ZenStalinist said:
And what's so discriminated about Anglo Saxons. I have a large amount of Anglo Saxon blood, but I've never been discriminated against, nor have I found that anybody is stealing from me or such nonsense.
Well, I was ranting about class discrimination. I have found that in the current scheme of things, I have been discriminated against due to my class. Not my colour, not my religion, nothing else. Just class. By this of course I mean the fact that all of a sudden free university education was withdrawn, means-tested thresholds are just so that I got financially r*ped in my quest for enlightenment, yet according to the stats I will pay more in tax over my lifetime than I would if I had left school at 16/18. Why did my parents' salary affect my rights and my dues? I am heavily in debt. Friends with poorer parents are earning just as much as me, but they have no debts to repay. Because they got grants (my year was the last of grants), they got off without fees. But they earn as much as me now. Not fair.
However, I have been the victim of racism. I used to work for an Indian couple, the woman said, with mallice, that I was "as stupid as all the other English boys". She was rather stupid, but aren't all racist pigs that way? Her husband gave her a right bo**ocking when he found out, but I doubt that turned her egalitarian overnight. I never found out, I quit.
I don't attend the stockholders' meeting at some city bank and get a vote on how they should run their company, why should someone who isn't a stockholder in the UK get a vote on how UK PLC is run?
Minority then indeed! By definition then, you'd have to have land, and the amount of land you owned would affect how many votes you got. Do I see someone with the yearning for the days of rotten boroughs?
If I were to take your analogy the vast majority of Britain would not be able to vote, since the proles (who make for an important majority) aren't really stockholders now, are they?
Investment my dear chap. Investment. You are thinking too spatially and not considering the other dimensions to the country. The stockholder metaphor is flawed as of course shareholders do not continually invest, however it is true that someone who pays nothing to a system deserves no say in it's running. I am not saying that someone with a larger salary deserves a greater say, if you read my post you will understand. What I say is if someone invests nothing in this country, and contributes nothing (hence wilfully unemployed) then they should have no rights to it's running. I am not saying they should have no rights, I merely don't think they should decide who runs our country. Note my use of the word "wilfully". Obviously pensioners and those unable to work due to disability or other
genuine reasons have a right to vote.
Hmm... A friend of mine is a teacher, never heard of most of this. Correct grammar and appropriate usage is taught in school.
Perhaps it is down to the area. Hounslow, for example, is one of those areas that has become so stupid about political correctness that they forget to give the kids an education. It isn't the teachers' fault, they don't come up with the policies. However, I have heard the very same things said by a primary teacher in Stockton also, this very Saturday in fact, because I actually brought it up. She said that she is not allowed to correct the word "tret", meaning "treated" because it would be seen as oppressing the local dialect. Even though it isn't a word.
