Well done. You're at it again.



Your entire approach is not to engage in a discussion, but to try to find ways of rubbishing things, whether my selective quoting, misquoting or simply shifting the goalposts, without ever trying to contribute to a discussion with ideas about the topic at hand.



Have you ever considered trying to grow up?

Why don't you just admit that what you wrote was misleading instead of shifting the goalposts yourself.



You brought this topic back from over a month in the wilderness with a statement which is simply not true.

[my emphasis and my caps on "etc"







In other words, maternity rights will not longer exist as a right, backed by law, but be optional. It is logical to assume that all other parental rights would be treated in the same way.

Well hello, Mr Transparently-Disingenuous ...

Your spotting of a tiny error in a critique of a large UKIP wishlist which seeks to peel back hard-fought-for employment rights highlights your purpose, which is clearly to shoot the messenger rather than debate the topic ... as per usual.

Tell me, do you agree with it? and, if so, how do you justify such commodification of people?

Or are you going to now disappear as you normally do, having "made your point" when, in fact, all you've done is made yourself look rather petty?



Whilst I don't believe that UKIP will ever be in a position to enact any of this reactionary, ill-thought-out and patently unfair result of bar-room bluster, the danger is that, again, it will appeal to the dimwit amoebae on the right wing of the Conservative party and Cameron won't have the courage to face up to them. He will just package it in with his "re-negotiations" for repatriated powers, rather than come out and say what is wrong with it.

So basically, it's not just Johnny Foreigner that's the problem with this country, it's also all these dolly-birds with the audacity to work for a living?



"they will simply have to recruit from a smaller pool of potential employees" - Nothing other than an endorsement of discrimination in the recruitment process. In fact, bordering on a recommendation.



Why am I put in mind of Harry Enfield's 'Women - Know Your Limits!'?

Johnny Foreigner, the EU – and women.



Well, and all other 'minorities'. The same party would get rid of most equalities legislation too.

Getting in this on a separate issue but companies are already endorsed to 'positively' discriminate. Personally i don't see anything positive, the strongest candidate should always get the job imo.

Indeed.



But the idea about 'positive discrimination' should be that, if you have, say, two candidates that you cannot divide, the one who has had least benefits (so to speak) shoudl win extra brownie points for overcoming their disadvantage (so to speak). That should give you the best candidate, in that they will arguably have had to show more determination etc to get where they are.



But UKIP doesn't like that.



It essentially wants a return to the good old days where you got brownie points just by being white, male and heterosexual.

*closet homosexual

... tumbleweed drifts by ....

While we're waiting ...



This reminds me of that research a year or so ago that claimed that left-leaning people were more intelligent than right-leaning ones.



One wonders if this is illustrated by what seems to be a quite widespread approach from those with apparently right-wing views of rubbishing something (but not from a point of view of fact) and then running away when faced with straight questions, and never ever positing any sort of alternative (which would, admittedly, require an iota of imagination at the least)?

I personally find that if i lean to much to the left or right i tend to fall over, it's why being generally in the middle seems the logical conclusion, obviously a little leaning in both directions will still keep me on my legs as long as i don't go too far.