Tuesday, September 22, 2009

A Thought on Baroness Scotland

Am I right in thinking that if a magistrate had been fined £5,000 for breaking the law, he or she would have been thrown off the bench?

83 comments:

Any colour but brown said...

Not if he is a member of the Labour party.

Anonymous said...

Spare a thought for Gordo. Scottish, and screwed by Scotland twice in a short space of time...

Jimmy said...

No

Mike Law said...

Got this from:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/faqs/faqs_magistrates.htm

What happens when magistrates break the law?
Magistrates are subject to the law just as everyone else is, and must maintain the dignity, standing and good reputation of the magistracy at all times. Those found to have brought the magistracy into disrepute - for example, by breaking the law - are liable to face disciplinary action.

allnottinghambasearebelongtous said...

Not sure. Sort of related but I seem to remember Judge Pickles (not Eric) still hearing cases after a number of speeding convictions.

But of course, speeding isn't a real crime is it?

Whatever, of course Baroness Scotland should resign or be sacked, everyone knows that.

But be honest Tories, you don't want that to happen just yet do you? You know there's lots of fun to be had from her clinging on for as long as possible ;)

Bishop Hill said...

Ask Bystander.

Russell said...

Now now, Iain. Baroness Scotland has done the Labour Government a considerable service. As she pointed out herself, "it was a civil matter, so of course I will not be resigning" (my italics).

A most important precedent. From now on no Minister of State, from the lowliest to the very highest, need even trouble themselves with thoughts of resignation after breaking civil law (or committing "unwitting technical breaches of the rules" as the New Labour Thesaurus of Political Exegesis puts it).

Indeed, given the Attorney General's codifying of the correct behaviour in such a situation, it would be most improper for them even to try, and the Supreme Leader would rightly disapprove.

This sort of behaviour is for the little people to indulge themselves in. As the Attorney General has made clear, those who rule the country are above such petty matters.

New Labour New Aristocracy said...

In the same way that Police Officer for example have been sacked and/or imprisoned for having sex with colleagues/staff or members of the public whilst on duty as it is held to be misconduct in Public Office, The Home Secretary doing the same thing , as well as other Government ministers would also face.......er....well no they dont. Why the Hell is That Mr Griffiths, Mr Blunkett Mr Prescot ?

Bardirect said...

Yes but not only does she not sit as a Judge, she doesn't appear to personally go to Court as Attorney General, unlike all predecessors.

Man in a Shed said...

Labour's refusal to act with any decency or honour just shows how corrupt they have become.

There was a time when a minister would have apologised to the PM for the embarrassment he/she had cause colleagues and have insisted their resignation was accepted.

This never happens under Shameless Labour as they lack common moral decency.

In the many years in the wilderness that their misgovernment will condemn them to some of them should ask why they became so amoral and lacking in the common decency or humility. They'll have years to work on the answer.

Old Holborn said...

“Scotland is a competent female, black lawyer. A second chance is called for" - Michael White, the Guradian.”

That'll help Michael. You TWAT

Colin said...

Based on her statement at the press conference, she has effectively sacked her cleaner, because she (scotland) forgot to photocopy some documents.

I fail to see how, having checked her cleaner's documents, which, according to the law, had to have included her original passport, she (scotland) could have concluded that the cleaner was ok to work in the UK.

You don't get a £5k fine for not keeping photocopies. You get fined £5k because you're a rogue employer and have committed a flagrant breach of the LAW.

Her tv appearance was a crass and transparent attempt to miss-lead the public. She should be sacked for that alone...

Bill Quango MP said...

But be honest Tories, you don't want that to happen just yet do you? You know there's lots of fun to be had from her clinging on for as long as possible ;)

Absolubtely. As the 'boy' George once said "Labour have done it again"
A media gift to the Tories. A story to push Mr Bean's 75 days to save the planet gobshite onto page 2 or 3.
Dave will be very satisfied as he sits down to watch Newsnight tonight.

Tory Outcast said...

Sadly her offence is not a criminal one so no.

Grumpy Old Man said...

Dear Nottwhatever. Of COURSE we want her to hang on. This little demo of the contempt in which Brown's cabel holds the Law of the Land is worth at least 10 seats in the GE and turns every Labour constituency into a marginal. Fight on, Dear Lady, for the good of the Nation!

Sam said...

Am I right in thinking that you drove off in your car with the damaged rear light (as shown in your Twitter picture)?

If so, you were breaking the law and that would put you in the same criminal class as Baroness Scotland.

Swatch said...

So instead of spending ten minutes looking it up, and then offering some commentary, you spew out one sentence of drivel.

If this is blogging, you can keep it.

Any colour but brown said...

The comparison is wrong, because a magistrate is still a lay-person.

Baroness Scotland is a barrister, is she not? That means she has to uphold a far higher standard of conduct - that of the Bar.

As I see it, she has failed to do that both in the fact and the spirit of the matter. I sincerely hope that the Bar Association treats the matter with the importance it deserves.

Anonymous said...

"allnottinghambasearebelongtous said...
But be honest Tories, you don't want that to happen just yet do you? You know there's lots of fun to be had from her clinging on for as long as possible ;)"

I want her gone as soon as possible. Fact is, ZaNu Labour has plenty of "spares" that can take her place, but they're all the same as her - Hoons.

jon dee said...

Pretty sure you are right but, since the BBC, the prime minister and of course Baroness Scotland all agree that it's only " a technical breach of the rules", perhaps the magistrate could claim discrimination.

BBC PM gave the affair a second coat of whitewash this evening in another textbook example of unbalanced reporting.

A distraction from Clegg said...

Certainly Brown has handed, on a plate, the NoW some 'sport' for Sunday!

Brown, the man of 'integrity' - what a sick joke.

someday said...

Labour's laws only apply to little people.

Unsworth said...

Shameless lying scum. So many unanswered questions. 'It was a mistake' my arse. There's a whole raft of misinformation being floated by Brown et al. This all needs much closer inspection.

And she still hasn't responded to criticism of her vast expenses claims.

There's not a single Minister who is deserving of respect, not one who displays even a vestige of integrity.

Jelly Custard said...

And what if said Magistrate also claimed £170,000 from the taxpayer inappropriately too?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5347341/is-baroness-scotland-finished.thtml

DespairingLiberal said...

Is it a criminal matter or civil?

If it's civil, mags would not be sacked, although I seem to recall there is something about them not being allowed to be bankrupt. Might be wrong on that last one.

Anonymous said...

Not if they're black, female and Labour supporters. The law doesn't apply to them in the same way as it does to the rest of us.

Colin said...

On the subject of Scotland.

It has occurred to me that the inexplicable spectacle of the Scottish Executive taking a bullet for brown over the Libya scandal, could be the quid pro quo for the equally inexplicable decision of the labour regime to save RBS and BOS.

It was clear at the time that Salmond and his henchmen were desperate to avoid the humiliation of the complete evisceration of the Scottish financial industry, at all costs. Was taking the (initial) flack for the unjustified release of a mass murderer, in return for energy contracts, the price they had to pay?

Off topic, but...

Bath plugs for the many, not the few said...

Will her details be added to the DNA database; will she be prohibited from working with children or vulnerable adults?

Unlikely. New Labour ministers make the laws for the rest of us; they don't have to keep them.

Jonathan McCormack said...

As a long time Mazda MX5 owner I seem to recall Judge Pickles had one as well, but he drove around in his, roof down always wearing a WWII Pilot's flying cap and goggles.

Just Googled quickly before I posted to confirm and found this - http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/motoring-me--my-motor-the-naughty-boy-racer-at-68-judge-pickles-is-carcrazy--and-a-chevrolet-corvette-is-his-latest-love-in-the-first-of-a-new-series-matthew-gwyther-goes-for-a-ride-1496138.html

Thortung The Terrible said...

I found Harperson's choice of words on the BBC interesting. She said "we" will pay the fine. WTF is "we". The taxpayers?

Madame Arcati said...

She's not a magistrate. You'll have your work cut out when the fool Cameron's up there.

Bath plugs for the many, not the few said...

And another thing...

Any other New Labour minister would have simply arranged for the Home Office to provide visa and passport documentation for an illegal immigrant employee.

They must be getting slack if they overlook this apparently simple task.

Anonymous said...

The humble magistrate would certainly face disciplinary action.

In this case Gordon has decided to not discipline his Chief Law Lord Baroness.

Houdini said...

Brown will just hold a reshuffle and move her to a new post...voila! Problem solved.

Anonymous said...

BBC Daily Politics noon today. It was stated she ticks two political boxes, female and black, she will not be sacked unless anything more comes to light. If she were also a Lesbian then she would have no redundancy fears under a Labour government whatsoever.

Martin said...

So i take it that when I 'forget' to renew by TV licence I can claim it was no worse that forgetting to pay the congestion charge and that I won't go to prison?

If I make a genuine error and forget to pay my Council tax I won't go to jail either?

Hmm. As usual one rule for Labour politicians and one rule for the rest.

Shouldn't Damien Green have been arrested? That's what Liebour SCUM normally do when they want to divert attention from their own turds.

Houdini said...

I would also like to ask, at a time when there is a such a lack of jobs and so many on the dole and losing their jobs, why did she employ someone from Tonga in the first place?

British people not good enough?

Anonymous said...

It's a criminal offense, not civil.

Leave her in place for a few days at least. Obliterate coverage of the limp dems, and if she could manage to get sacked in the middle of next week's Labour conference, that would be just grand.

jailhouselawyer said...

I went from a law breaker to a law-maker.

You cannot have a law-maker who is a lawbreaker.

In the House she said we have to crack down on rogue employers.

Seeking to minimise her conduct as a technical administrative error is pure hogwash.

Tory Pearl said...

Yes – most definitely. But once again our completely useless idiot of a Prime Minister stands by another of his lame duck ministers. Baroness Scotland’s protestation that it was a “technical” breach was equally pathetic – it was a breach nevertheless. She might be stupid enough to think there is a difference but we all know there is not.

Paul Halsall said...

You know, Iain, just for once, I hoped you would raise above this, but you couldn't.

When I lived in New York my Democratic friends put up with years of Republican abuse over Clinton and Lewinsky, yet *none* of them went after Giuliani over his public affair with his mistress.

You have managed to keep entirely schtupp this week over Osbourne's huge political fail at the weekend, but jump on this farrago.

I am much more concerned to know if Baroness Scotland was paying her servant at least minimum wage.

But I suppose that question did not even occur to you?

If she did pay less than the minimum wage, I agree she should resign immediately.

PS: Some of the comments here are racist, both to Black people and Scots.

James said...

There's a literacy precedent for this, anyway:

http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/grol/hardy/mayor28.htm

:-)

Frustrated Labour MP said...

Forget the crooked Baroness, all this furore is down to Gordon's inability to make a sensible decision, instead he just hides away hoping that it will have all died down when he resurfaces.

It never does die down and he always has to act in the end. W"hy does he never learm?

Anonymous said...

Does this also apply to traffic offences - such as refusing to obey a red light (an offence under section 36 of the Road Traffic Act)?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7308400.stm

Or is there a special list of offences which, in your eyes, bar someone from public office (maybe adaptable depending on whose doing the offending)?

Sir Edward Heath said...

Surely the Baroness is still upholding the standards of the Bar. The Bar down at my local. Hee! Hee! Hee!

Eddie said...

If the AG saw documents that purported to be genuine, but clearly weren't, will the police be arresting the cleaner for using a false document?

They have an expert witness - the AG herself can testify under oath that she was provided with the document and it appeared original.

But would it stand up in court?

Probably not sufficient evidence to convict - but the AG's word was enough to apparently put her in the clear (other than for the technical breach of not photocopying the fraudulent documents.

trevorsden said...

My thought is that -
the good baroness has not been to court,
has not had a trial,
has not an opportunity to be represented (I presume) by any sort of legal counsel,
has not been fined by a magistrate
and
has not been allowed to speak in her own defence in a public arena.

She has been fined £5000 by The UK Border Agency.

She is lucky - she is privileged and has a man with a self confessed moral compass to protect her (and him).

What about the rest of us in this Brave New Labour World ??

Paul Pinfield said...

I am glad to see I am not the only person who is aghast at her brass neck.

She should not have had a chance to decline to resign. She should have been sacked on the spot.

Gallimaufry said...

Have a look at this explanatory booklet produced by UKBA especially the flowchart on page 11. I am puzzled given the information made public how a £5,000 civil penalty was decided.

Nigel said...

>>If so, you were breaking the law and that would put you in the same criminal class as Baroness Scotland.<

It might seem strange to you, Sam, but the standards required of Attorneys General and bloggers aren't identical.

trevorsden said...

"When I lived in New York my Democratic friends put up with years of Republican abuse over Clinton and Lewinsky, yet *none* of them went after Giuliani over his public affair with his mistress."

Halsall --- Prescott kept his job after his affair became public but in fact he like Clinton should have been in jail. Unlike Guliani they had affairs with people they had a duty of care for - their employees.

Only in your dreams has Osborne had a 'huge political fail'.
The breakdown of the tax numbers were kept secret at the budget. Now they have been exposed as totally bogus. A huge dose of wishful thinking by a destitute Treasury.

Anonymous said...

plotting some kind of internet raid on the conservative party website:

http://www.tinychat.com/btards?n=1keshisafaggot

Cynic said...

"Some of the comments here are racist, both to Black people and Scots."

The problem is that when Government Ministers (never mind Law Officers) blatantly break the alw and treat the community with contempt, where should we serfs now draw the line? If you lie and cheat and screw expenses while in office while Gordon smiles benevolently on, why should we plebs pay taxes or obey laws?

Rich T said...

Something odd here. The state fines someone without a hearing. All done via bureaucracy. OK they can appeal but in what liberal democracy does the executive to determine what is effectively a criminal offence. The section (s.19 Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006) is worded so it looks like a regulatory offence no doubt because those Labour shits wanted to avoid giving people a fair trial. How ironic that 'Lady' Scotland got caught up in her own web!

Eddie said...

From the document linked to by Gallimaufrey:


2.11 If you cannot provide a record of having
conducted the prescribed document checks prior
to recruitment
, or you have accepted a document
which clearly does not belong to the holder, or it
is reasonably apparent that the document is false,
or shows that the person does not have a current
entitlement to work in this country, you shall
be considered to have conducted no check for
the purpose of imposing a penalty
. Where no
check has been conducted, the employer may be
subject to the maximum level of penalty.


So the AG's claim that it was just a technical matter of not photocopying the documents is not true. The actual offence she committed was to fail to carry out any checks.

Jimmy said...

"It was stated she ticks two political boxes, female and black,"

She certainly does on here.

Anonymous said...

NewsFlash - Mandelson defends Baroness for simply not filling in and keeping copies of paperwork properly!! Bet you're amazed too.

Any colour but brown said...

Gallimaufry,
Where they get 5000 is found on page 4 - max fine for a 1st offence and a partial check.

HOWEVER, she did not complete a partial check, as far as I can tell.

"A partial check shall be considered to have been conducted where, for example, you have only checked and copied one of a specified combination of two original documents that are required to establish the statutory excuse"

As I understand it, she didn't copy any documents. That means that she failed to do a partial check, so:

"If you cannot provide a record of having conducted the prescribed document checks prior to recruitment, or you have accepted a document which clearly does not belong to the holder, or it
is reasonably apparent that the document is false, or shows that the person does not have a current
entitlement to work in this country, you shall be considered to have conducted no check for
the purpose of imposing a penalty. Where no check has been conducted, the employer may be subject to the maximum level of penalty."

As she has no copies, she cannot provide a record of having checked the documents - ergo no check has taken place.

"In each case, it is for you to show that you have complied with the requirements to establish a
statutory excuse."

Which she patently has not.

Looking at the list of documents that she has to copy, there is no way that she could have read one of those and not known that it was either fake or out of date.

This is a blatant whitewash as usual with this corrupt Govt.

trevorsden said...

Scotland knew this woman was foreign and did absolutely no checks.

Its blatant. She gets away with it because iof the ridiculous convention that politicians ae not allowed to call politicians liars.

The press can so why not ask her to prove she is not a liar. If we assume this worker did not provide forged documents then she could not have provided ANY documents to check.

Any colour is right.
This woman employed a foreigner not entitled to work here and in so doing took a job away from someone indigenous. She did it because she was related to a friend.

Labour have created a minefield on employment law and this woman pisses all over it whilst other businesses suffer.

Martin said...

Why are the BBC sticking up for her? On the beeboid website it says that she's the only individual prosecuted so far.

Well that's because most people can't afford to employ a nanny or cleaner you dopey beeboids and small businesses are often RUN by families.

Only the BBC with their infestation of left wing Guardian readers have no idea of the real world

Didn't Paxman employ some migrant workers on minimum wage? Only Liebour politicians and rich beeboids can afford it.

Bath plugs for the many, not the few said...

A piece in the Daily Telegraph says http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6220725/Baroness-Scotland-urged-to-quit-by-ministers.html that Scotland confessed in 1991 that she had had a conviction for careless driving 'over 20 years ago'. That would have made her under 16 at the time.

Mind you, it's got Rosa Prince's name on it so it's probably tosh.

Norton Folgate said...

Paul Halsall said...

"Some of the comments here are racist, both to Black people and Scots."

Like clockwork the labour troll cries racism.

If all else fails eh?

Pathetic.

Andrew said...

It's one of those irregular verbs: I make an inadvertent administrative mistake; you make a technical breach of the rules which you pushed through Parliament; he or she commits an offence.

Verity said...

Paul Halsall, who appears to suffer from a condition of ignorance: "PS: Some of the comments here are racist, both to Black people and Scots."

1. Darling, why did you capitalise the word 'black', which is an adjective and not a proper noun. I'd be interested in your explanation for this grammatical impossibility. Don't forget - ignorance of the grammar is no excuse!

2. Scots are Caucasians, sweet thang, as are the English, the French, the Irish, the Germans, the Welsh, the Swedes, the Norwegians, the Danes ... are you following all this?

Any Colour but Brown - Excellent!

Gareth said...

Gallimaufry,

The level of the fine - third column in the table on page four as it is considered to be a 'no checks' situation, bottom line as it's a first offence. Maximum fine £7,500 less £2,500 because Scotland has co-operated.

From the flowcart on page 11 it is either:
no, no, yes, yes - Scotland is said to have reported herself to the UKBA and the fine is a maximum of £7,500 less £2,500 for reporting herself.
or
no, no, no, yes - the maximum fine is £5,000.

Rich T,

The state cannot control free people. First it must box us in with legislation. The reams and reams of new legislation has done a number of things but the worst is it has elevated the bureaucracy above the law.

New, often specific, and largely unneccesary legislation has also created confusion in the mind of the public and Police alike. The public are increasingly being told what we can and must do when it used to be just what we can't and the Police have been incentivised to issue 'penalty charges' rather than put people through the courts.

Jimmy said...

"Scots are Caucasians, sweet thang, as are the English, the French, the Irish, the Germans, the Welsh, the Swedes, the Norwegians, the Danes ... are you following all this?"

Actually no. I know several of the above who aren't caucasians. Are you saying they don't count?

Cynic said...

Magistrates are little people.

john miller said...

There is more to this than meets the eye. I am beginning to think Scottie knew that her cleaner was an illegal. I am beginning to think that because it has been swept under the carpet so quickly.

Has any interviewer asked the Baroness exactly what documents she looked at?

One of them had to be a passport, but was not the passport out of date?

How did Lin Homer know that the Baroness inspected the necessary documents if no copies were kept?

Why is Mandleson intervening, supporting Brown and Scotland when they have both shown appalling judgement?

Anonymous said...

http://order-order.com/2009/09/20/baroness-scotland-accused-of-170000-expense-fiddle/

Osama the Nazarene said...

Colin @6:05 yesterday. My thoughts exactly.

Getting fined £5K for not keeping photocopies sounds really draconian. Getting fined £5K for employing an illegal immigrant is tolerable though somewhat lenient.

Any colour but brown said...

" Osama the Nazarene said...
Getting fined £5K for not keeping photocopies sounds really draconian. "

The fine is for not having proof that you have checked the employees documents. The rule is clear "2.11 If you cannot provide a record of having conducted the prescribed document checks prior to recruitment.......".

Rule 2.8 states "A full check shall be considered to have been
conducted where you can provide copies of certain documents....."

The law regards the copies as proof that the checks have been carried out and on which documents - certain documents require the checks to be carried out annually.

Rule 2.12 states "In each case, it is for you to show that you have
complied with the requirements to establish a statutory excuse." The copies provide that.

Paul Halsall said...

@Verity. I used "Black" as has been customary on the left when referring to Black people.

It is racist to attack people simply for belonging to a race. Although skin colour has, especially in the United States, become the main determiner among some users, it is not really the issue.

Most Jews are white, but Antisemitism is a form of racism. In the same, a person attacked for being English while in Scotland is undergoing a racist attack.

Anonymous said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8270351.stm

Anonymous said...

As a long serving magistrate, I can confirm that any criminal offence, and any civil matter that might bring the magistracy into disrepute, will trigger an investigation by an independent body - the local Advisory Committee. A report will be submitted to the Lord Chief Justice, who will decide whether to take no action. admonish the magistrate, reprimand the magistrate or remove the magistrate. There is also a power of suspension. The behaviour of relatives or friends can also bring an investigation and penalty - even if the magistrate themself had not actually done anything - if the circumstances could bring the magistracy into disrepute. If a magistrate had had a criminal fine, or civil penalty, of £5000 they would be out NO QUESTION.

Malcolm Tucker said...

"Jelly Custard said...
And what if said Magistrate also claimed £170,000 from the taxpayer inappropriately too?"


She didn't. Doesn't stop the Tory liars repeating the same ill-informed falsehood over and over again, though, all the while screaming about Gordon Brown has "no honour".

Alex said...

Note to everyone who keeps saying "There's one law for them and one for everyone else, how come she gets away with it etc" - SHE DIDN'T GET AWAY WITH IT. She got fined £5,000. If anything, it seems she got punished MORE than "normal people", as most first-offenders employing one illegal immigrant get let off with a warning.

Today's Mail has a pair of indignant retailers complaining that they were fined £10,000 and £20,000 for committing exactly the same offence with two and four employees respectively, then claiming it's unfair as they got fined more. This despite 2x5 being 10 and 4x5 being 20.

One even says she should be treated MORE harshly because of who she is.

The Mail does not say these people should be banned from running cafes, BTW.

Any colour but brown said...

Malcolm Tucker, you seem to have fallen into the same trap as everyone else. Look around thwitter, etc and you'll see a number of such posts as yours - maybe you mad them all. Not one has a date earlier than 20th Sept. Oddly, that is the very same date as the last update to the page.

A little digging and you find this:

"8.1
Paid Ministers and other paid office holders cannot claim the members’ overnight allowance but instead may receive Night Subsistence Allowance, equivalent to 220 nights at the overnight subsistence rate. This is available to those whose main or sole home is outside London and who need to fund other accommodation in order to undertake official duties. The allowance is currently £38,280 per annum; it is taxed and paid with salary."

Note that is says outside London.
Source: http://www.ome.uk.com/downloads/SSRB%20review%20of%20House%20of%20Lords%20expenses%20-%20consultation%20document%20-%2030%20June%202009%20-%20pdf.pdf#15

There seems to have been a very surreptitious change to the rules.

Anonymous said...

If you are caught plagiarising while doing law at university in Scotland, you are disqualified from joining the Law Society of Scotland and practising as a solicitor. For a piece of student idiocy, your career is ended before it begins.

If you are caught breaking a law that you yourself introduced and are, thus, not only a criminal but a profoundly stupid criminal, you are a wholly fit and proper individual to hold the office of Attorney General. You can actually ignore the law and still have a glittering legal career.

One law for those who run the State, another for the rest of us.

Malcolm Tucker said...

"Not one has a date earlier than 20th Sept. Oddly, that is the very same date as the last update to the page."

Presumably becasue it would be impossible to link to a page before it was set up? I see there are no responses to Iain's post before 22 September...

You're linking to a report from the Senior Salaries Review Body, not a piece of legislation.

Jimmy said...

"Oddly, that is the very same date as the last update to the page."

You mean not one of us referred to this document before it existed? That is spooky.

What can I say? You got us.

Chris Paul said...

" Osama the Nazarene said...
Getting fined £5K for not keeping photocopies sounds really draconian."

It is draconian I think. For this type of employment situation anyway. For what I'd call an amateur employer. Micros I'd also cut some slack. Regular business less so.

Don't think anyone has produced anything to suggest that BS knew or suspected this woman was not legal. What would be her motivation for taking a risk like this? She thought this woman was legal I'd say.

Mike Law said...

@ Paul Halsall,

Erm, my grandfather on my mother's side was a Jew; he was a follower of a religion and he was of the same race as me.

My grandfather on my father's side was a Scot; he was Scottish national and he was of the same race as me.

I'm English and an atheist - I'm white.

My wife is English and a catholic; she's of a different race to me as she is black.

Paul Halsall said...

@Mike Law,

In some parts of the world you would be called a creole! Congratulations.

Racism does not have much, if anything to do with those who are hated or discriminated against. It's about the fears of the racists.