Employer told not to post advert for 'reliable' workers because it discriminates against 'unreliable' applicants [More]I'm waiting for them to tell a pre-school they can't discriminate against child molesters.
[Via Harvey]
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Meanwhile, Across the Pond in Sarah Brady Paradise...
[Via Harvey]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"...can't discriminate against child molesters."
Ha, ha, David. Except that probably will happen
Isn't it long past time for someone to flush the loo over there?
The encouraging part to me is reading the "comments" sections in some of these stories. At least some of them seem to be catching a whiff of the smell...
it's a nice little island. i wouldn't mind liberating it.
UK 2010 - Life imitates Monty Python
Seriously though, the British this is a Western liberal democracy that is in the throes of cultural and social suicide. When your public institutions cannot define or abide by any definition of right versus wrong, of moral versus immoral, it is all over. No ballot box is going to save them, because even their political leaders are of a generation that has little to no memory of how things were before the Marxists infected the landscape.
And to think that within the memory of some still living, that this nation had an empire spanning the globe.
The article on the National Examiner was a risible piece of 'journalism'. The level of condescension and hypocrisy in it was staggering. The most fatuous statement in this piece was, without a doubt, the author's conclusion that someone opposing anti-gun legislation 'would evidently rather see ordinary people dead than armed'. A straw-man if I ever saw one. And even if that was sardonic as opposed to a genuine thought, it betrays evidence. Homicide rates declined in Britain following the proscription of guns. One could easily reciprocate by saying that the author would rather see ordinary people dead and armed than alive.
The hypocrisy (and most egregious it is) is evident here:
"Instead, we are instructed, the bearing of arms shoule be the exclusive province of “Only Ones” in the service of the privileged few who enjoy an apparent Divine Right (as opposed to unalienable ones?) to a “monopoly of violence.” "
As such a staunch advocate of gun ownership, one would presume you to be (and forgive me if this is a false generalisation) a supporter of the death penalty. Reserving the right for the state and the state alone to execute a person is analogous to reserving the right for the state and the state alone to wield guns.
Don't you dare condescend to Britain's gun legislation when your own country accomodates gun-murders by the thousand because of a misguided sense of 'liberty'.
Liberty is not wielding a weapon that could inflict harm on another. Liberty is freedom from a society in which such instruments of death abound.
Not very many people visit old blog posts to read new comments, Anon. I copied your comment in its entirety and posted it under the Examiner column you object to, so that the discussion can take place where it properly belongs.
Post a Comment