Has to be Racist Surely

[Raistlin]

Originally Posted by jrhnewark

But that's India... this is the UK, in case you hadn't noticed!

Yes, but the bank in the UK are arranging the mortgage (on behalf on the customer) with a lender in India. Therefore the Indian banking regulations will apply to that part of the agreement.

Originally Posted by Russ D

I wouldn't call playing the race card "exceptionall good marketing" - had this been to the detriment of Indian customers I'm sure you'd be quite vocal in your protests.

LloydsTSB is clearly keen to provide accounts which meet the needs of all its customers and potential customers, hence it's launch last month of Shariah compliant mortgages. They have identified a large market which makes a lot of relatively small transactions to overseas accounts (gifts to relatives etc) who are currently getting whacked with hefty transaction charges, and those who may wish to get an Indian mortgage (with an Indian bank). In doing so they must, of course, comply with Indian banking regulations in the same way that an Indian bank doing the opposite would have to comply with UK banking regulations (which can be very stringent regarding inbound currency for example).


Funny how the old 'playing the race card' comes out at every opportunity. Funny too (not) how so little coverage is given on CF threads to the very real and growing problem of racism - often quite vicious and violent - directed at ethnic minorities in the UK. Anyone who thinks racism by ethnic minorities against white people is a bigger problem in the UK is not in possession of the facts (I hope that is polite enough - and I'm not suggesting that you believe this to be true Russ). But this is not reflected in threads here where any possible chance to suggest black on white racism is gleefully seized upon.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by jrhnewark

But that's India... this is the UK, in case you hadn't noticed!

And the "Stating the Obvious Award" for 2005 goes to...

I'll have to knock you up a graphic, you can have an avatar then

[BBKing]

Forgive me if I've missed the point of this, but since when has 'Indian', referring to the political entity 'India', been a race? This is about as scandalous as a Canadian bank offering Canadian dollar services to ex-pat Canucks, but because (mostly)* brown skins are involved it's suddenly become a race issue, yeah, right.

If I see issues change because the colour of people's skins change, then it's reasonable to conclude there's racism somewhere, but it may be nearer to home than you think.

*Presumably the thousands of white/mixed race people of Indian descent are eligible for this, too.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by andyl

Funny how the old 'playing the race card' comes out at every opportunity. Funny too (not) how so little coverage is given on CF threads to the very real and growing problem of racism - often quite vicious and violent - directed at ethnic minorities in the UK. Anyone who thinks racism by ethnic minorities against white people is a bigger problem in the UK is not in possession of the facts (I hope that is polite enough - and I'm not suggesting that you believe this to be true Russ). But this is not reflected in threads here where any possible chance to suggest black on white racism is gleefully seized upon.

LloydsTSB must have known how controversial this idea would be but knew it would create a 'race' talking point for people, as has happened here, this is why I think this is a disgusting marketing tool.

The reason 'black on white' incidents are jumped on (and I'll happily admit to being such a 'jumper') is because it is almost swept under the carpet and it really does feel (even though there is nothing AFAIK to support this) as if "it's only racist if the victim is black/asian".

If a black guy gets beaten up by whites, the local police force wastes no time in treating it as a racial crime (which, as you say, it often is) however in the opposite scenario, race is very rarely the immediate reaction.

This must STOP.

There is a lot (and I'll stay away from using the word 'plenty') being done to combat racism against blacks. It may happen less but where are the government bodies supporting white victims of racism? Why do leaders of black communities come out and speak against black on white crime?

I'll end this thread by reiterating that I'm aware blacks/asains are far more likely to be victims of racial crime. But that is not to say there should be more help available to them - it should be available to ALL.

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Russ D

LloydsTSB must have known how controversial this idea would be but knew it would create a 'race' talking point for people, as has happened here, this is why I think this is a disgusting marketing tool.

The reason 'black on white' incidents are jumped on (and I'll happily admit to being such a 'jumper') is because it is almost swept under the carpet and it really does feel (even though there is nothing AFAIK to support this) as if "it's only racist if the victim is black/asian".

If a black guy gets beaten up by whites, the local police force wastes no time in treating it as a racial crime (which, as you say, it often is) however in the opposite scenario, race is very rarely the immediate reaction.

This must STOP.

There is a lot (and I'll stay away from using the word 'plenty') being done to combat racism against blacks. It may happen less but where are the government bodies supporting white victims of racism? Why do leaders of black communities come out and speak against black on white crime?

I'll end this thread by reiterating that I'm aware blacks/asains are far more likely to be victims of racial crime. But that is not to say there should be more help available to them - it should be available to ALL.

This is what happens black on white racist attacks with violence, you as a honnest white person involve the police with witness's to the incident, then the offenders falsely play the "racism card" and next the police are advising you to not cause any more trouble else they will come down on you like a ton of bricks, close your business and meanwhile you and your entire family is at serious risk of violent attacks from now its not just the people who attacked you in the first place but there entire community, of which is backed up by the police advising you to leave the town you grew up in.

Its known as commercial terrorism using violence to instigate neighbourly problems then accusing the victim of being the offender and driving them away from their succesful business so they can step in and take it over.

It does go on its not a one off here and there.

[kronas]

the only reason i cant seeing this as being racist as if it breaks Indian bank regulations after all Lloyds TSB has to comply with that end of any deal with ICICI.

i have had a look around and i cant seem to find anything with regards to the regulations.

the fact that plenty of other banks are offering customised services such as non-interest savings accounts and such does not make it racist.

merely they are trying to open up a market to obtain profits and if they have to offer something new and diffarent to a minority then why make a fuss about it ?

[Russ]

The fuss is because the right to apply for such a deal is not open to the indiginous customers of the bank in the country in which it's operating.

[Gareth]

So Lloyds TSB aren't being racist, but ICICI or the Indian Banking Regulators are a bunch of xenophobes, by the looks of it. Lloyds TSB are just having to play by their rules.

I'm not sure I see it as a brilliant marketing ploy, as it could be misconstrued as being their decision to restrict it to only those of Indian descent as opposed to what it (apparently) is in reality. Could backfire very easily.

...although saying that, it'll definitely get people talking (like here, for example), so in that sense, their marketing has worked. All news is good news et al.

Originally Posted by Russ D

LloydsTSB must have known how controversial this idea would be but knew it would create a 'race' talking point for people, as has happened here,

That's an extraordinary viewpoint. The total UK market is 1.2m p[eople. Is launching a Shariah mortgage also creating a 'race talking point. I'm sure most people not of Indian descent couldn't give a flying fig about this product as it will not impact on them whatsoever. #

The reason 'black on white' incidents are jumped on (and I'll happily admit to being such a 'jumper') is because it is almost swept under the carpet and it really does feel (even though there is nothing AFAIK to support this) as if "it's only racist if the victim is black/asian".

If a black guy gets beaten up by whites, the local police force wastes no time in treating it as a racial crime (which, as you say, it often is) however in the opposite scenario, race is very rarely the immediate reaction.

This must STOP.

There is a lot (and I'll stay away from using the word 'plenty') being done to combat racism against blacks. It may happen less but where are the government bodies supporting white victims of racism? Why do leaders of black communities come out and speak against black on white crime?

I'll end this thread by reiterating that I'm aware blacks/asains are far more likely to be victims of racial crime. But that is not to say there should be more help available to them - it should be available to ALL.

OK, all racist crime and behaviour should be treated equally and appropriately. But as white on black racism is by far the biggest problem, expect resources to be distributed accordingly as they would with any other issue. I hear racist language from white people on an almost daily basis and have today had to encourage the BNP to, er, reproduce among themselves, when leafleting here, an area where there are a number of ethnic minorities who are the subjects of that near daily abuse.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by andyl

That's an extraordinary viewpoint. The total UK market is 1.2m p[eople. Is launching a Shariah mortgage also creating a 'race talking point. I'm sure most people not of Indian descent couldn't give a flying fig about this product as it will not impact on them whatsoever.

It's worked on CF.co.uk

Originally Posted by andyl

OK, all racist crime and behaviour should be treated equally and appropriately. But as white on black racism is by far the biggest problem, expect resources to be distributed accordingly as they would with any other issue. I hear racist language from white people on an almost daily basis and have today had to encourage the BNP to, er, reproduce among themselves, when leafleting here, an area where there are a number of ethnic minorities who are the subjects of that near daily abuse.

So you're saying white-on-black race crime is a more preveilant issue?

That's exactly what I've been saying. I don't see why you've felt the need to repeat part of my post in your own words.

No-one is denying your/my point. But why does it feel to me (and many others) that if I reported a race crime against me from a non-white person, it isn't going to be taken all that seriously?

[aliferste]

Originally Posted by Russ D

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

[j52c]

racism is like intolerance and the unwillingness to integrate into the country you live.

In November, I think, the MCB was sending a delegation to see members of the government 'demanding' they be allowed to introduce Sharia Law into this country, apparently 61% of muslims wanted this, I believe the government rejected it say this is a secular country and it is one law for all, wouldn't you say that was being intolerant of our countries laws.

The MBC is crying because the law on inciting religous hatred has been scrapped for the time being. Not too long ago, there were 2 complaints about an advertising board showing 4 models with their backs to you wearing thongs being displayed near a mosque around Rochdale and Leeds, and the advertising complaints commission upheld the complaints, another case of intolerance.

Then there were the complaints again from the MBC about the programme '24' on Sky, they were shown the first 4 episodes before it went live.

Sureley these are a case of racial intolerance.

I could go on and on, but it's getting to the point were there will be one law for us and another for the others and there is not going to be a happy outcome

For goodness sake this is britain, it is getting to the point we have to be careful what we say, goodbye democracy.

Now there is a case of a shopowner in Liverpool who has been told to take down his St George's flags because they are a health and safety hazzard, right, that is a poor excuse. What about christmas when schools were stopped holding their nativity plays.

I have said enough now, makes my blood boil, it's time the ethnic minorities stopped moaning and got a life and started living in the 21's century, religion is a private thing and should not be forced upon people the way that it is being done now.

Originally Posted by Russ D

It's worked on CF.co.uk

No comment!

So you're saying white-on-black race crime is a more preveilant issue?

That's exactly what I've been saying. I don't see why you've felt the need to repeat part of my post in your own words.

Well I can disagree with you if you'd prefer. Anything to please

No-one is denying your/my point. But why does it feel to me (and many others) that if I reported a race crime against me from a non-white person, it isn't going to be taken all that seriously?

Why is the fear of crime so much bigger than the risk of crime?

Anecdotal evidence but..... a white friend of mine recently complained to her daughter's school about racist language against her daughter, and it was dealt with under the anti-racism policy. The fact her daughter loudly exclaimed once that 'Pakis should go home' was an at first irony sadly lost on her though (although I kindly pointed it out)
__________________

Originally Posted by j52c

racism is like intolerance and the unwillingness to integrate into the country you live.

In November, I think, the MCB was sending a delegation to see members of the government 'demanding' they be allowed to introduce Sharia Law into this country, apparently 61% of muslims wanted this, I believe the government rejected it say this is a secular country and it is one law for all, wouldn't you say that was being intolerant of our countries laws.

The MBC is crying because the law on inciting religous hatred has been scrapped for the time being. Not too long ago, there were 2 complaints about an advertising board showing 4 models with their backs to you wearing thongs being displayed near a mosque around Rochdale and Leeds, and the advertising complaints commission upheld the complaints, another case of intolerance.

Then there were the complaints again from the MBC about the programme '24' on Sky, they were shown the first 4 episodes before it went live.

Sureley these are a case of racial intolerance.

I could go on and on, but it's getting to the point were there will be one law for us and another for the others and there is not going to be a happy outcome

For goodness sake this is britain, it is getting to the point we have to be careful what we say, goodbye democracy.

Now there is a case of a shopowner in Liverpool who has been told to take down his St George's flags because they are a health and safety hazzard, right, that is a poor excuse. What about christmas when schools were stopped holding their nativity plays.

I have said enough now, makes my blood boil, it's time the ethnic minorities stopped moaning and got a life and started living in the 21's century, religion is a private thing and should not be forced upon people the way that it is being done now.

Not sure where you're getting some of that information from.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by andyl

OK, all racist crime and behaviour should be treated equally and appropriately.

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.