One third of Britons admit being racially prejudiced

[RogueHanger]

unlike the barbaric live beheading style halal slaughter.

More dopey wild claims.
Why don't you calm down and re-consider each post before hitting the submit button.
You'll embarrass youself a lot less.

 

[RogueHanger]

It made the British newspapers.

Then perhaps you would do us the service of providing a link to it.

 

[RogueHanger]

Poor piece of research by even the lowest standards. You might even think its only intention is to stir up racial hatred.

Please explain how you came to your conclusion that the research is of poor quality. You obviously have to come to that conclusion, so share with us your reasons and methods for arriving at such conclusion.

You honstly, think the BBC are trying to ferment racial hatred?

Better research here from the World Values Survey. Shows the UK is among the most racially tolerant Countries in the World.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/world-values-survey-racial-tolerance-britain-468205[/QUOTE]
Hardly, better research, they asked a very simplistic question:
"What kind of people would you not want as neighbours?"
In fact, from your reference, I quote:
"The methods used were not without controversy,........../"
So even your reference accepts that your information had misgivings.

The report makes claims that are not verifiable.

Which report are you refering to?
Without knowing that, it's impossible to continue the discussion.

BTW, the BBC was an aticle that referred to the British Social Attitudes survey. It wasn't a BBC survey or report.

You are hard work. Research gathers data/information of some description and the results are published in a report.

I don't know what you mean about the BBC. I never mentioned the BBC - you did.

Why not just answer the question? (OMG I sound like joe and BT )
You said, "The report makes claims that are not verifiable."
Which report were you referring to.
It's a simple enough question.
There were two reports mentioned. The one in the BBC article (British Social Attitudes) and the one which you intitially provided a link to, (World Values Survey).

So which report are you suggesting was making unverifiable claims?

 

[Brigadier]

Report categorised degree of "racism" based on age, gender, education, political affiliation etc, but not on race / ethnicity of the respondent.
As such, the study has failed to address whether any racial or ethnic group is less or more racially-prejudiced than any other.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this observation, RH (the lack of analysis of "response based on race / ethnicity").

 

[Gasman28]

Report categorised degree of "racism" based on age, gender, education, political affiliation etc, but not on race / ethnicity of the respondent.
As such, the study has failed to address whether any racial or ethnic group is less or more racially-prejudiced than any other.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this observation, RH (the lack of analysis of "response based on race / ethnicity").

Now now Brigadier, you used two words that are not permitted - race and ethnicity. You will now be classed as a racist and abuser. You have been warned
Looks up to the pedestal to find an answer from you know who

 

[richardrich79]

Tell me what you think is the difference between Halal and non-Halal meat

.
With Halal meat the beast is not stunned ie. fully conscious & prayers honouring the sacrifice are said during the slaughter, whereas the non- halal method involves stunning (usually in the case of the larger animals) before being bled-out.
Coming from an agricultural background I am uncomfortably aware of the fear and distress all our farmed creatures experience whilst awaiting their turn for 'the chop'.

 

[RogueHanger]

Report categorised degree of "racism" based on age, gender, education, political affiliation etc, but not on race / ethnicity of the respondent.
As such, the study has failed to address whether any racial or ethnic group is less or more racially-prejudiced than any other.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this observation, RH (the lack of analysis of "response based on race / ethnicity").

Sorry, Brigadier, the simple reason why I didn't respond was because you made a fair point And I thought it would be considered condescending of me to respond as such.
I agree that I was the OP, but to recognise each and every (although there has been only one good point, I think, yours.) post with a "good point" or a "I disagree" could be construed as condescending. I thought.

But as you've repeated it, I can only say, "good point".
But now that you've made that good point, alongside your inference that the study makes no reference to any race/ethnicity or group being more or less prejudiced, I would also agree.

But that doesn't make prejudice right does it? The study just shows what it says on the tin. There is no inference in the study that Brtions are only, or even predomintaely white, although they may be.
It's beyond imagination that the survey would intentionally warp any findings by targetting any particular ethnic group to corrupt the findings, isn't it?

 

[RogueHanger]

Report categorised degree of "racism" based on age, gender, education, political affiliation etc, but not on race / ethnicity of the respondent.
As such, the study has failed to address whether any racial or ethnic group is less or more racially-prejudiced than any other.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this observation, RH (the lack of analysis of "response based on race / ethnicity").

Now now Brigadier, you used two words that are not permitted - race and ethnicity. You will now be classed as a racist and abuser. You have been warned
Looks up to the pedestal to find an answer from you know who

You want a response from me, to tell you how infantile your suggestion was?
OK, then you have it.

 

[RogueHanger]

Tell me what you think is the difference between Halal and non-Halal meat

.
With Halal meat the beast is not stunned ie. fully conscious & prayers honouring the sacrifice are said during the slaughter, whereas the non- halal method involves stunning (usually in the case of the larger animals) before being bled-out.
Coming from an agricultural background I am uncomfortably aware of the fear and distress all our farmed creatures experience whilst awaiting their turn for 'the chop'.

You're regurgitating misapprehensions that were thoroughly discussed only a week ago.
Can I suggest that you revise those posts and return with a more informed view.
To address your specific point, I'll regurgitate my comment from that thread:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>HOLD THE FRONT PAGE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Coathanger's made his first ever post that makes any sense.


So, that's two barbaric, backward, sadistic forms of animal cruelty that need to be stamped out. Bull fighting and halal slaughter methods.

Surely it would be hypocritical to condemn one without the other?

The majority of animals slaughtered in abattoirs in the UK are done by the vey same method, irrespective of it being halal or not.
The only differences are that Halal meat is slaughtered while a prayer is whispered and it is done by a Muslim.

Are you trying to suggest that it's somehow more cruel to say a prayer, than not to, while an animal is slaughtered?

You stretch to incredulity sometimes, sorry, I'll change that, all the time!

Obviously, the world is still waiting for your first sensible comment.

I think you need to check your facts on halal.

I think it is you that needs to check facts:

FACT. Not all animals killed in The Uk by this method are stunned.

You will now (perhaps) notice that I said, "the majority". I highlighted it for you. There are over 10,000 abattoirs in the UK. http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/sectorrules/meatplantsprems/meatpremlicence There are over 150 Halal abattoirs using stunning. There are 12 abattoirs that do not stun.
Additionally, all animals killed on farms, etc throughout the UK are not stunned, for convenience, nothing to do with religion.

FACT. Whilst European law requires animals to be stunned before slaughter, there is an exemption in place in The UK for halal. (Aren't there always accommodations made for their backward ways? )

See above. 12 Halal abbattoirs that do not stun and are specially licensed. Over 150 Halal abattoirs that do stun. Is it just as backward for catholics to go to confession, or CofE to be baptised? Or prayers said at funerals?

 

[Big Tone]

Like this Richard?

Warning - Not for the squeamish! (I couldn't watch it all )

 

[Brigadier]

Thank you RH.

Without removing any obvious discrepancies or ambiguities, the study runs the risk of some people making perhaps spurious or inflammatory assumptions, to "fill in the blanks". This in itself is potentially inflammatory, and divisive.

"Publish and be damned!"

Or is the study intended to be so?

 

[RogueHanger]

Thank you RH.

Without removing any obvious discrepancies or ambiguities, the study runs the risk of some people making perhaps spurious or inflammatory assumptions, to "fill in the blanks". This in itself is potentially inflammatory, and divisive.

"Publish and be damned!"

Or is the study intended to be so?

Quite so, Brigadier, the study does indeed run the risk of some people making spurious and inflammatory assumptions.
The study has been carried out every year since 1983 to monitor trends in social attitudes.

Now if your suggestion is that it's inflammatory and divisive, I would argue that your assumption is one of those spurious and inflammatory claims. Addditionally it's only a claim without a shred of supportive argument, merely your opinion of the survey.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I don't share it.

If I choose between an observation on social atitudes and how they change over time conducted by a respected body, and your opinion, I'll choose the social attitudes survey every time.

 

[Brigadier]

Thank you RH.

Without removing any obvious discrepancies or ambiguities, the study runs the risk of some people making perhaps spurious or inflammatory assumptions, to "fill in the blanks". This in itself is potentially inflammatory, and divisive.

"Publish and be damned!"

Or is the study intended to be so?

Quite so, Brigadier, the study does indeed run the risk of some people making spurious and inflammatory assumptions.
The study has been carried out every year since 1983 to monitor trends in social attitudes.

Now if your suggestion is that it's inflammatory and divisive, I would argue that your assumption is one of those spurious and inflammatory claims. Addditionally it's only a claim without a shred of supportive argument, merely your opinion of the survey.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I don't share it.

If I choose between an observation on social atitudes and how they change over time conducted by a respected body, and your opinion, I'll choose the social attitudes survey every time.

That the study is inflammatory and divisive is neither my opinion, assertion, or claim - I have just demonstrated the ability to see the world from a viewpoint other than my own.

If one cannot envisage or imagine another's viewpoint, they will be limited in what they can bring to any debate.

 

[Trazor]

What a ridiculous survey.

No mention of which sections of society were questioned with reference to other sections.

If you were to ask Sikh,s, about Muslims the percentage being racially prejudiced would be extremely high.

And this occurs across all immigrant races.

In fact if you were to analyse all sections of society accurately, I would be willing to bet that white English would be amongst the most tolerant of all.

 

[jockscott]

What a ridiculous survey.

No mention of which sections of society were questioned with reference to other sections.

If you were to ask Sikh,s, about Muslims the percentage being racially prejudiced would be extremely high.

And this occurs across all immigrant races.

In fact if you were to analyse all sections of society accurately, I would be willing to bet that white English would be amongst the most tolerant of all.

I'm sure if the survey had asked 2000 Pakistani Muslims, which race they hate, the answer would have been "All other races."