Napier Barracks, Folkestone | Page 16 | Vital Football

Napier Barracks, Folkestone

The Roone said:
Some of the 'do gooders are complaining that Napier Barracks are too dirty. Well give the illegal immigrants some cleaning gear and get them to clean their living quarters up. That's what the soldiers would have done when they were billeted there.
Click to expand...

That doesnt make sense though.
What's the point in cleaning up the accommodation , if you're going to burn it down/destroy it ?
 
Courts rule that housing asylum seekers at Napier Barracks was indeed unlawful.

I reckon it was also immoral.

Failings included:

Overcrowding
Lack of ventilation
Run-down buildings
Use of dormitories during a pandemic
Significant fire risk
'Filthy' facilities
'Decrepit' isolation block not fit for habitation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-57335499
 
Let it be said that ‘not for for habitation’ is a nice term. It means you wouldn’t stick a homeless veteran in there, and probably not even your dog. It should not be different for those of a different social standing to you, even be it prisoners, immigrants, gypsies etc.
 
On another court case, I'm pleased with the decision by the ECJ re Tesco workers whereby the company paid its (largely female) workforce in the supermarkets less than warehouse workers. Found against Tesco's.

Only heard by the ECJ as the case arose when we were in the EU.

Interesting to see what future hearings will decide once out of the EU and we've "brought back control".
 
valenciagill said:
A thousand more have tried over the last week alone

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dover/news/asylum-seekers-nearly-1-000-stopped-248335/

Maybe we should just let them in , as it means that the 'tipping point' will be reached sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
You obviously know we have a set amount of asylum seekers which we let into the country each year, which is both adhered to and less than our European neighbours.

Obviously economic migrants from the rest of the EU is now decimated apart from the settled/pre-settled statuses given to those EU nationals who have been here under certain conditions.
 
Trev_GFC said:
You obviously know we have a set amount of asylum seekers which we let into the country each year, which is both adhered to and less than our European neighbours.

Obviously economic migrants from the rest of the EU is now decimated apart from the settled/pre-settled statuses given to those EU nationals who have been here under certain conditions.
Click to expand...
Indigenous European migration is not the problem.
Not in the UK , nor in Europe.
 
valenciagill said:
Indigenous European migration is not the problem.
Not in the UK , nor in Europe.
Click to expand...
It’s been a long-held perception in Kent that Eastern Europeans are ‘taking our jobs’. I’ve even voted BNP while working in a factory in Gillingham Business Park, such was the culture.

Never met an ugly Lithuanian though, they were all 👌
 
Last edited:
Gills 58 said:
On another court case, I'm pleased with the decision by the ECJ re Tesco workers whereby the company paid its (largely female) workforce in the supermarkets less than warehouse workers. Found against Tesco's.
Click to expand...
This confuses me. Aren't they doing different jobs?
 
valenciagill said:
Indigenous European migration is not the problem.
Not in the UK , nor in Europe.
Click to expand...

What is all this, "indigenous", bullshit though val? Doesn't it, or shouldn't it, belong in the past?

What I mean by that is that it is a term that was perhaps meaningful in the 17th 18th, 19th and possibly even the early years of the 20th Century. Back then there was lots of imperialism and colonialism going on in the Americas, Africa, Asia and Oceania.

The wealthy and powerful European nations were busy looting and plundering any wealth and raw materials, and just generally taking control of the land that had previously belonged to the "indigenous" people. In many cases the actual, "indigenous", people were killed or enslaved.

Although the British ruling class were one of the most prominent of these Imperialist nations, the people (those other than the ruling class) who lived in Britain knew very little about the "indigenous" people from the faraway countries. Those people had been colonised by the same fuckers who ruled and controlled the lives of working people back here in Britain. As a result the "indigenous" people from elsewhere in the empire were considered as at best, "exotic" and at worst, "brutish", "savage" or "subnormal". They were considered this way because of ignorance and because of propaganda. The "people" in Britain knew very, very little, other than what they were taught by the "betters" (i.e. their rulers; the rulers of Britain who were the same rulers of the British Empire) because they never left this island and very few of the "indigenous" people from the various colonies were rarely seen here in Britain. (And when they were, they were presented as being exotic or savage or subhuman.)

All this, in a way, is understandable (though not necessarily justifiable) when considered in historical context. After all, how exactly were the British people able to know any different to that which they were being taught?

But that's all just history. If we bring it up to date into the early 21st Century, things are much different now. No longer is the world seemingly such a huge place. Of course, in terms of actual size the world hasn't changed. But in terms of perception, it has changed a great deal. When the first Europeans reached the Americas and the Australia those places were very much considered as, "new worlds"; they were that faraway and that unknown. A 20th Century equivalent would be the Moon and a 21st Century equivalent could possibly be Mars.

With all the technology we now have, the whole world is interconnected. And though it is still true that those living in the poorest places in the world are hugely unlikely to ever visit other continents, many of us from wealthy nations are able to travel, experience and learn. Even those who cannot travel internationally are able, because of the technology, to travel and learn in a virtual manner.

Is it not time for all the peoples of the world to start regarding those from other parts of the world as simply fellow human beings, who are sharing the same planet as ourselves? These ideas of nations and nationalisms are outdated. There might be a rise in nationalism right now but it must Shirley be the last death throes of an outdated mode of thought....

It is time, it must be time simply because of the impending climate disaster, for us to stop being obsessed with differences between peoples and instead celebrate the similarities. We need to think of this place as one planet. We need to think of ourselves and others as all being a part of one humanity. No longer pitting one nation against another, one set of people versus another.

We are all members of the human race and we are all "indigenous" to planet Earth. All this stuff about race, religion or nationality is a bollocks. All it does is divide us and make future disaster inevitable. The only way for humanity to survive on the planet to which each and every human is "indigenous" (unless you believe alien conspiracy stuff?!) is to understand ourselves as One. If humanity is to save itself, it will be necessary for us all to consign the outdated modes if thought to the dustbin of history. And instead embrace the fact that we are all, ultimately, the same. We are all brothers and sisters, and we all share the same planet.
 
Last edited:
Detritus said:
This confuses me. Aren't they doing different jobs?
Click to expand...
It was about how they were valued. Jobs obviously are different, it was a matter of how much value/worth was attrubuted to eaxh.

Historically "men's jobs" were routinely valued more highly irrespective of their worth. Employers dodged the Equal Pay Act by saying they were different jobs but (fortunately imo) it is now judged on value.

Of course it is difficult to value jobs butin general the new approach is much fairer.

By way of anecdote, many years ago a man sweeping the floor of a factory would typically be paid substantialy more than a woman cleaner who had to scrub floors and toilets.
 
Gills 58 said:
It was about how they were valued. Jobs obviously are different, it was a matter of how much value/worth was attrubuted to eaxh.

Historically "men's jobs" were routinely valued more highly irrespective of their worth. Employers dodged the Equal Pay Act by saying they were different jobs but (fortunately imo) it is now judged on value.

Of course it is difficult to value jobs butin general the new approach is much fairer.

By way of anecdote, many years ago a man sweeping the floor of a factory would typically be paid substantialy more than a woman cleaner who had to scrub floors and toilets.
Click to expand...
When I worked in the Civil Service, it was jobs that were graded, not individuals.
For example, SA 3 was higher paid than SA 2, irrespective of gender.
I believe that many government and ex government enterprises still operate this system.
Seems fair to me.
You take on the role and are expected to do exactly the same level of work.
Maybe private companies should adopt this system to stop claims of discrimination
 
shotshy said:
When I worked in the Civil Service, it was jobs that were graded, not individuals.
For example, SA 3 was higher paid than SA 2, irrespective of gender.
I believe that many government and ex government enterprises still operate this system.
Seems fair to me.
You take on the role and are expected to do exactly the same level of work.
Maybe private companies should adopt this system to stop claims of discrimination
Click to expand...
Fine and agree. Same applied/still applies in teaching.

The latest case did not grade individuals. It graded/valued jobs and found that shopfloor workers were undervalued compared to the warehouse workers. Obviously it is complicated to value jobs but in the past it was often used to maintain an unjustifiable difference between stereotypically "men's" jobs and "womens".
 
Gills 58 said:
Fine and agree. Same applied/still applies in teaching.

The latest case did not grade individuals. It graded/valued jobs and found that shopfloor workers were undervalued compared to the warehouse workers. Obviously it is complicated to value jobs but in the past it was often used to maintain an unjustifiable difference between stereotypically "men's" jobs and "womens".
Click to expand...

If men and women had the same opportunities under sexual equality law to apply for warehouse jobs or cashier jobs, then it shouldn't be an issue. The courts don't seem to have agreed though.

I have noticed recently that there seem to be more women at my local Tesco's wearing high-viz jackets and going in an out of the doors at the back.

I wonder whether we will see more women in other historically "male" jobs? Sewage farms, tyre fitting centres, road repair crews, abbatoirs, rubbish tips etc?
 
ThreeSixes said:
I wonder whether we will see more women in other historically "male" jobs? Sewage farms, tyre fitting centres, road repair crews, abbatoirs, rubbish tips etc?
Click to expand...

Let's hope so. The waste company I work for hires lots Of us travellers. And because many travellers, male and female, own and reside in large vehicles, many of us have HGV licences. As a result many of the company's dustcarts are driven by women. They're good at it. And though I know it's a bit sexist, I personally find the sight of a woman driving a big lorry/truck to be very, very sexy!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.