Migrant workers help UK economy

Originally Posted by Xaccers

If they've said something racist then yes, take it to the police, if they believe it isn't valid, then fine.

So you really believe the state has the right to limit freedom of speech? To scrutinise our opinions for acceptability?

For all we know she actually said "I dun wanna work wiv no paki's who can't even speak english"

You again appear to be falling into the trap of believing we know everything about this case, we weren't there, everything that took place hasn't been reported.

No I'm not Xaccers, I have consistently allowed for the fact that not all of the facts have been made public. But on the balance of what we do know, I am inclined to believe the girl was upset at being asked to work with a group she could not understand. I have made my position clear: had the girl made a racially motivated stand, the incident should have been dealt with in-school.

Have you not considered what might have been said to justify reporting the incident to the police? Or do you consider nothing the girl could have said to be worthy of further action?

Yes. And in answer to your second question, GMP officers themselves did not take further action, releasing her without charge, and they take "hate crime reports very seriously" so it seems she did not say anything worthy of further action.

Have you considered that the LEA's policy is that any racist comments of a serious nature are to be reported to the authorities?
Have you really?

Oh yes, I have definitely considered that! I think there is a very good chance that is the official position.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by freezin

So you really believe the state has the right to limit freedom of speech? To scrutinise our opinions for acceptability?

Do you believe individuals have the right to harm others freely?

Originally Posted by freezin

No I'm not Xaccers, I have consistently allowed for the fact that not all of the facts have been made public. But on the balance of what we do know, I am inclined to believe the girl was upset at being asked to work with a group she could not understand. I have made my position clear: had the girl made a racially motivated stand, the incident should have been dealt with in-school.

Hang on, at least one of them reportedly can speak english, so what's the issue?
Would you also refuse to work with a group if only one could speak English?

Originally Posted by freezin

Yes. And in answer to your second question, GMP officers themselves did not take further action, releasing her without charge, and they take "hate crime reports very seriously" so it seems she did not say anything worthy of further action.

Which is their perogative.
I saw someone smash my window, he was arrested and later released, does that mean I was wrong to report him to the police?

Originally Posted by freezin

Oh yes, I have definitely considered that! I think there is a very good chance that is the official position.

So why are you asking these questions if you've considered that possibility already?

PS try not to click on the indent button

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Do you believe individuals have the right to harm others freely?

I take it we are not talking about physical harm? That being the case, what type of harm are we talking about?

Hang on, at least one of them reportedly can speak english, so what's the issue? Would you also refuse to work with a group if only one could speak English?

It might well be that the child who could speak both languages was entirely fair and brought all the children, including Codie Sttott, into the discussion, but it would seem more likely than the bulk of the discussion was held in the language the majority could speak simply because that would have been the easiest option for the majority of the group. If that was how it happened it was surely Codie Stott's prerogative to ask to be moved to an English speaking group?

And no, I would not have refused to work with such a group in a one-off incidence, but then I'm a mature adult, and much less likely to be upset by that situation than a 14 year old girl. Had the situation occurred more frequently then I would have objected. I would be perfectly happy to help someone learn English and be taught a little of a different language in return in a non-academic setting.

Which is their perogative.

Yes it is, but when the police take "hate crimes very seriously" it suggests that there was no crime to answer.

I saw someone smash my window, he was arrested and later released, does that mean I was wrong to report him to the police?

No, it means that the police were wrong to release him without charge (if that is what happened) because criminal damage had occurred (assuming of course it wasn't purely accidental).

So why are you asking these questions if you've considered that possibility already?

PS try not to click on the indent button

I know what the state's position is. I asked because I wanted to know what you think.

I don't think I am clicking on the indent, unless somehow there is an "indent lock" like a caps lock. Each time I preview the text, it becomes an ever narrower column. It's not something I have ever come across before.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by freezin

I take it we are not talking about physical harm? That being the case, what type of harm are we talking about?

I'm not suprised you need to ask. What harm can there possibly be other than physical eh?
Stick and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me, unfortunately, that isn't true.

Originally Posted by freezin

It might well be that the child who could speak both languages was entirely fair and brought all the children, including Codie Sttott, into the discussion, but it would seem more likely than the bulk of the discussion was held in the language the majority could speak simply because that would have been the easiest option for the majority of the group. If that was how it happened it was surely Codie Stott's prerogative to ask to be moved to an English speaking group?

If she was being excluded from the group, then she should have explained that to the teacher and asked the teacher to intercede and have the discussion take place bilingually.
It should be noted (shouldn't it?) that the inability of the majority of the group to speak English has not been confirmed.

Originally Posted by freezin

Yes it is, but when the police take "hate crimes very seriously" it suggests that there was no crime to answer.

Which again does not mean that no racist activity occured.

Originally Posted by freezin

No, it means that the police were wrong to release him without charge (if that is what happened) because criminal damage had occurred (assuming of course it wasn't purely accidental).

Does it?
It was actually that there was insufficient evidence that he was the culprit to secure any case against him.
If the asians involved do not wish to co-operate then that would have a detrimental effect to any chances of prosecution.
Had you contemplated that?
If so, why have you discounted it?

Originally Posted by freezin

I know what the state's position is. I asked because I wanted to know what you think.

I think I've made my position very clear for most people, and I'm somewhat perplexed that you're not aware of it.

Originally Posted by freezin

I don't think I am clicking on the indent, unless somehow there is an "indent lock" like a caps lock. Each time I preview the text, it becomes an ever narrower column. It's not something I have ever come across before.

Perhaps one of the admins can help you?

[Chrysalis]

sorry I dont have a hardline view as I have demonstrated been put straight by my friends and knowing both sides of the story. I have immigrant friends who think immigration is too much in this country and I think that says something.

I take it from your answers you are saying illegal immigrants pay tax, I meant income tax not things like VAT on consumer goods.

I will ask you the question once more if you choose not to answer it thats up to you of course but I would appreciate your view point on this.

What is your view on a more harder approach to immigration in that we still allow immigration but significant reduced numbers? Not the people already here but for new immigration.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I take it from your answers you are saying illegal immigrants pay tax, I meant income tax not things like VAT on consumer goods.

Ah now you didn't say that earlier.
Some illegal immigrants pay income tax.
I know of one personally who did, until he realised his status was illegal and left (hopefully to return in September)