"Profoundly disturbing", indeed.




England is in the middle of a profoundly disturbing social experiment. 
For the first time in a mature democracy, a Government is waging a 
campaign of aggressive discrimination against its indigenous population.   

In the name of cultural diversity, Labour attacks anything that smacks 
of Englishness. The mainstream public are treated with contempt, their 
rights ignored, their history trashed. In their own land, the English 
are being turned into second-class citizens.

This trend was highlighted this week by the case of Abigail Howarth, a 
bright teenager who applied for a training position with the Environment 
Agency in East Anglia but was turned down because she was too white and 
English. The post, which carries a £13,000 grant, was open only to 
ethnic minorities, including the Scots, Welsh and Irish.

Such social engineering was justified by the Agency on the grounds that 
minorities were under-represented in its workforce, the parrot cry used 
by bureaucrats throughout the public sector to justify bias against the 
English. 


Almost every interaction with any public service now leads to a detailed 
analysis of one’s ethnic status


Though Abigail’s case rightly caused outrage, it was not unique. This 
kind of reverse discrimination is now rife across the state machine, 
underwritten by the very English tax­payers who are the targets of 
institutional prejudice.

Although it is technically illegal to restrict jobs to certain ethnic 
groups, the racially fixated commissars have found a way round that 
problem by developing training schemes open only to minorities. Under 
the 1976 Race Relations Act it is permissible to use racial 
considerations in recruitment to trainee positions such as the one to 
which Abigail applied. 

Such practices are dressed up as “positive action” to widen diversity 
and, in the words of one Labour council, “to overcome past 
discrimination”. So HM Revenue and Customs offers work experience jobs, 
worth up to £15,900 a year pro-rata, to ethnic minority graduates, while 
the Museums Association has two-year ethnic minority apprenticeships.
		


Similarly, Birmingham City Council gives £16,000 a year to “black and 
minority ethnic individuals” in its “Positive Action Traineeship 
Scheme”, and a £10,000 allowance to clerical trainees from “the 
Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities”.

Discriminatory training schemes can also be found in ITV, the civil 
service and the NHS, which boasts “a management development programme 
specifically designed and tail­ored to the needs of black and minority 
ethnic midwives”. 

It was revealed last year that Avon and Somerset Constab-ulary rejected 
186 applications from white men on the grounds that they were already 
“over-represented” in the force. In the same way, London Mayor Ken 
Livingstone last month refused to endorse a series of nominations for 
the London Fire Authority because they were dominated by whites.

And whole towns are beginning to suffer state disapproval. Eighty 
administrative jobs in the Prison Service have recently been transferred 
from Corby in Northamptonshire to Leicester because, as the Home Office 
admitted, Corby’s population is predominantly “white British”, a 
terrible sin in our multicultural society.

It is a bitter irony that the Labour Government, which 
works itself into such a synthetic rage over racial prejudice, should 
practise overt discrimination on an epic scale. The remorseless focus on 
supporting minorities has led to a perverted ideology of anti-white racism. 

Almost every interaction with any public service now leads to a detailed 
analysis of one’s ethnic status. A vast race equality industry has been 
built up, filled with overpaid paper shufflers, consultants and advisers 
with little to do except invent new grievances.  

There is an air of the Maoist permanent revolution about their 
activities. Since immigration now runs at probably one 
million people a year, the make-up of society is changing 
dramatically. So, in this climate of endless demographic upheaval, the 
race relations brigade will always be able to invent more work for itself.

Yet anti-English discrimination undermines the central plank of the 
propaganda for mass immigration. We are constantly told we need vast 
influxes of foreigners to boost our economy and fill vacancies but 
unem­ployment levels in immigrant communities are so high and skills so 
lacking that we need to reserve parts of our economy for them.
So if we have to spend a fortune on training schemes, why are we 
inviting hundreds of thousands of arrivals from the 
Third World and Eastern Europe here every year?

Economics have little to do with the issue. The Left in Britain have 
seized on mass immigration and multiculturalism as a battering ram to 
destroy the society they despise. They once sought to change our country 
through economic revolution. That failed with the Winter of Discontent 
and the downfall of communism. But demographic change through migration 
has proved far more damaging.

George Orwell once wrote: “England is perhaps the only great country 
whose intellec­tuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In Left-wing 
circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful 
in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English 
institution.”

That is now precisely the mentality that predominates within the 
machinery of the British state. And our country is dying as a result.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/15991/How-the-Government-has-declared-war-on-white-English-people

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:L5xwm.43345$j34.34613@newsfe01.iad...
> "Profoundly disturbing", indeed.
>
>
>
>
> England is in the middle of a profoundly disturbing social experiment. For 
> the first time in a mature democracy, a Government is waging a campaign of 
> aggressive discrimination against its indigenous population.>
> In the name of cultural diversity, Labour attacks anything that smacks of 
> Englishness. The mainstream public are treated with contempt, their rights 
> ignored, their history trashed. In their own land, the English are being 
> turned into second-class citizens.
>
> This trend was highlighted this week by the case of Abigail Howarth, a 
> bright teenager who applied for a training position with the Environment 
> Agency in East Anglia but was turned down because she was too white and 
> English. The post, which carries a £13,000 grant, was open only to ethnic 
> minorities, including the Scots, Welsh and Irish.
>
> Such social engineering was justified by the Agency on the grounds that 
> minorities were under-represented in its workforce, the parrot cry used by 
> bureaucrats throughout the public sector to justify bias against the 
> English.>
>
> Almost every interaction with any public service now leads to a detailed 
> analysis of one's ethnic status

That's true.  I applied for a blue badge (disabled parking) recently, and 
they wanted to know what race I was.  Not sure why...  I kind of doubt it's 
in preparation for the introduction of whites-only parking spaces.   We see 
so many efforts made to reduce the relevance of race, but the very effort 
itself just seems to make race end up mattering even more.  Previously 
no-one cared what colour I was, and I really don't see why it should matter 
now.  It obviously must matter to someone running things.  It just seems to 
send the message that race didn't matter before, but now it does.  To my 
mind that doesn't seem helpful.

A recently introduced census question (I'm pretty sure it started in 2001) 
was asking people what .religion they were.  Why should that matter to the 
state?  Are they wanting more hospitals to be built around where Snake 
Handlers live?

I was pleased to see people turn on the question by entering "Jedi"!

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=297&Pos=&ColRank=2&Rank=1000


TWP

In message , TWP
 writes
>> Almost every interaction with any public service now leads to a detailed
>> analysis of one's ethnic status
>
>That's true.  I applied for a blue badge (disabled parking) recently, and
>they wanted to know what race I was.  Not sure why...

Me neither... I refuse to complete those. I get annoyed at the many
subdivisions for some groups but many others are grouped into one tag

>A recently introduced census question (I'm pretty sure it started in 2001)
>was asking people what .religion they were.  Why should that matter to the
>state?

Just general demographics.  Jedi Knight :-)

>I was pleased to see people turn on the question by entering "Jedi"!
>
>http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=297&Pos=&ColRank=2&Rank=1000

One of those I am

390,000 people said "Jedi" but it got luped in with no religion. However
if all those with "no religion" said "Jedi" about 16% of the UK would be
a Jedi making it the second "religion" in the UK to Christianity and
larger than all the rest put together.

BTW  It would be intresting to see what happens if they divided the
Christians in to CofE, Catholics, Evangelists and JW's.... (or
gays/lesbians, pedophiles, deranged and door-stepers as they are more
commonly known)  the Jedi's might win it :-)

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:28:38 퍝, TWP  wrote> "Jesse"  wrote in message
> news:L5xwm.43345$j34.34613@newsfe01.iad...
>> "Profoundly disturbing", indeed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> England is in the middle of a profoundly disturbing social experiment>> For
>> the first time in a mature democracy, a Government is waging a campaign  >> of
>> aggressive discrimination against its indigenous population.>
>> In the name of cultural diversity, Labour attacks anything that smacks  >> of
>> Englishness. The mainstream public are treated with contempt, their  >> rights
>> ignored, their history trashed. In their own land, the English are being
>> turned into second-class citizens.
>>
>> This trend was highlighted this week by the case of Abigail Howarth, a
>> bright teenager who applied for a training position with the Environment
>> Agency in East Anglia but was turned down because she was too white and
>> English. The post, which carries a £13,000 grant, was open only to  >> ethnic
>> minorities, including the Scots, Welsh and Irish.
>>
>> Such social engineering was justified by the Agency on the grounds that
>> minorities were under-represented in its workforce, the parrot cry used  >> by
>> bureaucrats throughout the public sector to justify bias against the
>> English.>
>>
>> Almost every interaction with any public service now leads to a detailed
>> analysis of one's ethnic status
>
> That's true.  I applied for a blue badge (disabled parking) recently, and
> they wanted to know what race I was.  Not sure why...  I kind of doubt> it's
> in preparation for the introduction of whites-only parking spaces.   We  > see
> so many efforts made to reduce the relevance of race, but the very effort
> itself just seems to make race end up mattering even more.  Previously> no-one cared what colour I was, and I really don't see why it should  > matter
> now.  It obviously must matter to someone running things.  It just seems  > to
> send the message that race didn't matter before, but now it does.  To my
> mind that doesn't seem helpful.
>
> A recently introduced census question (I'm pretty sure it started in  > 2001)
> was asking people what .religion they were.  Why should that matter to> the
> state?  Are they wanting more hospitals to be built around where Snake> Handlers live?
>
> I was pleased to see people turn on the question by entering "Jedi"!
>
> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=297&Pos=&ColRank=2&Rank=1000
>
>
> TWP
>
>
>

It's nothing to do with race or immigration. English nationalism has  always been treated as subservient to the notion of 'Britishness' that  underlies the Westminster Unionist project. As David Rickards has recently  pointed out in openDemocracy, however, this project is now falling apartat the seams, since England is the only part of the UK not to have its own  devolved administration. And people do like devolution, because it meansthat politicians are accessible, and therefore accountable, which the  Westminster bunch have shown they are not.

www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/david_r.../britain_and_england

<quote>
Maybe it will take the definitive breaking up of the political and  constitutional Union of Great Britain through Scottish independence for the Westminster political class to rediscover and ‘own' its true national  foundations in England. The British establishment formerly affirmed  England as inseparable from the Union of Great Britain but has latterly repudiated it in the attempt to preserve (its identity as / the illusionof) a unitary ‘Britain' that flies in the face of the facts.

Once restored to a healthy perception of reality, it is to be hoped thatthe renewed England-based establishment will also be a much more  democratic government and parliament of and for the people of England,  rather than merely a means of rule over England - whether this is part of  a broader multi-national ‘British federation' / ‘united kingdom' or not.  But if the present establishment does wish to keep Scotland and England together in some sort of union, it must shake off the delusion that thiscan ever again be a national Union, whether the old Great Britain or thenew Britain.
</quote>

The point of David Rickards' article has already been taken up by the  English Democrats, whose chairman, Robin Tilbrook, recently appeared on the BBC Politics show.

www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/

See also:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats_Party

Green political shoots? I hope so.

-- Facts are sacred ... but comment is free.

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:19:14 퍝, Robin T Cox  wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:28:38 퍝, TWP  wrote:
>
>>
>> "Jesse"  wrote in message
>> news:L5xwm.43345$j34.34613@newsfe01.iad...
>>> "Profoundly disturbing", indeed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> England is in the middle of a profoundly disturbing social experiment.  >>> For
>>> the first time in a mature democracy, a Government is waging a  >>> campaign of
>>> aggressive discrimination against its indigenous population.>
>>> In the name of cultural diversity, Labour attacks anything that smacks  >>> of
>>> Englishness. The mainstream public are treated with contempt, their >>> rights
>>> ignored, their history trashed. In their own land, the English are  >>> being
>>> turned into second-class citizens.
>>>
>>> This trend was highlighted this week by the case of Abigail Howarth, a
>>> bright teenager who applied for a training position with the  >>> Environment
>>> Agency in East Anglia but was turned down because she was too white and
>>> English. The post, which carries a £13,000 grant, was open only to  >>> ethnic
>>> minorities, including the Scots, Welsh and Irish.
>>>
>>> Such social engineering was justified by the Agency on the grounds that
>>> minorities were under-represented in its workforce, the parrot cry  >>> used by
>>> bureaucrats throughout the public sector to justify bias against the>>> English.>
>>>
>>> Almost every interaction with any public service now leads to a  >>> detailed
>>> analysis of one's ethnic status
>>
>> That's true.  I applied for a blue badge (disabled parking) recently,>> and
>> they wanted to know what race I was.  Not sure why...  I kind of doubt  >> it's
>> in preparation for the introduction of whites-only parking spaces.   We  >> see
>> so many efforts made to reduce the relevance of race, but the very  >> effort
>> itself just seems to make race end up mattering even more.  Previously
>> no-one cared what colour I was, and I really don't see why it should >> matter
>> now.  It obviously must matter to someone running things.  It just  >> seems to
>> send the message that race didn't matter before, but now it does.  To my
>> mind that doesn't seem helpful.
>>
>> A recently introduced census question (I'm pretty sure it started in >> 2001)
>> was asking people what .religion they were.  Why should that matter to  >> the
>> state?  Are they wanting more hospitals to be built around where Snake
>> Handlers live?
>>
>> I was pleased to see people turn on the question by entering "Jedi"!
>>
>> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=297&Pos=&ColRank=2&Rank=1000
>>
>>
>> TWP
>>
>>
>>
>
> It's nothing to do with race or immigration. English nationalism has  > always been treated as subservient to the notion of 'Britishness' that> underlies the Westminster Unionist project. As David Rickards has  > recently pointed out in openDemocracy, however, this project is now  > falling apart at the seams, since England is the only part of the UK not  > to have its own devolved administration. And people do like devolution> because it means that politicians are accessible, and therefore  > accountable, which the Westminster bunch have shown they are not.
>
> www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/david_r.../britain_and_england
>
> <quote>
> Maybe it will take the definitive breaking up of the political and  > constitutional Union of Great Britain through Scottish independence for  > the Westminster political class to rediscover and ‘own' its true  > national foundations in England. The British establishment formerly  > affirmed England as inseparable from the Union of Great Britain but has  > latterly repudiated it in the attempt to preserve (its identity as / the  > illusion of) a unitary ‘Britain' that flies in the face of the facts.
>
> Once restored to a healthy perception of reality, it is to be hoped that  > the renewed England-based establishment will also be a much more  > democratic government and parliament of and for the people of England,> rather than merely a means of rule over England - whether this is part> of a broader multi-national ‘British federation' / ‘united kingdom' or  > not. But if the present establishment does wish to keep Scotland and  > England together in some sort of union, it must shake off the delusion> that this can ever again be a national Union, whether the old Great  > Britain or the new Britain.
> </quote>
>
> The point of David Rickards' article has already been taken up by the > English Democrats, whose chairman, Robin Tilbrook, recently appeared on  > the BBC Politics show.
>
> www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/
>
> See also:
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats_Party
>
> Green political shoots? I hope so.
>

Sorry, the openDemocracy link should have been:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/david_rickard/britain_and_england



-- Facts are sacred ... but comment is free.

"TWP"  wrote ...

> I applied for a blue badge (disabled parking) recently, and they wanted to 
> know what race I was.  Not sure why...  I kind of doubt it's in 
> preparation for the introduction of whites-only parking spaces.   We see 
> so many efforts made to reduce the relevance of race, but the very effort 
> itself just seems to make race end up mattering even more.  Previously 
> no-one cared what colour I was, and I really don't see why it should 
> matter now.  It obviously must matter to someone running things.  It just 
> seems to send the message that race didn't matter before, but now it does. 
> To my mind that doesn't seem helpful.

The problem is, how else do they demonstrate that they are not 
discriminating against people, and do so without discriminating ? And how do 
they identify if there are problems which may relate to or they are not 
addressing certain ethnic groups ?

It's really all come about through recognising that there is discrimination, 
and then attempting to measure it and / or deal with it.

The question is not usually compulsory to answer.


> A recently introduced census question (I'm pretty sure it started in 2001) 
> was asking people what .religion they were.  Why should that matter to the 
> state?  Are they wanting more hospitals to be built around where Snake 
> Handlers live?

It was the only question which wasn't compulsory to complete and no 
legislated compulsion to complete it truthfully.


> I was pleased to see people turn on the question by entering "Jedi"!

I'm one of those in the midichlorin gang. Most people I know are.


> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=297&Pos=&ColRank=2&Rank=1000

"did hoax campaign boost response in teens and 20s"

Not sure it can truly be called a "hoax" or that the reason people put Jedi 
was because if enough did they thought it would be listed as an official 
religion. I recall the Jedi campaign started in Australia before our census 
and the 'will become official' had been well debunked.

I personally think most people who claimed Jedi did so to see what would 
happen, how many more people would. It seems to have mainly revealed clumps 
of Jedi so undoubtedly an element of, 'I'll do it if you do it' involved.

Maybe what it really showed was that just 400,000 people weren't so fearful 
of government and potential consequences that they felt they could exercise 
free will ;-)

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:WMpym.101943$OO7.72244@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> I applied for a blue badge (disabled parking) recently, and they wanted 
>> to know what race I was.  Not sure why...  I kind of doubt it's in 
>> preparation for the introduction of whites-only parking spaces.   We see 
>> so many efforts made to reduce the relevance of race, but the very effort 
>> itself just seems to make race end up mattering even more.  Previously 
>> no-one cared what colour I was, and I really don't see why it should 
>> matter now.  It obviously must matter to someone running things.  It just 
>> seems to send the message that race didn't matter before, but now it 
>> does. To my mind that doesn't seem helpful.
>
> The problem is, how else do they demonstrate that they are not 
> discriminating against people, and do so without discriminating ? And how 
> do they identify if there are problems which may relate to or they are not 
> addressing certain ethnic groups ?
>
> It's really all come about through recognising that there is 
> discrimination, and then attempting to measure it and / or deal with it.
>
> The question is not usually compulsory to answer.

It was for me - an official completed the form for me (I didn't ask him to). 
He just mumbled "race... white" and wrote a tick.   I bet there are many 
times when it may not be compulsory, but people answer anyway for fear of 
whatever they're applying for being rejected or delayed.

It shouldn't be asked.  If you were always categorised by hair colour your 
hair colour would always matter.  Maybe it's in an effort to "be fair", but 
it just re-affirms to blonde people that they're being categorised so that 
they can be excluded arbitrarily on a quota basis in favour of 
recently-arrived dark-haired people, which seems to them a bit of a liberty 
since just about everyone in the country was once blonde so they were here 
first, and it just re-affirms to the dark haired people that they still 
wouldn't get a look-in without there was a quota system because they're 
still not being treated equally even though they were born in the same place 
as the blonde people.


>
>
>> A recently introduced census question (I'm pretty sure it started in 
>> 2001) was asking people what .religion they were.  Why should that matter 
>> to the state?  Are they wanting more hospitals to be built around where 
>> Snake Handlers live?
>
> It was the only question which wasn't compulsory to complete and no 
> legislated compulsion to complete it truthfully.

That wasn't exactly what the media said at he time.  They warned people that 
it was an offence to supply incorrect information, so you could be in 
trouble if you wrote "Jedi".  As it turns out the questions was excluded 
from penalties.  I didn't answer.  I consider it the state's job to oversee 
the country, not me.  As long as I'm obeying the law and paying taxes I 
could be in my cellar drinking blood and calling on the fallen one.  It's 
none of their business.

The information wasn't used correctly anyway.  They had no right to group 
the Jedi into a no answer category.  What if some of the Jedi considered 
themselves genuine?  So what if there isn't a church for the Jedi (someone 
should open one to get around the technicality!), lots of people who 
consider themselves Christians probably only see the inside of a church at 
their Christening, marriage and funeral, so why are they more legit than 
someone who writes "Jedi"?  Let's start putting all those of lapsed faith 
into "no answer" whatever they enter, just to be fair.

National Statistics should be sued for theoism!



>
> Maybe what it really showed was that just 400,000 people weren't so 
> fearful of government and potential consequences that they felt they could 
> exercise free will ;-)

Don't worry - they know where they all live now! :-)


TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:WMpym.101943$OO7.72244@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>>> I applied for a blue badge (disabled parking) recently, and they wanted 
>>> to know what race I was.  Not sure why...  I kind of doubt it's in 
>>> preparation for the introduction of whites-only parking spaces.   We see 
>>> so many efforts made to reduce the relevance of race, but the very 
>>> effort itself just seems to make race end up mattering even more. 
>>> Previously no-one cared what colour I was, and I really don't see why it 
>>> should matter now.  It obviously must matter to someone running things. 
>>> It just seems to send the message that race didn't matter before, but 
>>> now it does. To my mind that doesn't seem helpful.
>>
>> The problem is, how else do they demonstrate that they are not 
>> discriminating against people, and do so without discriminating ? And how 
>> do they identify if there are problems which may relate to or they are 
>> not addressing certain ethnic groups ?
>>
>> It's really all come about through recognising that there is 
>> discrimination, and then attempting to measure it and / or deal with it.
>>
>> The question is not usually compulsory to answer.
>
> It was for me - an official completed the form for me (I didn't ask him 
> to). He just mumbled "race... white" and wrote a tick.   I bet there are 
> many times when it may not be compulsory, but people answer anyway for 
> fear of whatever they're applying for being rejected or delayed.

That's people not standing up and demanding their rights, having allowed 
themselves to live in fear of the system.


> It shouldn't be asked.  If you were always categorised by hair colour your 
> hair colour would always matter.  Maybe it's in an effort to "be fair", 
> but it just re-affirms to blonde people that they're being categorised so 
> that they can be excluded arbitrarily on a quota basis in favour of 
> recently-arrived dark-haired people, which seems to them a bit of a 
> liberty since just about everyone in the country was once blonde so they 
> were here first, and it just re-affirms to the dark haired people that 
> they still wouldn't get a look-in without there was a quota system because 
> they're still not being treated equally even though they were born in the 
> same place as the blonde people.

No one can stop people imagining it confirms anything they want to think it 
confirms. It of course neither confirms nor is evidence of any of those 
things.


>>> A recently introduced census question (I'm pretty sure it started in 
>>> 2001) was asking people what .religion they were.  Why should that 
>>> matter to the state?  Are they wanting more hospitals to be built around 
>>> where Snake Handlers live?
>>
>> It was the only question which wasn't compulsory to complete and no 
>> legislated compulsion to complete it truthfully.
>
> That wasn't exactly what the media said at he time.  They warned people 
> that it was an offence to supply incorrect information, so you could be in 
> trouble if you wrote "Jedi".

Typical spin, but I expect it did convince a number of people not to write 
"Jedi". Again, that comes down to people not standing up for their rights, 
not knowing their rights, or simply, gullibly believing what they were told. 
The Census (Amendment) Act 2000 was clear there was no legal penalty.


> As it turns out the questions was excluded from penalties.  I didn't 
> answer.  I consider it the state's job to oversee the country, not me.  As 
> long as I'm obeying the law and paying taxes I could be in my cellar 
> drinking blood and calling on the fallen one.  It's none of their 
> business.

It seems everything is the government's business these days ;-)


> The information wasn't used correctly anyway.  They had no right to group 
> the Jedi into a no answer category.  What if some of the Jedi considered 
> themselves genuine?  So what if there isn't a church for the Jedi (someone 
> should open one to get around the technicality!), lots of people who 
> consider themselves Christians probably only see the inside of a church at 
> their Christening, marriage and funeral, so why are they more legit than 
> someone who writes "Jedi"?  Let's start putting all those of lapsed faith 
> into "no answer" whatever they enter, just to be fair.
>
> National Statistics should be sued for theoism!

Except they didn't file under "No answer" ... Jedi Knight got it's own 
classification code (896) distinct from "None" (899) and "Other Religion" 
(700).

Presumably, if they ever include religion on ID Cards, it'll flash up as 
Jedi going through check-in. Not sure if that's good or bad.


>> Maybe what it really showed was that just 400,000 people weren't so 
>> fearful of government and potential consequences that they felt they 
>> could exercise free will ;-)
>
> Don't worry - they know where they all live now! :-)

True. I cannot remember if the census actually asks for names, though not 
hard to work out in most cases.

But then, unless one should fear the state, there's not a lot to worry 
about. First they came for the Sith ...

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:TVLym.219$KR3.148@text.news.virginmedia.com...


>> The information wasn't used correctly anyway.  They had no right to group 
>> the Jedi into a no answer category.  What if some of the Jedi considered 
>> themselves genuine?  So what if there isn't a church for the Jedi 
>> (someone should open one to get around the technicality!), lots of people 
>> who consider themselves Christians probably only see the inside of a 
>> church at their Christening, marriage and funeral, so why are they more 
>> legit than someone who writes "Jedi"?  Let's start putting all those of 
>> lapsed faith into "no answer" whatever they enter, just to be fair.
>>
>> National Statistics should be sued for theoism!
>
> Except they didn't file under "No answer" ... Jedi Knight got it's own 
> classification code (896) distinct from "None" (899) and "Other Religion" 
> (700).
>

It amounted to the same thing.  They just effectively created another "no 
answer" category.  They obviously didn't want their statistics tarnished by 
a prank, but it wasn't their place to decide that.  They were supplied with 
data.  Once they started playing with that data to make it more truly 
representative I think it actually started to become less accurate.  Your 
information is only counted if they think the information you've supplied is 
accurate.  Not the way to do it really.

What if people had written that they were druids?  What if they'd written 
they worshipped the stars?  What it really does do is show how meaningless 
and purposeless the question actually was in the first place.




> True. I cannot remember if the census actually asks for names, though not 
> hard to work out in most cases.
>
> But then, unless one should fear the state, there's not a lot to worry 
> about. First they came for the Sith ...

Wouldn't the Sith be the ones coming for everyone else?

I find your lack of faith disturbing...


TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:TVLym.219$KR3.148@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
>
>>> The information wasn't used correctly anyway.  They had no right to 
>>> group the Jedi into a no answer category.  What if some of the Jedi 
>>> considered themselves genuine?  So what if there isn't a church for the 
>>> Jedi (someone should open one to get around the technicality!), lots of 
>>> people who consider themselves Christians probably only see the inside 
>>> of a church at their Christening, marriage and funeral, so why are they 
>>> more legit than someone who writes "Jedi"?  Let's start putting all 
>>> those of lapsed faith into "no answer" whatever they enter, just to be 
>>> fair.
>>>
>>> National Statistics should be sued for theoism!
>>
>> Except they didn't file under "No answer" ... Jedi Knight got it's own 
>> classification code (896) distinct from "None" (899) and "Other Religion" 
>> (700).
>>
>
> It amounted to the same thing.  They just effectively created another "no 
> answer" category.

You could argue the same for any religion which was given its own 
categorisation, but that would be silly.


> They obviously didn't want their statistics tarnished by a prank, but it 
> wasn't their place to decide that.  They were supplied with data.  Once 
> they started playing with that data to make it more truly representative I 
> think it actually started to become less accurate.  Your information is 
> only counted if they think the information you've supplied is accurate. 
> Not the way to do it really.

How have they 'played with the data', made it 'less accurate' ? The results 
simply indicate what people wrote in that particular box. Those who wrote 
Jedi were categorised as those who wrote Jedi, not anything else.

Where is any evidence that "Your information is only counted if they think 
the information you've supplied is accurate" ?

Surely if the were doing that they'd have filed it under "Other" or "None". 
It seems the fact that they counted "Jedi" and categorised it as such they 
are doing their best to maintain accuracy.


> What if people had written that they were druids?

314 Druidism


>What if they'd written they worshipped the stars?

Probably filed under 700 "Other Religion" as there's no specific "Sabaism" 
category, and 344 "Own Belief System" isn't exactly accurate.


> What it really does do is show how meaningless and purposeless the 
> question actually was in the first place.

Not really, data is data, numbers are numbers. The only thing which is 
meaningful is how that data is interpreted.


>> True. I cannot remember if the census actually asks for names, though not 
>> hard to work out in most cases.
>>
>> But then, unless one should fear the state, there's not a lot to worry 
>> about. First they came for the Sith ...
>
> Wouldn't the Sith be the ones coming for everyone else?
>
> I find your lack of faith disturbing...

:-)

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:m%Mym.256$KR3.137@text.news.virginmedia.com...

>> They obviously didn't want their statistics tarnished by a prank, but it 
>> wasn't their place to decide that.  They were supplied with data.  Once 
>> they started playing with that data to make it more truly representative 
>> I think it actually started to become less accurate.  Your information is 
>> only counted if they think the information you've supplied is accurate. 
>> Not the way to do it really.
>
> How have they 'played with the data', made it 'less accurate' ?

By only treating data they believe is meaningful as meaningful.


>
> Where is any evidence that "Your information is only counted if they think 
> the information you've supplied is accurate" ?
>

Census returns of the Jedi
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2757067.stm

"And although the sci-fi sect was not officially listed as a religion, 
collators did include a special code to register the Jedis. "



They included a special code, but didn't recognise the religion.  As far as 
I can tell they just binned the results.  They wrote "Jedi" on the bin, but 
binned them did they.

Sorry, I'm getting carried away here...



TWP

Talk Like a Jedi Day?

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:m%Mym.256$KR3.137@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
>>> They obviously didn't want their statistics tarnished by a prank, but it 
>>> wasn't their place to decide that.  They were supplied with data.  Once 
>>> they started playing with that data to make it more truly representative 
>>> I think it actually started to become less accurate.  Your information 
>>> is only counted if they think the information you've supplied is 
>>> accurate. Not the way to do it really.
>>
>> How have they 'played with the data', made it 'less accurate' ?
>
> By only treating data they believe is meaningful as meaningful.
>
>
>>
>> Where is any evidence that "Your information is only counted if they 
>> think the information you've supplied is accurate" ?
>>
>
> Census returns of the Jedi
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2757067.stm
>
> "And although the sci-fi sect was not officially listed as a religion, 
> collators did include a special code to register the Jedis. "

Those are the BBC's words and choice of phrase. I still don't see what's 
inaccurate. The task wasn't to define what official religions it was to 
record what people wrote when asked what their religion was and they did 
that.


> They included a special code, but didn't recognise the religion.  As far 
> as I can tell they just binned the results.  They wrote "Jedi" on the bin, 
> but binned them did they.
>
> Sorry, I'm getting carried away here...
>
>
>
> TWP
>
> Talk Like a Jedi Day?

I can't do a good Yoda so I won't, not I.