British Banned

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

st1980
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:32 pm UTC
Location: England

British Banned

Postby st1980 » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:22 pm UTC

Two mothers and their toddler children banned from council-funded playgroup - for being British

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348564/British-mothers-toddlers-banned-council-funded-playgroup-immigrants.html

Spoiler:
Two British mothers have been banned from a publicly funded women’s group and creche because it was set up exclusively for foreigners.

Emma Knightley and Kimberley Wildman thought the group would be the ideal way for them and their children to make friends.

They were encouraged to come by a mixed-race friend who attends meetings despite being born and raised in Britain.

But when they arrived for their first session, a female volunteer told them they weren’t welcome because they were British-born.
The Making Links group in St Neots, Cambridgeshire, was set up to help integrate foreigners and their children aged under five into the community.

It receives money from the town council and the Department for Communities and Local Government.

But yesterday legal experts warned the group could be in breach of the Race Relations Act, and faces action in a civil court which could order it to pay compensation.

Shop worker Miss Knightley, 25, who lives in the town with her 21-month-old daughter Imogen, said: ‘The first thing I was asked about was my nationality and when I said I was British I was told we had to leave.

‘She said “Are you not aware this is for foreign people only?” I said I knew it was trying to integrate people into the community but didn’t realise that meant British people and their children were banned.
‘I felt humiliated. You wouldn’t get away with a British-only mum and children’s group.’
Trainee midwife Miss Wildman, 27, who has two daughters, Georgia, five, and 18-month-old Olivia, added: ‘It’s a real shame.

‘I want my children to play with children from other races and integrate in the community because that stops discrimination.’

When the pair were challenged last week, Miss Knightley pointed out that their friend, who is of Indian and Malaysian descent, was born and bred in Britain too.

The volunteer replied: ‘But her parents aren’t.’

Ministers said the group was ‘divisive’ and ‘racist’.

Last night the Department of Communities and Local Government announced it would effectively abolish it by cutting its public funding.

Communities and local government minister Bob Neill said: ‘It is a real cause for concern that monies allocated for community development are being spent in such a divisive manner.
‘Rather than building good community relations, such an insensitive approach that seemingly discriminates against British people threatens to undermine community cohesion.’

Justice minister Jonathan Djanogly, whose Huntingdon constituency includes St Neots, added: ‘I’m upset to hear that constituents have had a racist experience. There is a question here of legality and also of sensitivity. Teaching people how to integrate involves allowing people to integrate.’

St Neots is in the heart of a region that has been a magnet for economic migrants in recent years because of the wealth of jobs available. These include vegetable picking on farms and food processing or packing work in factories. ­Making Links is run by a charity called Heart of the Community Trust and used by more than 70 women from 30 countries.

The group is staffed by volunteers and receives £11,000 each year from a variety of sources. St Neots Town Council gives £1,000, while Faiths in Action, which is funded by the Community Development Foundation, a quango answerable to the Department for Communities and Local Government, hands over £5,000.

On application forms it sent applying for funding, it said that its weekly sessions help free women and children from ‘feelings of isolation, help them build multicultural friendships and empower them with knowledge about the local community’.

Making Links administrator Roger Owen said there were ‘plenty of other alternatives for British mothers in the town’.

He added: ‘We get the money on the basis it’s a group for ladies from other nations. We’re not sure they would give us the money if we were offering just the same services for local people.

This isn’t racism. What we are doing is helping people from other countries.’

St Neots mayor Gordon Thorpe said officials had checked Making Links’ constitution before handing over its grant. A spokesman for the Communities Development Foundation said: ‘It is up to [Making Links] to say who can’t come. It is not in the terms of the grant.’

But a Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said: ‘We will not be issuing new guidelines but this group is going to be abolished by withdrawing funding in future and its public body status will be removed.’

A source at the department added: ‘We have not been very impressed with what they have been doing. We think it is a misinformed decision they have taken.’

A spokesman for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission said: ‘Whether or not this group is breaking equality law is a matter for the court to decide.

‘However, under the Equality Act 2010 there have to be good reasons why some people are excluded from using a service such as this.


The actual website for Making Links (http://www.opendoorchurch.co.uk/Articles/147519/Open_Door_Church/Community_Projects/Making_Links.aspx) doesn't say anywhere that it is a playgroup but a service to help new migrants.

Spent most of the day at work listening to outraged people who are now claiming that White British people are now the most oppressed people in Britain.

People have also been quoting this case - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368

Personally I don't think the two incidences are similar nor do I have an issue with the first story. It seems to be a case of "we can go everywhere but in there; we want to go in there".

Thoughts?

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: British Banned

Postby Lazar » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:23 pm UTC

Those Daily Mail readers are going to [pause] fliiiiiiiiiip!
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: British Banned

Postby Zamfir » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:23 pm UTC

Daily Mail to the rescue

EDIT: Ninja'ed in less than a minute. jeez. On typing 5 words.
Last edited by Zamfir on Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:28 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

st1980
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:32 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: British Banned

Postby st1980 » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Saw the story in The Metro this morning but I thought the Daily Mail would have the most 'entertaining' version

Sourire
Posts: 334
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 3:11 pm UTC

Re: British Banned

Postby Sourire » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:56 pm UTC

If I'm understanding the nature of the organization correctly (and that's a big, burly if), I can't imagine a single more counterproductive thing they could've done. I won't touch the legality of the issue because I'm not familiar with UK policy, but if it's meant to provide integration, it seems having accepting and open-minded citizens attend would be a very good thing. Especially given that, as stated, if the children have a diverse group of friends, they grow up to provide a new accepting mantra for the future.

It seems to me that by the exclusion of national citizens, they went from "integration" to "safe space for those who may need it." I'm not saying the second isn't a valid function, but it doesn't seem to me to be their stated goal. And in cases like this where it's possible to have both, I don't see the reason not to have both. Just my two cents though.

Also, I think the title to this thread is just a teensy bit odd. But maybe that's just me.
Emi: Let the urge take you on a magic coaster ride of innuendo!

Kewangji: The universe is having an orgasm. Right now.

Game_boy
Posts: 1314
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:33 pm UTC

Re: British Banned

Postby Game_boy » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:51 pm UTC

I don't think it's illegal or necessarily wrong.

But... is it really a good use of public money? Its stated purpose is undermined by effectively separating immigrant children from British ones.

There's no need for the Daily Mail etc. to rage at it however. There are far worse injustices in British politics that don't reach the front pages.
The Reaper wrote:Evolution is a really really really long run-on sentence.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: British Banned

Postby Jahoclave » Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:20 pm UTC

Game_boy wrote:
There's no need for the Daily Mail etc. to rage at it however. There are far worse injustices in British politics that don't reach the front pages.

But those can't be used to strike emotional appeals to deep rooted prejudices against immigrant groups and minorities!

st1980
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:32 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: British Banned

Postby st1980 » Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:37 pm UTC

Jahoclave wrote:
Game_boy wrote:
There's no need for the Daily Mail etc. to rage at it however. There are far worse injustices in British politics that don't reach the front pages.

But those can't be used to strike emotional appeals to deep rooted prejudices against immigrant groups and minorities!


Exactly.

For example, today I had a co-worker say to me "This is exactly the same as when they used to put up No Blacks Allowed in shop windows"

I just had to leave the room.

User avatar
the_bandersnatch
Actually not so frumious.
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:46 am UTC
Location: on a bed in a room inside a TV in a hotel room in a hotel on a Monopoly board

Re: British Banned

Postby the_bandersnatch » Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:07 pm UTC

I would have just laughed in their face, it's all a comment like that deserves.

Alternatively, if you wanted to live up to a stereotype, you could have pulled a surprised face, with your monocle dropping from your eye straight into your tea. For full effect, you could then follow this up with an "I say."

You know what, I've lived in Britain my whole life and I've never seen anyone do this, ever. It's a bleeding outrage, is what it is. I might fashion a monocle from an old pair of specs and give it a go myself, though I doubt I'm upper-class enough to pull it off properly.
In girum imus nocte, et consumimur igni

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: British Banned

Postby Iulus Cofield » Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:25 pm UTC

Sourire wrote:If I'm understanding the nature of the organization correctly (and that's a big, burly if), I can't imagine a single more counterproductive thing they could've done. I won't touch the legality of the issue because I'm not familiar with UK policy, but if it's meant to provide integration, it seems having accepting and open-minded citizens attend would be a very good thing. Especially given that, as stated, if the children have a diverse group of friends, they grow up to provide a new accepting mantra for the future.

It seems to me that by the exclusion of national citizens, they went from "integration" to "safe space for those who may need it." I'm not saying the second isn't a valid function, but it doesn't seem to me to be their stated goal. And in cases like this where it's possible to have both, I don't see the reason not to have both. Just my two cents though.


I totally agree. Putting aside the revulsion a majority can feel to a service intended to exclusively benefit minorities, forbidding British born and British descended children from attending makes me very skeptical that this organization can be the least bit effective at integration. How do you learn to be a part of the mainstream culture if the mainstream culture is forbidden from participating? At best, this can only make minority children feel more comfortable with other minority children at the expense of their ability to feel British culturally.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: British Banned

Postby Jahoclave » Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:45 pm UTC

the_bandersnatch wrote:I would have just laughed in their face, it's all a comment like that deserves.

Alternatively, if you wanted to live up to a stereotype, you could have pulled a surprised face, with your monocle dropping from your eye straight into your tea. For full effect, you could then follow this up with an "I say."

You know what, I've lived in Britain my whole life and I've never seen anyone do this, ever. It's a bleeding outrage, is what it is. I might fashion a monocle from an old pair of specs and give it a go myself, though I doubt I'm upper-class enough to pull it off properly.

The first step is a proper hat.

Awia
Posts: 1182
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:57 pm UTC
Location: Britland!

Re: British Banned

Postby Awia » Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:13 pm UTC

Jahoclave wrote:The first step is a proper hat.
This could be said for anything really.
Francis wrote:Look on the bright side, if you all die I'll still be handsome

jswf
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:04 pm UTC

Re: British Banned

Postby jswf » Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:28 pm UTC

This is the Daily Mail we are talking about. It was founded to be used as a Nazi propaganda tool. Not worth taking seriously at all. :)

British Whites are definitely not the most oppressed. You just have to go in to a public school and look for the nearest Muslim kid to tell this. Incidentally, you should probably not do that if you are an adult. Unless you are are a stickman and wear a black hat.

e: Take a look at the thread title. :wink:

Hemmers
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:50 pm UTC

Re: British Banned

Postby Hemmers » Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:34 pm UTC

jswf wrote:British Whites are definitely not the most oppressed. You just have to go in to a public school and look for the nearest Muslim kid to tell this.


We had a few actually, although granted the two largest demographics were still British Caucasian and kids from Hong Kong. Plenty of Muslim kids in private schools. Not Eton or Harrow perhaps, but that's a cultural thing. Provincial and smaller schools though, yeah.

Seems like an own goal. They want them to integrate, by forming a new community for them to integrate into. i.e. British and "immigrants". Only that's not integration. It's the exact opposite.

Not worth raging about, but good that it's been brought to the public note. Some of the local taxpayers may be querying their councillors shortly. How is one supposed to integrate with a community if the integration sessions hold tham at arms length from the target community!?!? Sounds like a good project which has been poorly executed.

johnny_7713
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:31 pm UTC

Re: British Banned

Postby johnny_7713 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:25 pm UTC

Hemmers wrote:
jswf wrote:British Whites are definitely not the most oppressed. You just have to go in to a public school and look for the nearest Muslim kid to tell this.


We had a few actually, although granted the two largest demographics were still British Caucasian and kids from Hong Kong. Plenty of Muslim kids in private schools. Not Eton or Harrow perhaps, but that's a cultural thing. Provincial and smaller schools though, yeah.


I thought Eton and Harrow were where the oil sheiks sent their kids to be educated, though I may be wrong.

Regarding the play-group, I can't think of anything that would be better for integration than having this kids interact with 'native born' British children, it'll help with their language skills as well as with feeling British rather than different. I'm sure I wouldn't have grown up to consider myself Dutch if I'd been sent to the (hypothetical) special immigrant only school.

User avatar
M.C.
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:06 pm UTC
Location: South of the equator.

Re: British Banned

Postby M.C. » Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:50 am UTC

While it is best to integrate by putting immigrants in with 'real Brits' :roll: , I'm fairly certain it's would be beneficial to connect with other migrants; migrants who are experiencing the same difficulties in their new country, being able to discuss how different things are going, and establish some sense of non-judgemental, understanding community. Playcare isn't just for the kids, it gives the parents a chance to talk and share tips on helping their family 'fit in' during transition between cultures.
Nobody likes Milhouse!

zAlbee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:21 pm UTC

Re: British Banned

Postby zAlbee » Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:50 am UTC

Jahoclave wrote:
Game_boy wrote:
There's no need for the Daily Mail etc. to rage at it however. There are far worse injustices in British politics that don't reach the front pages.

But those can't be used to strike emotional appeals to deep rooted prejudices against immigrant groups and minorities!

QFT.

I'm awarding you an internet for this. :)

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: British Banned

Postby Vaniver » Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:27 am UTC

Jahoclave wrote:But those can't be used to strike emotional appeals to deep rooted prejudices against immigrant groups and minorities!
Because injustice, rather than being about a lack of justice, is about immigrant groups and minorities.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Sharlos
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am UTC
Location: Straya

Re: British Banned

Postby Sharlos » Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:31 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Jahoclave wrote:But those can't be used to strike emotional appeals to deep rooted prejudices against immigrant groups and minorities!
Because injustice, rather than being about a lack of justice, is about immigrant groups and minorities.

When it's in the Daily Mail it is.

User avatar
Zid
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:06 pm UTC

Re: British Banned

Postby Zid » Sat Jan 22, 2011 4:46 pm UTC

.. Daily Mail :(

User avatar
ForAllOfThis
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:06 pm UTC

Re: British Banned

Postby ForAllOfThis » Sat Jan 22, 2011 4:49 pm UTC

Yea don't get wound up about it. It is the daily mail, and the whole country knows that half of their reported news isn't true, or has been biased to such an extent that reading it may as well create narrow mindedness.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: British Banned

Postby Red Hal » Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:26 pm UTC

jswf wrote:This is the Daily Mail we are talking about. It was founded to be used as a Nazi propaganda tool.
In 1896, when Hitler was 7 years old? I had no idea that young Adolf had started his reign of terror so young.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

jswf
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:04 pm UTC

Re: British Banned

Postby jswf » Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:05 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:
jswf wrote:This is the Daily Mail we are talking about. It was founded to be used as a Nazi propaganda tool.
In 1896, when Hitler was 7 years old? I had no idea that young Adolf had started his reign of terror so young.


Can I change that to "founded by a friend and supporter of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler"?

I usually read the Wikipedia article on the subject before blurting out crap, that was a exception to the rule. :oops:

JoeKhol
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:43 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: British Banned

Postby JoeKhol » Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:52 pm UTC

ForAllOfThis wrote:Yea don't get wound up about it. It is the daily mail, and the whole country knows that half of their reported news isn't true, or has been biased to such an extent that reading it may as well create narrow mindedness.
Sadly that isn't the case. Most people you know might realise it but a vast number of people take what is written in the tabloids as the gospel truth. I have actually heard the phrase "They wouldn't let them print it if it wasn't true." spoken in honest ignorance.
Therefore, I think I am.

weasel@xkcd
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: British Banned

Postby weasel@xkcd » Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:42 am UTC

For once I agree with the Daily Mail ( :? cannot believe I just typed that), this does seem like a clear case of discrimination and something worth reporting on. Not only does this discriminate against non-foreigners but it seems extremely counterproductive as a tool for integration.

I know there are worse injustices but there's a worse injustice for almost everything, doesn't mean you shouldn't take action.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: British Banned

Postby Dream » Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:08 am UTC

No. This is like a man being turned away from a battered women's shelter. You can decry the fact of his being turned away, and call for some allowance to be made so that the service provided by the shelter can go beyond its intended recipients, without necessarily calling it discrimination.

That these women were not allowed to leave their children at the centre does not mean they are being discriminated against, any more than I was when I called a gay men's health clinic for a checkup and was turned away on the grounds that it only serves men who have sex with men.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

Hemmers
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:50 pm UTC

Re: British Banned

Postby Hemmers » Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:28 am UTC

Fair point Dream. The service is advertised for immigrants, and they turned away non-immigrants.
The question is, why is it an immigrant-only service in the first place? An integration service should facilitate integration.

What they're doing right now is the equivalent of running a sexual health clinic only for straight men, and not running a counter-part women's clinic.

Okay, it's not discrimination to turn away women because it's a men's clinic. But in the process you're excluding 50% of the community and completely missing the point of a sexual health service, which needs to include both halves of the community!

That a council is publically funding this service is shocking. It's telling of the shoddy state our public sector is in when Basic Human Decency has come so far around that we have separate groups for immigrants and natives. A bit like segregation... :roll: :roll:

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: British Banned

Postby SlyReaper » Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:34 am UTC

Dream wrote:No. This is like a man being turned away from a battered women's shelter that advertises itself as a domestic counselling centre.


Just completing your analogy for you there. Nobody is saying that a safespace for immigrant children is an unworthy thing. Just that they should say upfront that it is a safespace, and not bandy words like "community integration" around when they don't mean it.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: British Banned

Postby Dream » Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:55 pm UTC

Hemmers wrote:The question is, why is it an immigrant-only service in the first place?

Because resources are limited, and therefore are targetted at those who need them most. A couple of young white children of British families don't need help integrating with British society. Having them sitting there bored to tears while the basic English lesson (or whatever) goes on would be extremely disruptive to the rest of the children.
Hemmers wrote:Okay, it's not discrimination to turn away women because it's a men's clinic. But in the process you're excluding 50% of the community and completely missing the point of a sexual health service, which needs to include both halves of the community!

No, because one of the key functions of the Gay Men's Health Clinic who turned me away is that it is a safe and encouraging environment for gay men, who may not be able to be open about their health or orientation in the general community. Including the rest of the community would be lunacy. Minorities often have needs that are created by the existence of the majority, be that minority immigrant or sexuality defined, needs that are only served by its absence.
Hemmers wrote:A bit like segregation...

No it isn't, that is an extremely foolish thing to say. This is nothing like segregation.
SlyReaper wrote:Just that they should say upfront that it is a safespace, and not bandy words like "community integration" around when they don't mean it.

On what are you basing the assertion that they were not upfront about the nature of the service they provided? On what are you basing the supposition that "community integration" must mean physical interaction with members of the community?
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: British Banned

Postby SlyReaper » Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:14 pm UTC

Dream wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:Just that they should say upfront that it is a safespace, and not bandy words like "community integration" around when they don't mean it.

On what are you basing the assertion that they were not upfront about the nature of the service they provided? On what are you basing the supposition that "community integration" must mean physical interaction with members of the community?

Common sense.

integration (plural integrations)

1. The act or process of making whole or entire.
2. (society) The process of fitting into a community, notably applied to 'visible' (ethnic, immigrant...) minorities
3. (calculus) The operation of finding the integral of a function.
4. (biology) In evolution, the process by which the manifold is compacted into the relatively simple and permanent; supposed to alternate with differentiation as an agent in species' development.


How exactly does one achieve this without physical interaction?
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: British Banned

Postby Dream » Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:24 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:Common sense.

OK, so nothing then. Because the parents knew it was an immigrant integration service before they went, so the centre was hardly misrepresenting itself.
SlyReaper wrote:How exactly does one achieve this without physical interaction?

Perhaps by teaching children languages their parents speak poorly, at younger age than state education begins? Perhaps by running classes on civic education to familiarise new arrivals with local social and government systems. Possibly with support groups for immigrants suffering from racism, homesickness, loneliness or other problems locals might not be understanding of. Possibly by providing translation services for important documents or phone interpreters for calling utility providers. Perhaps by providing safe play groups for children to develop basic social skills among people they understand and trust, instead of having their earliest experiences of society be as a minority in a mostly white classroom.

Or did you really think that integration is just getting everyone to think of basic humanity before they think of skin colour?
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: British Banned

Postby SlyReaper » Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:29 pm UTC

Dream wrote:Or did you really think that integration is just getting everyone to think of basic humanity before they think of skin colour?

That would certainly be nice, but I take your point.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests