Reform Policies

ellal · 2026-02-18T16:15:11+0000

motorbiking said:
not true, see:

Equal Pay Act 1970,
Sex Discrimination Act 1975,
Race Relations Act 1976,
Disability Discrimination Act 1995,
Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003,
Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003
Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.

The Equality Act 2010 consolidated over 116 pieces of legislation - including the Equal Pay Act 1970, Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Race Relations Act 1976, and Disability Discrimination Act 1995

But garbage and deform want to get rid of the Equality Act

Edit: And also included...

the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003
the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003
the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006
the Equality Act 2006, Part 2
the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007

motorbiking · 2026-02-18T16:49:45+0000

ellal said:
The Equality Act 2010 consolidated over 116 pieces of legislation - including the Equal Pay Act 1970, Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Race Relations Act 1976, and Disability Discrimination Act 1995

But garbage and deform want to get rid of the Equality Act

Edit: And also included...

the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003
the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003
the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006
the Equality Act 2006, Part 2
the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007

what is your point?

motorbiking · 2026-02-18T16:54:17+0000

MNW67 said:
As far as I know, they no longer exist, as they are all consolidated into the Equality Act.

But I haven't actually checked yet!

I think its reasonable to expect a replacement of rights.

ellal · 2026-02-18T16:54:59+0000

motorbiking said:
what is your point?

If the Equality Act goes, so do all of those

MNW67 · 2026-02-18T16:56:49+0000

motorbiking said:
I think its reasonable to expect a replacement of rights.

That doesn't get headlines, though. The only policy Reform have announced is getting rid of the whole lot.

Looking just at race discrimination. Which bits would you keep and which would you get rid of.

ellal · 2026-02-18T16:57:32+0000

motorbiking said:
I think its reasonable to expect a replacement of rights.

'reasonable to expect'?

If that's how you think, then you truly have problem!

blup · 2026-02-18T17:06:07+0000

MNW67 said:
Looking just at race discrimination. Which bits would you keep and which would you get rid of.

Pretty much all of them. Do you think an independent judiciary (sorry, enemies of the people) would allow a Council to refuse planning permission on the grounds the applicant was Musslim? Or allow planning permission because the applicant had made a major donation to re form uk?

motorbiking · 2026-02-18T17:27:24+0000

MNW67 said:
That doesn't get headlines, though. The only policy Reform have announced is getting rid of the whole lot.

Looking just at race discrimination. Which bits would you keep and which would you get rid of.

I haven't given it much thought.

But I would like to see so called "positive action" addressed. It should not be lawful to promote, filter or otherwise prioritise applications from minority groups in order to increase diversity.

It's as "racist" as your sign. It creates resentment and allegations of "he's the token XXX". Everything should be merit based.

MNW67 · 2026-02-18T17:52:35+0000

motorbiking said:
It's as "racist" as your sign.

No, it's not. That is some strange false equivalency.

ellal · 2026-02-18T17:57:26+0000

motorbiking said:
But I would like to see so called "positive action" addressed. It should not be lawful to promote, filter or otherwise prioritise applications from minority groups in order to increase diversity.

The thing is though, whilst 'positive action' I can agree gives the perception of positive discrimination, the later is illegal when hiring or promoting.

The lines have become blurred, but if the Equality Act was removed we return to the bad old days when it was perfectly legal for example not to hire a person simply because they were black.

festive · 2026-02-18T18:09:22+0000

ellal said:
OK, so as most people can't afford kids without child benefit, what are you going to do about economic growth and finding the people to work in jobs that are needed for an ageing population?

Not to mention not having enough young people to be paying the money for the pensions of the wrinkles?
And don't come out with that 'they've already earned it'/'paid in all their lives' false argument, because it's always been the case that the younger generations pay for the older generations...

So if your argument was to hold, then you'll just have to accept more migrants

Oh and by the way, child benefit has been historically there to provide women with independent money to help look after the kids...

Take it away or limit it and it's another backward step!

Most people can't afford kids without child benefit. Ok this is silly.
Economic growth is another issue, its stifled because our taxes are high. Look at Adult care/child care in every council it's crippling the spend is out of control. That's not on people to give more to irresponsible parents unable to afford ANOTHER kid, making the whole family poorer. We know who this benefits.

Research (based on fertility and birth statistics) shows that women born outside the UK tend on average to have more children than UK-born women — in historical data, the TFR for non-UK-born mothers was notably higher than for UK-born mothers.

Births by parents’ country of birth, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

Annual statistics on live births including countries of birth for non-UK-born mothers and fathers.

www.ons.gov.uk

So we are funding promoting this, NO, pull your racist card out if you want but no. Not paying for them, abide live within our rules or go back to wherever and have them paid for there, ive said alread i am all for equality but not bending the rules to suit certain groups, this is what i feel you are trying to do in the UK, and when it doesn't happen you get upset about it.

festive · 2026-02-18T18:18:02+0000

motorbiking said:
I haven't given it much thought.

But I would like to see so called "positive action" addressed. It should not be lawful to promote, filter or otherwise prioritise applications from minority groups in order to increase diversity.

It's as "racist" as your sign. It creates resentment and allegations of "he's the token XXX". Everything should be merit based.

100% agree this is the issue you have the 'no we aren't racist honest' v 'no we are not anti white honest..'

(note the irony of my use of groups there how we socially accept anti white isn't assumed racist)

motorbiking · 2026-02-18T18:33:37+0000

MNW67 said:
No, it's not. That is some strange false equivalency.

View attachment 408085

"As xxx are currently under-represented in our company, we would particularly welcome applications from xxx"
No Whites
No Men
No Straights

MNW67 · 2026-02-18T18:45:17+0000

motorbiking said:
"As xxx are currently under-represented in our company, we would particularly welcome applications from xxx"
No Whites
No Men
No Straights

That is not what it means.

motorbiking · 2026-02-18T18:56:29+0000

MNW67 said:
That is not what it means.

what do you think the goal of "particularly welcome"means?

Initiatives to increase the numbers of women and people from ethnic minorities in the RAF led to unlawful positive discrimination, an inquiry has found.

RAF diversity targets discriminated against white men

The inquiry began when a female officer quit, saying there was too much pressure to meet targets.

www.bbc.co.uk

Reform Policies

Similar threads