been mentioned in this thread, that a white person attacks a black person and its almost certain that the act is reported and treated by the police as a racist attack, this never seems to apply the other way around though.

The people who jump to the conclusion that an attack is racist without actually looking at the facts are idiots.

I would disagree that an attack on a black person is almost certain to be a racist atack. Funnily enough there has to be a racial motive for a crime to classed as racially motivated and the Police do not categorise simply on the basis of people of different races being involved.

But whatever, it remains the fact (sorry to say this again Russ ) that it is racism from whites against ethnic minorities that is easily the biggest problem so whilst it's important for all racist crime to be treated equally, it is also important not to give undue prominence to a much, much smaller issue. And this is why I question why so many threads appear fixated on such issues, rather than say, the increasing number of racially motivated attacks against Muslims, Jews, Kurds etc.

[punky]

Just because white-on-black is the most common form of racial crime and discrimination, it doesn't mean it should automatic precedence over black-on-white discrimination, and black-on-black crime.

[me283]

"But the service will not be available to people of non-Indian descent."

That's the key to this issue. No, it's not necessarily racist, but it is discriminatory. However, if you believe Indian to be anything to do with the Indian race, then it is racist.

But before people start getting het up about race attacks etc (too late methinks?), let us consider the opposite situation: supposing the bank were to offer a service that were not available to people of Indian descent... wouldn't that be classed as racist?

It has been said before, and it will be said again... if you discriminate for someone, you are thereby discriminating against others. That is wrong, and I believe in this case it's also illegal? It may have been a clever marketing ploy if you are one of the 1.2 million eligible, but it is a real smack in the teeth if you are one of the other 50 million plus in this country.

[punky]

Originally Posted by me283

t may have been a clever marketing ploy if you are one of the 1.2 million eligible, but it is a real smack in the teeth if you are one of the other 50 million plus in this country.

During the 1950s-1960s in the south of the US, there was another marketing ploy, which was that coloured* people had to sit away from the white people in restaurants, etc. As a maketing ploy, that did rather well, but was proven to be very illegal, so why isn't this? At least the coloured people were still allowed to eat in the restaurant.

*Always though that term was a bit naff, isn't white a colour then?

Originally Posted by punky

Just because white-on-black is the most common form of racial crime and discrimination, it doesn't mean it should automatic precedence over black-on-white discrimination, and black-on-black crime.

That's not what I'm suggesting Punky. An equal hand should be applied to all racist behaviour - I've said that! But what I'm saying is perspective is required, that's all. And the perspective seems a little skewed on CF.

[punky]

Originally Posted by andyl

That's not what I'm suggesting Punky. An equal hand should be applied to all racist behaviour - I've said that! But what I'm saying is perspective is required, that's all. And the perspective seems a little skewed on CF.

Well that is what Me283 and I are saying. So why are we arguing if we all agree?

Originally Posted by punky

Well that is what Me283 and I are saying. So why are we arguing if we all agree?

Search me mate! (although it's an unusual case for me of ignorance being bliss when it comes to me283's posts )

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

That's not what I'm suggesting Punky. An equal hand should be applied to all racist behaviour - I've said that! But what I'm saying is perspective is required, that's all. And the perspective seems a little skewed on CF.

If I saw a job advertised which said "Uruguayans only need apply", or saw a retaurant that was "whites only", or even read an article which discriminated against the Japanese, I would be just as miffed. The bank has discriminated, that's the point of this thread, and I can't see how that can be denied.

I wonder if the CRE are on the case here?

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by andyl

I would disagree that an attack on a black person is almost certain to be a racist atack.

You are saying exactly what I was saying with your first line, its the point I was trying to make.

I am highlighting that whilst it might not be a racist attack, it appears to be the first conclusion that many people jump to in that situation. Unfortunately some people want to give crimes a label such as "Racially motivated" "Road rage" "Sexist" etc..

Often the reason has nothing to do with the above.

Originally Posted by Escapee

You are saying exactly what I was saying with your first line, its the point I was trying to make.

I am highlighting that whilst it might not be a racist attack, it appears to be the first conclusion that many people jump to in that situation. Unfortunately some people want to give crimes a label such as "Racially motivated" "Road rage" "Sexist" etc..

Often the reason has nothing to do with the above.

Hold up. How are we supposed to have a heated debate if we start agreeing with each other? C'mon, play fair

You know what, the sun is shining on the Bury cobbles and all is well with the world!

[Russ]

Originally Posted by aliferste

As they say on Radio Clyde "and your point IS caller" ?

The point you were making IMO did not deserve any more of a dignified response.

Originally Posted by me283

If I saw a job advertised which said "Uruguayans only need apply", or saw a retaurant that was "whites only", or even read an article which discriminated against the Japanese, I would be just as miffed. The bank has discriminated, that's the point of this thread, and I can't see how that can be denied.

If, as it has been suggested here, this is due to the fact that to get a bank account in India you have to be of Indian descent, then surely it cannot be considered discrimination by the bank in the UK. What point is there in them offering you a service that you cannot have for reasons outside of their control? Would you prefer that they made the concept of the service available to all, only for you to be told at a later stage in the process that you can`t actually use it as the Indian account cannot be put in place?

[me283]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

If, as it has been suggested here, this is due to the fact that to get a bank account in India you have to be of Indian descent, then surely it cannot be considered discrimination by the bank in the UK. What point is there in them offering you a service that you cannot have for reasons outside of their control? Would you prefer that they made the concept of the service available to all, only for you to be told at a later stage in the process that you can`t actually use it as the Indian account cannot be put in place?

Whilst it is usually difficult to open a bank account in a given country as a foreign national, I have not heard of it being impossible. However, Lloyds have picked up on the fact the British Indians (whatever that term means) will be able to open accounts with ICICI, which is an Indian bank. Now, I might be reading this wrong, but if someone is British, then by what has been implied, ICICI will not give them an account; if they are Indian they will. Which means that British Indians as a term is a bit of a misnomer.

Looking at it from a different perspective, they state that "Customers wanting to use the service must first open an account with Lloyds TSB, which will then open a second account on their behalf with ICICI". However, if they only have to prove Indian descent, then the service is also technically open to people who are British.

Another interesting point in the article is the mention of Lloyds TSB having recently launched an "Islamic current account". What the Hell is that?! I thought Islam was a religion?

http://www.mediacentre.lloydstsb.com...outhampton.pdf

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by me283

Another interesting point in the article is the mention of Lloyds TSB having recently launched an "Islamic current account". What the Hell is that?! I thought Islam was a religion?

I'd imagine it to be one that doesn't pay interest.