Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
That was a very long winded way of saying “Many do” or even just “Yes”
Maybe I am just long winded. But, like a good product of the English education system, I like to explain my reasoning for things.
tbh, I appreciated the long-windedness. But the mind boggles. I don't know many lesbians well, but the idea that they'd see a transwoman as an appealing sexual partner seems preposterous. I mean, how is a (pre-op) naked transwoman distinguishable from a man?
My friend's 19yo stepdaughter now identifies as male and is in a relationship with a 19yo male who identifies as female. But both of them look like the sex they were born as. Basically they are a heterosexual couple in denial.
I mean, people say the same thing about same sex attraction - "I'm a man, and I just don't understand why a man would find another man attractive".
Typically attraction, even sexual attraction, doesn't start and end with how the person looks naked. Getting to know someone, finding them attractive when you first meet them, their personality, your interpersonal interactions - all go towards attraction.
I also have it on good authority that there is a significant difference between cis men and pre operative trans women who are on hormones. Hormones do a lot to change the texture of skin, hair, even the way individuals smell, and the way that different body parts operate. Again, these will be impactful.
I don't even understand how women can be attracted to men. Men are gross. I'm very grateful that enough of them are and that I am seemingly just above the absolute minimum threshold of "oh alright you'll do for now". But I will never understand it.
If you are truly heterosexual you often find your own sex repulsive, I do not believe it is conditioned, as is sometimes alleged, it's something intrinsic. Is my guess. So you are hetero and you find the idea of sex with men, or naked men, quite UGH
Same goes for homosexuals of either gender. They can find the idea of sex with the opposite gender YUK. True lesbians simply do not desire biological men
True bisexuality, where you find both sexes equally appealing, is really quite rare, I suspect. However it does exist, and I know this because I had a truly bisexual girlfriend. We'd be talking in a bar then suddenly her eyes would glaze over and she'd stop chatting entirely as she looked past my shoulder, then I'd turn - and I'd realise she had spotted some hot girl walking to a table or whatever. Then the red mist would lift and my GF would say, Er, what were we talking about?
It was rather disconcerting but it gave me an insight into how trying it must be for women, dealing with the male libido
Also, where did you get your qualifications to define true sexuality? Can I do that course?
The degree involves enormous levels on in-the-field, hands-on research. It's quite gruelling
Oh, maybe I'm already qualified then, as I've been involved with people across the spectrum of genders and sexuality... maybe I've just lost the certificate...
In all seriousness, I've had a deal of girlfriends/partners - to be perfectly blunt - and a fair number of them have been bisexual, either in reality, or at least bi-curious. I'm inquisitive on this point so I often ask them "do you ultimately have a preference" and all of them said, Yes, men, in the end - but that one girl said No, I like both exactly the same. And that is certainly how she behaved. She was also hypersexual. Absolutely adored sex, in itself, at all times, sometimes putting herself in danger thereby
Of course it's ridiculously subjective anecdata but it's something to talk about as we keep NEARLY getting wickets
I haven't had relationships with lesbians, as a cis man, but I know cis and trans lesbians. I have had relationships with lots of different kinds of people outside of that. I still don't really find your use of "true" in reference to bisexual or homosexual / heterosexual very useful, but hey ho
I readily agree it's not scientific, I use the term "true" in this sense
A true heterosexual is someone who finds the idea of homosexual sex unpleasant-to-repulsive and would never do it
A true bisexual is someone who has absolutely no preferences, would happily have sex with either gender, if they are told you've only got one sex act left, who would it be with: they have no preference
Etc
I am not a sexologist these are just handy terms I use personally, so please do not assail me with pervy papers by Shere Hite and the like
Okay, that's useful to know. I guess I agree with @bondegezou that these things are more wibbly wobbly and, as someone who knows lots of other queer people, that seems to be pretty true within that population of people.
I don't disagree, I am a self-confessed kinkster with a Fetlife page, I have met all kinds of weird and wonderful folk
Bizarrely, it doesn't offer the single feature which made Twitter so useful - being able to see all the tweets from those you follow, as they happen.
Instead the algo decides what it thinks you should see. No thanks.
That sounds bizarrely stupud...maybe too much time living in the metaverse.
It's understandable given that the way Instagram works. Twitter still looks unassailable, no matter how much some people want to hang the failure around Elon Musk's neck.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
OTOH York has a long and rich Quaker history - Fox, the Retreat mental home, the Rowntrees and at least two very long-standing schools for Quaker children.
Will Liz Truss win the Spectator's Prime Minister of the Year award?
I hope the future of the magazine is very short. That twat Thomas they keep publishing, sending him to fancy foreign climes or letting him witter on gibberish about AI and UFOs, he does my fucking head in. Glad that shite doesn’t happen on here.
The Spectator has a spectacular sales record, at a time when most mags are suffering badly, so I fear you may be disappointed. Hence this paragraph in that article
"The Spectator itself is up for sale, along with sister newspaper the Telegraph, after the owner’s financial troubles came to light. Prevailing wisdom is that the siblings will be separated. “The Spectator is the cute baby everybody wants to snatch, the Telegraph is the difficult teenager,”"
A really interesting story which highlights the trends in the war (and why they are heading in Ukraine's favor). Extreme Russian losses in equipment and the fact that Ukraine has received NATO support, means that Ukraine now possesses more tanks than Russia...
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I suspect they will pile in to support Labour if they think it inevitable
Yes, me too. Albeit in a qualified way. It'll be a 'he's rubbish, but I suppose he'll do. But watch out' type endorsement. Because that's what they think (probably correctly) their readership are thinking.
Honestly, the Sun isn't and never has acted as some sort of Prime-Minister-picking Svengali. It just writes what it thinks will most encourage people to buy (or click on) the Sun. It follows its readership.
Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits.
Ah, so that explains Johnson's appeal with that demographic
Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers.
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;
the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
the Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country,
and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
These lines pretty damning for Sunak and Hunt 'Tony Blair, for all his faults, was more supportive of market reforms, more “Right-wing” on the NHS than this Government ever was....Margaret Thatcher and John Major handed Blair a nation that had dramatically shifted Right-wards during their rule. The Tories today will bequeath Sir Keir Starmer a far more Left-wing country. It is a historic failure.'
Even on Brexit 'Brexit, the one great restorationist triumph of the past 13 years, was forced on the Tories (and Labour) by popular rebellions. It was opposed by David Cameron; it was sabotaged by Theresa May; and neither Boris Johnson nor Rishi Sunak took proper advantage of our new freedoms to show moderate Remainers why it was worth it. The Tories’ useless execution of Brexit is the greatest missed opportunity since Sir Keith Joseph gave up on education vouchers in 1983.'
Anyone who thinks Brexit "the one great restorationist triumph of the past 13 years" is a laughable moron who has completely lost the plot, so don't worry, you can put that article in the "Another swiveleyed loon that helped fuck up the Tory Party" file
PS how much further down the path in the direction of the ERG do you think you will head? How long before you will be regarding Mark Francois as a left winger?
For rightwingers this government taxes and spends and regulates too much and is too socially liberal and has not cut immigration enough. Nor has it even matched the market reforms in healthcare Blair was proposing.
Brexit for them is the only big rightwing achievement of this government, expect therefore the right to completely blame Sunak and Hunt for a general election defeat, saying they were too wet. The ERG will want a leadership candidate offering real rightwing redmeat.
Leftwingers of course also felt New Labour was way too centrist and when it was defeated in 2010 demanded more leftwing redmeat as the party firsty shifted to Ed Miliband then to Corbyn
But where are you? You used to be quite moderate, and what has happened to the "my party right or wrong" that you used to use in your justification of not criticising the Clown? Now you seem to revel in anything that criticises Sunak. Surely it can't be Sunak's supposed disloyalty to The Liar, because The Liar was disloyal to everyone and you thought that OK, because he was The Leader? Maybe you are a bellwether for the Tory Party generally; where moderation and sensible approaches have passed into history to be replaced by salivating swiveleyed fanaticism? I hope not, because if Sunak is replaced by a rightwing loon we are doomed to a decade or more of nanny state anti-business Labour.
By the way. Please read your history on Mrs T. She did not bring in tax cuts until it was economically sensible to do so. To do so now after Johnson splurged money everywhere would be insane.
I am loyal to Sunak but there is no doubt this government has been much too high spend and high tax than she would ultimately have liked. Even Sunak has increased corporation tax again.
Of course in the late 1970s most commentators believed Thatcher herself was a 'rightwing loon' unelectable against the more centrist Callaghan. Yet the poor economic performance of his Labour government enabled her to win in 1979
You're loyal to whoever is in charge, and has a title. You know your place.
Off topic, but perhaps of interest to many of you: Integration has come to the United States: "More broadly, a new majority of all Americans, 56 percent, now live in mixed neighborhoods where neither White people nor non-Whites predominate — double the figure that lived in mixed neighborhoods in 1990, according to a Washington Post analysis of census data. By racial group, 56 percent of White Americans live in mixed neighborhoods, as do 55 percent of Hispanic Americans, 57 percent of Black people and 70 percent of Asian people."
And a majority of American blacks now live in suburbs.
(That change was obvious to me when watching the children's 4th of July parade, two days ago. When my mother moved to this Seattle suburb in 1961, it was probably at least 95 percent white.
Judging by that parade, and the students I see at the local grade school, it has become especially attractive to East Asians and South Asians.)
A really interesting story which highlights the trends in the war (and why they are heading in Ukraine's favor). Extreme Russian losses in equipment and the fact that Ukraine has received NATO support, means that Ukraine now possesses more tanks than Russia...
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
Will Liz Truss win the Spectator's Prime Minister of the Year award?
I hope the future of the magazine is very short. That twat Thomas they keep publishing, sending him to fancy foreign climes or letting him witter on gibberish about AI and UFOs, he does my fucking head in. Glad that shite doesn’t happen on here.
The Spectator has a spectacular sales record, at a time when most mags are suffering badly, so I fear you may be disappointed. Hence this paragraph in that article
"The Spectator itself is up for sale, along with sister newspaper the Telegraph, after the owner’s financial troubles came to light. Prevailing wisdom is that the siblings will be separated. “The Spectator is the cute baby everybody wants to snatch, the Telegraph is the difficult teenager,”"
Irony never comes across well written down, does it?
Will Liz Truss win the Spectator's Prime Minister of the Year award?
I hope the future of the magazine is very short. That twat Thomas they keep publishing, sending him to fancy foreign climes or letting him witter on gibberish about AI and UFOs, he does my fucking head in. Glad that shite doesn’t happen on here.
The Spectator has a spectacular sales record, at a time when most mags are suffering badly, so I fear you may be disappointed. Hence this paragraph in that article
"The Spectator itself is up for sale, along with sister newspaper the Telegraph, after the owner’s financial troubles came to light. Prevailing wisdom is that the siblings will be separated. “The Spectator is the cute baby everybody wants to snatch, the Telegraph is the difficult teenager,”"
Irony never comes across well written down, does it?
It came across fine, I just wanted to reassure other PB-ers who might suddenly worry they are about to lose all their favourite Spectator writers....
Major and plausible rumours on Twitter that Russia is gonna do something bad at the ZPP nuke plant, just as they did at the dam
However the nuclear scientists themselves are less agitated. Apparently the plant has now been shut for so long the chances of anything Chernobyl-esque are minimal-to-zero
Tho it would represent yet another escalation by Putin, even if it wasn't that damaging in reality
Wouldn't checking that you have "standing" be something you might check with your own lawyers before heading to court ?
I mean, if such a lawsuit has never been brought before, then standing is an unknown. Standing is technical, in the sense that it has nothing to do with the merits of the case, and therefore is not substantive. Sure, getting it thrown out on standing is not a win for Mermaids, but it isn't a win for LGBA.
Again why my position has been should someone be found with standing I imagine the merits could go either way.
Legal action isn't cheap, and I'd have thought ones own solicitors could have a well educated guess about a client's "standing" in a case.
Yep, probably in excess of half a million quid that could have gone on charitable purposes has been spent on a case that Mermaids now says will have no impact on it - despite that being the reason for them bringing the case in the first place.
Helen Joyce on why the claims of TRA are not going to go away - too many parents invested in irrevocable decisions they’ve taken for their children: [VIDEO]
Mermaids are right, the case will have no impact on them.
That's why they lacked standing.
They should have realised that before today though. As should the Bad Law Project.
In effect, the judges have said that Mermaids' hurt feelings do not give them standing.
The only person who has standing is the person who is harmed by the decision to grant charitable status to LGBA, the Charity Commission itself, or the Attorney General.
Jolyon, once again, is proving himself the Max Bialystock of the English Bar.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
Twistedfirestopper was talking about banks not taking money in, but what about not letting us have our money?
RBS seem to have got all difficult about people paying bills or moving money to new accounts, *even when there is no possible question of fraud*, to the extent of putting a stop on accounts for the crime of trying to book the same holiday home as in previous years, just cos one hasn't spoken to the owner face to face or on a video call (just happened to a colleague of mine). And Mrs C had a long interrogation for the crime of trying to open a savings account with another bank with an £10 to check if it went through OK before sending the main payment. It's not easy to close sabvings accounts - I have had to send written requests, in one case told to do so to a local branch that didn't exist since they closed it. And today I got a minatory circular email basically saying they'd do a Farage on me if one of their staff so much as thought I smelt a tiny bit funny.
Presumably Nat West is also going all pearl-clutchy too?
Will Liz Truss win the Spectator's Prime Minister of the Year award?
I hope the future of the magazine is very short. That twat Thomas they keep publishing, sending him to fancy foreign climes or letting him witter on gibberish about AI and UFOs, he does my fucking head in. Glad that shite doesn’t happen on here.
The Spectator has a spectacular sales record, at a time when most mags are suffering badly, so I fear you may be disappointed. Hence this paragraph in that article
"The Spectator itself is up for sale, along with sister newspaper the Telegraph, after the owner’s financial troubles came to light. Prevailing wisdom is that the siblings will be separated. “The Spectator is the cute baby everybody wants to snatch, the Telegraph is the difficult teenager,”"
Irony never comes across well written down, does it?
It came across fine, I just wanted to reassure other PB-ers who might suddenly worry they are about to lose all their favourite Spectator writers....
Twistedfirestopper was talking about banks not taking money in, but what about not letting us have our money?
RBS seem to have got all difficult about people paying bills or moving money to new accounts, *even when there is no possible question of fraud*, to the extent of putting a stop on accounts for the crime of trying to book the same holiday home as in previous years, just cos one hasn't spoken to the owner face to face or on a video call (just happened to a colleague of mine). And Mrs C had a long interrogation for the crime of trying to open a savings account with another bank with an £10 to check if it went through OK before sending the main payment. It's not easy to close sabvings accounts - I have had to send written requests, in one case told to do so to a local branch that didn't exist since they closed it. And today I got a minatory circular email basically saying they'd do a Farage on me if one of their staff so much as thought I smelt a tiny bit funny.
Presumably Nat West is also going all pearl-clutchy too?
And Mrs C had a long interrogation for the crime of trying to open a savings account with another bank with an £10 to check if it went through OK before sending the main payment
I had a whole wad of cash returned to my account when I bought my last car as I did a similar thing, sending a pound before the main payment to ensure details are correct. At one point I had the car and the cash. Of course I made sure it got through to the seller eventually but it wasn't that easy and the seller was shitting bricks thinking I'd nicked 7 grands worth of motor off them.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
Twistedfirestopper was talking about banks not taking money in, but what about not letting us have our money?
RBS seem to have got all difficult about people paying bills or moving money to new accounts, *even when there is no possible question of fraud*, to the extent of putting a stop on accounts for the crime of trying to book the same holiday home as in previous years, just cos one hasn't spoken to the owner face to face or on a video call (just happened to a colleague of mine). And Mrs C had a long interrogation for the crime of trying to open a savings account with another bank with an £10 to check if it went through OK before sending the main payment. It's not easy to close sabvings accounts - I have had to send written requests, in one case told to do so to a local branch that didn't exist since they closed it. And today I got a minatory circular email basically saying they'd do a Farage on me if one of their staff so much as thought I smelt a tiny bit funny.
Presumably Nat West is also going all pearl-clutchy too?
And Mrs C had a long interrogation for the crime of trying to open a savings account with another bank with an £10 to check if it went through OK before sending the main payment
I had a whole wad of cash returned to my account when I bought my last car as I did a similar thing, sending a pound before the main payment to ensure details are correct. At one point I had the car and the cash. Of course I made sure it got through to the seller eventually but it wasn't that easy and the seller was shitting bricks thinking I'd nicked 7 grands worth of motor off them.
Doesn't surprise me. I must say that the situation has improved somewhat since the banks were made to check the name of the payee for any new payees. But there are a number of banks which use an incompatible system, or which use the account number not as the payee account but as the reference and have the money made over to the bank's own account - so of course that obviates the safeguard.
Edit: the excuse given was that that is a fraudster SOP. But Mrs C is articulate, middle aged and not your drooling victim, and she had just opened a new account (albeit with one f those latter banks). What was amazing is that the conversation was far, far longer than one would think as a simple check (which is fair enough).
As regards the header, I can't see as many Conservative activists being active this time. As a loyal member my vote is not in much doubt, but I can't see myself doing leaflets, knocking on doors or telling, as I did to varying extent in the last five GEs and some local.
The Scottish Government will be investigated by UK officials over concerns it has been spending public money on matters not within its remit, parliament has been told.
Officials in the Treasury and the Office of the Advocate General of Scotland will look into cash spent working on Scottish independence – an area reserved to Westminster.
Scottish Labour peer Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, who has been campaigning on the issue, said he had been assured by the Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, that “ultra-vires” expenditure would be looked into.
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I suspect they will pile in to support Labour if they think it inevitable
Yes, me too. Albeit in a qualified way. It'll be a 'he's rubbish, but I suppose he'll do. But watch out' type endorsement. Because that's what they think (probably correctly) their readership are thinking.
Honestly, the Sun isn't and never has acted as some sort of Prime-Minister-picking Svengali. It just writes what it thinks will most encourage people to buy (or click on) the Sun. It follows its readership.
Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits.
Ah, so that explains Johnson's appeal with that demographic
Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers.
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;
the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
the Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country,
and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
Wouldn't checking that you have "standing" be something you might check with your own lawyers before heading to court ?
I mean, if such a lawsuit has never been brought before, then standing is an unknown. Standing is technical, in the sense that it has nothing to do with the merits of the case, and therefore is not substantive. Sure, getting it thrown out on standing is not a win for Mermaids, but it isn't a win for LGBA.
Again why my position has been should someone be found with standing I imagine the merits could go either way.
Legal action isn't cheap, and I'd have thought ones own solicitors could have a well educated guess about a client's "standing" in a case.
Yep, probably in excess of half a million quid that could have gone on charitable purposes has been spent on a case that Mermaids now says will have no impact on it - despite that being the reason for them bringing the case in the first place.
Helen Joyce on why the claims of TRA are not going to go away - too many parents invested in irrevocable decisions they’ve taken for their children: [VIDEO]
Mermaids are right, the case will have no impact on them.
That's why they lacked standing.
They should have realised that before today though. As should the Bad Law Project.
Is it not the other way around - IANAL so don't understand these things, but would it not be bad form to immediately turn around and contradict a judgement outside of an appeal process when the judgement just said you don't have standing because the judge's felt there was significant proof of impact?
Twistedfirestopper was talking about banks not taking money in, but what about not letting us have our money?
RBS seem to have got all difficult about people paying bills or moving money to new accounts, *even when there is no possible question of fraud*, to the extent of putting a stop on accounts for the crime of trying to book the same holiday home as in previous years, just cos one hasn't spoken to the owner face to face or on a video call (just happened to a colleague of mine). And Mrs C had a long interrogation for the crime of trying to open a savings account with another bank with an £10 to check if it went through OK before sending the main payment. It's not easy to close sabvings accounts - I have had to send written requests, in one case told to do so to a local branch that didn't exist since they closed it. And today I got a minatory circular email basically saying they'd do a Farage on me if one of their staff so much as thought I smelt a tiny bit funny.
Presumably Nat West is also going all pearl-clutchy too?
I recall a few years ago I used my card buying stock for a business, which would subsequently be reclaimed. Went to a rather large number from a shop you'd not normally expect large numbers from.
A few days later spoke to Barclays as they'd put a stop on my card for fraud alert. Thought it would be that and was ready to explain but they were perfectly fine with that transaction.
No, the problem was I'd spent £2.50 at ASDA. Yes, on my drive home I'd bought a sandwich and that was the suspicious transaction, not the fact I'd spent considerable sums elsewhere.
These lines pretty damning for Sunak and Hunt 'Tony Blair, for all his faults, was more supportive of market reforms, more “Right-wing” on the NHS than this Government ever was....Margaret Thatcher and John Major handed Blair a nation that had dramatically shifted Right-wards during their rule. The Tories today will bequeath Sir Keir Starmer a far more Left-wing country. It is a historic failure.'
Even on Brexit 'Brexit, the one great restorationist triumph of the past 13 years, was forced on the Tories (and Labour) by popular rebellions. It was opposed by David Cameron; it was sabotaged by Theresa May; and neither Boris Johnson nor Rishi Sunak took proper advantage of our new freedoms to show moderate Remainers why it was worth it. The Tories’ useless execution of Brexit is the greatest missed opportunity since Sir Keith Joseph gave up on education vouchers in 1983.'
Anyone who thinks Brexit "the one great restorationist triumph of the past 13 years" is a laughable moron who has completely lost the plot, so don't worry, you can put that article in the "Another swiveleyed loon that helped fuck up the Tory Party" file
PS how much further down the path in the direction of the ERG do you think you will head? How long before you will be regarding Mark Francois as a left winger?
For rightwingers this government taxes and spends and regulates too much and is too socially liberal and has not cut immigration enough. Nor has it even matched the market reforms in healthcare Blair was proposing.
Brexit for them is the only big rightwing achievement of this government, expect therefore the right to completely blame Sunak and Hunt for a general election defeat, saying they were too wet. The ERG will want a leadership candidate offering real rightwing redmeat.
Leftwingers of course also felt New Labour was way too centrist and when it was defeated in 2010 demanded more leftwing redmeat as the party firsty shifted to Ed Miliband then to Corbyn
But where are you? You used to be quite moderate, and what has happened to the "my party right or wrong" that you used to use in your justification of not criticising the Clown? Now you seem to revel in anything that criticises Sunak. Surely it can't be Sunak's supposed disloyalty to The Liar, because The Liar was disloyal to everyone and you thought that OK, because he was The Leader? Maybe you are a bellwether for the Tory Party generally; where moderation and sensible approaches have passed into history to be replaced by salivating swiveleyed fanaticism? I hope not, because if Sunak is replaced by a rightwing loon we are doomed to a decade or more of nanny state anti-business Labour.
By the way. Please read your history on Mrs T. She did not bring in tax cuts until it was economically sensible to do so. To do so now after Johnson splurged money everywhere would be insane.
I am loyal to Sunak but there is no doubt this government has been much too high spend and high tax than she would ultimately have liked. Even Sunak has increased corporation tax again.
Of course in the late 1970s most commentators believed Thatcher herself was a 'rightwing loon' unelectable against the more centrist Callaghan. Yet the poor economic performance of his Labour government enabled her to win in 1979
I think that a) you are not old enough to remember (I am only just) or b) you don't read history except that that suits your narrative. She was not considered a right wing loon at all. She was seen (bizarrely in retrospect) as a voice of housewifely moderation.
Twistedfirestopper was talking about banks not taking money in, but what about not letting us have our money?
RBS seem to have got all difficult about people paying bills or moving money to new accounts, *even when there is no possible question of fraud*, to the extent of putting a stop on accounts for the crime of trying to book the same holiday home as in previous years, just cos one hasn't spoken to the owner face to face or on a video call (just happened to a colleague of mine). And Mrs C had a long interrogation for the crime of trying to open a savings account with another bank with an £10 to check if it went through OK before sending the main payment. It's not easy to close sabvings accounts - I have had to send written requests, in one case told to do so to a local branch that didn't exist since they closed it. And today I got a minatory circular email basically saying they'd do a Farage on me if one of their staff so much as thought I smelt a tiny bit funny.
Presumably Nat West is also going all pearl-clutchy too?
I recall a few years ago I used my card buying stock for a business, which would subsequently be reclaimed. Went to a rather large number from a shop you'd not normally expect large numbers from.
A few days later spoke to Barclays as they'd put a stop on my card for fraud alert. Thought it would be that and was ready to explain but they were perfectly fine with that transaction.
No, the problem was I'd spent £2.50 at ASDA. Yes, on my drive home I'd bought a sandwich and that was the suspicious transaction, not the fact I'd spent considerable sums elsewhere.
The thing that boils my piss is they put a stop on your card, they have your phone number, your email....the first thing you know about it though is usually when you goto pay for something and the card is declined with a message to contact the issuer. Had it happen several times
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I suspect they will pile in to support Labour if they think it inevitable
Yes, me too. Albeit in a qualified way. It'll be a 'he's rubbish, but I suppose he'll do. But watch out' type endorsement. Because that's what they think (probably correctly) their readership are thinking.
Honestly, the Sun isn't and never has acted as some sort of Prime-Minister-picking Svengali. It just writes what it thinks will most encourage people to buy (or click on) the Sun. It follows its readership.
You overstate the case. The Sun doesn't choose the government but it has a powerful influence.
What the Tories need to do is pick a big fight over Rwanda with the ECHR (which has nothing to do with the EU but how many Sun readers know that?), and if possible go to the mattresses. Follow Greece and Russia's lead and withdraw from the CofE. Say this is national security and it trumps international law. Turn the M20 into a lorry park, let supermarket shelves run bare, and say no-one must be allowed to push Britain around. Get some powerful "unintended" consequences that may well not even appear on the above list, and act tough. This kind of thing nearly happened towards the end of 2019. Goodness knows how the financial markets will react to a reneging by Britain on this particular treaty commitment. But if it's necessary to win the election, "lose" tens of billions of pounds as Truss and Kwarteng did in 2022. The most important consideration will be the timing. Sunak or a successor gets to choose the date of the election too. The Tories haven't lost yet.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I suspect they will pile in to support Labour if they think it inevitable
Yes, me too. Albeit in a qualified way. It'll be a 'he's rubbish, but I suppose he'll do. But watch out' type endorsement. Because that's what they think (probably correctly) their readership are thinking.
Honestly, the Sun isn't and never has acted as some sort of Prime-Minister-picking Svengali. It just writes what it thinks will most encourage people to buy (or click on) the Sun. It follows its readership.
You overstate the case. The Sun doesn't choose the government but it has a powerful influence.
What the Tories need to do is pick a big fight over Rwanda with the ECHR (which has nothing to do with the EU but how many Sun readers know that?), and if possible go to the mattresses. Follow Greece and Russia's lead and withdraw from the CofE. Say this is national security and it trumps international law. Turn the M20 into a lorry park, let supermarket shelves run bare, and say no-one must be allowed to push Britain around. Get some powerful "unintended" consequences that may well not even appear on the above list, and act tough. This kind of thing nearly happened towards the end of 2019. Goodness knows how the financial markets will react to a reneging by Britain on this particular treaty commitment. But if it's necessary to win the election, "lose" tens of billions of pounds as Truss and Kwarteng did in 2022. The most important consideration will be the timing. Sunak or a successor gets to choose the date of the election too. The Tories haven't lost yet.
Disestablishmentarianism is a recommended Tory policy? Jings, help ma boab.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
The insult is also to my intelligence because people like you think it will actually alter anything about the way people act....but then you still seem to believe in the magical socialism fairy where you can steal everyones stuff and they will vote for it so I shouldn't be surprised
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
It devalues all of the other rules they must follow as employers. Yes, being racist is bad, but there are many other ways employers can do harm to their employees.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
What is the point of it? It's like answering "When did you stop beating your wife"
Almost everyone will sign the pledge because they will be terrified of looking "like a racist". What does non-signing mean - "Oh yeah I'm in the Klan, not gonna sign, I hate Jews and Pakistanis"
Any actual racists will sign it just for larks and to stay out of trouble. The only people who won't sign it will be principled libertarians like Sean F, who will then get unfairly persecuted for being "racist"
It is absolutely pointless fuckwittery, a counter productive piece of theatre, and a total waste of money
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
No, it's essentially a sticker to say you have seen what York council considers being racist and you promise to do those things York council asks you to do to be actively anti-racist. There is no accusation that sans any knowledge of this pledge you are a racist, or even not signing this pledge makes you a racist. Just a campaign to highlight this issue and tackle it.
It's a highly defensive posture to take this as an insult.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
No, it's essentially a sticker to say you have seen what York council considers being racist and you promise to do those things York council asks you to do to be actively anti-racist. There is no accusation that sans any knowledge of this pledge you are a racist, or even not signing this pledge makes you a racist. Just a campaign to highlight this issue and tackle it.
It's a highly defensive posture to take this as an insult.
I don't give a shit what you think as you are delusional. York council can still fuck off
An anti-racist pledge isn't simply a pledge to not be racist. Here's the generic schema:
thing not-thing anti-thing
It's up to you if you think being not racist is good enough or if you should be anti-racist. But at least be aware of what you're actually talking about.
There's also 'not believing thing is a real existing thing'. Although that often is covered by 'thing'.
I hesitate to judge this too much without seeing the detail of the programme (and, indeed, the pledge). But simply signing up to something is a thing that companies will often do, without actually changing any practices.
An anti-racist pledge isn't simply a pledge to not be racist. Here's the generic schema:
thing not-thing anti-thing
It's up to you if you think being not racist is good enough or if you should be anti-racist. But at least be aware of what you're actually talking about.
I have never disliked or been predjudiced about anyone because of colour,race, creed or sexuality. I frankly don't give a shit if others do because that is up to them. Idiots who are prejudiced soon out themselves and lose their jobs/friends/etc. Better to let them rant and out themselves
An anti-racist pledge isn't simply a pledge to not be racist. Here's the generic schema:
thing not-thing anti-thing
It's up to you if you think being not racist is good enough or if you should be anti-racist. But at least be aware of what you're actually talking about.
I mean, sure, being anti-racist and not racist are different things - I just don't understand why people would find being asked to sign an anti-racist pledge insulting. Especially when the article shares clearly why the council want to do this, an increase in hate crimes related to race, and the pledge itself is just one part of a wider strategy, and the details of the pledge haven't even been written yet!
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
No, it's essentially a sticker to say you have seen what York council considers being racist and you promise to do those things York council asks you to do to be actively anti-racist. There is no accusation that sans any knowledge of this pledge you are a racist, or even not signing this pledge makes you a racist. Just a campaign to highlight this issue and tackle it.
It's a highly defensive posture to take this as an insult.
All anti-isms act as ideological ratchets because they set up claims that can never be satisfied.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
No, it's essentially a sticker to say you have seen what York council considers being racist and you promise to do those things York council asks you to do to be actively anti-racist. There is no accusation that sans any knowledge of this pledge you are a racist, or even not signing this pledge makes you a racist. Just a campaign to highlight this issue and tackle it.
It's a highly defensive posture to take this as an insult.
I don't give a shit what you think as you are delusional. York council can still fuck off
I'm interested to know about these delusions, maybe I'd enjoy them - reality is rather depressing.
And the article says that this is part of a programme aimed at tackling increased hate crimes in York based on race, and is one part of a wider strategy. Anti-racism involves actively challenging racism, which I can see as being related to trying to reduce hate crimes based on race, and therefore seems like a rather logical action to take.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
No, it's essentially a sticker to say you have seen what York council considers being racist and you promise to do those things York council asks you to do to be actively anti-racist. There is no accusation that sans any knowledge of this pledge you are a racist, or even not signing this pledge makes you a racist. Just a campaign to highlight this issue and tackle it.
It's a highly defensive posture to take this as an insult.
All anti-isms act as ideological ratchets because they set up claims that can never be satisfied.
Worse than that all anti isms are a form of thought police. You are only allowed to think the way we allow you to. It needs to be stamped on everytime it rears its ugly head.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. Sometimes people say racist comments at social gatherings. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
No, it's essentially a sticker to say you have seen what York council considers being racist and you promise to do those things York council asks you to do to be actively anti-racist. There is no accusation that sans any knowledge of this pledge you are a racist, or even not signing this pledge makes you a racist. Just a campaign to highlight this issue and tackle it.
It's a highly defensive posture to take this as an insult.
All anti-isms act as ideological ratchets because they set up claims that can never be satisfied.
What? Anti-racism is just the position of actively challenging racism if you see it, rather than not actively participating in racism or just not being racist yourself. If you have an issue, like an increase in hate crimes based on race as is outlined in the article, then having a strategy asking people to be more active about challenging racism seems like a pretty reasonable step to take, no?
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
No, it's essentially a sticker to say you have seen what York council considers being racist and you promise to do those things York council asks you to do to be actively anti-racist. There is no accusation that sans any knowledge of this pledge you are a racist, or even not signing this pledge makes you a racist. Just a campaign to highlight this issue and tackle it.
It's a highly defensive posture to take this as an insult.
I don't give a shit what you think as you are delusional. York council can still fuck off
I'm interested to know about these delusions, maybe I'd enjoy them - reality is rather depressing.
And the article says that this is part of a programme aimed at tackling increased hate crimes in York based on race, and is one part of a wider strategy. Anti-racism involves actively challenging racism, which I can see as being related to trying to reduce hate crimes based on race, and therefore seems like a rather logical action to take.
Well lets start with your delusion that there is enough bedrooms in the country and all property should be for the state to decide who lives in it as you evinced the other day. Make me share my property and those other people are going to end up as a murder statistic.
50.2 6 Woakes to Marsh, SIX runs Absolutely scorched into the Western Stand! Back of a length, Woakes is cherry-picked, high and mighty, umpteen rows back!
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Golly your posts today on gender and race! FFS give it a rest. P.B isn't 1984.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
No, it's essentially a sticker to say you have seen what York council considers being racist and you promise to do those things York council asks you to do to be actively anti-racist. There is no accusation that sans any knowledge of this pledge you are a racist, or even not signing this pledge makes you a racist. Just a campaign to highlight this issue and tackle it.
It's a highly defensive posture to take this as an insult.
All anti-isms act as ideological ratchets because they set up claims that can never be satisfied.
What? Anti-racism is just the position of actively challenging racism if you see it, rather than not actively participating in racism or just not being racist yourself. If you have an issue, like an increase in hate crimes based on race as is outlined in the article, then having a strategy asking people to be more active about challenging racism seems like a pretty reasonable step to take, no?
Is there an increase in prosecuted hate crime or a rise in hate crime claimed to the websites that make a meal out of it.....self identified hate crime by the victim.
Sorry prosecutable hate crimes are falling not rising.
If I punch someone in the nose because he grabs my girlfriends butt and he happens to be black doesn't mean I hit him because he was black despite him claiming it as a race crime
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
No, it's essentially a sticker to say you have seen what York council considers being racist and you promise to do those things York council asks you to do to be actively anti-racist. There is no accusation that sans any knowledge of this pledge you are a racist, or even not signing this pledge makes you a racist. Just a campaign to highlight this issue and tackle it.
It's a highly defensive posture to take this as an insult.
All anti-isms act as ideological ratchets because they set up claims that can never be satisfied.
And as others have pointed out up thread a city that is 93% white (vs England 82%) might have better priorities. Like the 13% of children living in poverty or 11% with disability.
A really interesting story which highlights the trends in the war (and why they are heading in Ukraine's favor). Extreme Russian losses in equipment and the fact that Ukraine has received NATO support, means that Ukraine now possesses more tanks than Russia...
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I suspect they will pile in to support Labour if they think it inevitable
Yes, me too. Albeit in a qualified way. It'll be a 'he's rubbish, but I suppose he'll do. But watch out' type endorsement. Because that's what they think (probably correctly) their readership are thinking.
Honestly, the Sun isn't and never has acted as some sort of Prime-Minister-picking Svengali. It just writes what it thinks will most encourage people to buy (or click on) the Sun. It follows its readership.
Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits.
Ah, so that explains Johnson's appeal with that demographic
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
No, it's essentially a sticker to say you have seen what York council considers being racist and you promise to do those things York council asks you to do to be actively anti-racist. There is no accusation that sans any knowledge of this pledge you are a racist, or even not signing this pledge makes you a racist. Just a campaign to highlight this issue and tackle it.
It's a highly defensive posture to take this as an insult.
All anti-isms act as ideological ratchets because they set up claims that can never be satisfied.
And as others have pointed out up thread a city that is 93% white (vs England 82%) might have better priorities. Like the 13% of children living in poverty or 11% with disability.
The article points out the significant increase in hate crimes related to race as one of the main reasons for doing this. So it is kind of important!
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
No, it's essentially a sticker to say you have seen what York council considers being racist and you promise to do those things York council asks you to do to be actively anti-racist. There is no accusation that sans any knowledge of this pledge you are a racist, or even not signing this pledge makes you a racist. Just a campaign to highlight this issue and tackle it.
It's a highly defensive posture to take this as an insult.
All anti-isms act as ideological ratchets because they set up claims that can never be satisfied.
What? Anti-racism is just the position of actively challenging racism if you see it, rather than not actively participating in racism or just not being racist yourself. If you have an issue, like an increase in hate crimes based on race as is outlined in the article, then having a strategy asking people to be more active about challenging racism seems like a pretty reasonable step to take, no?
Is there an increase in prosecuted hate crime or a rise in hate crime claimed to the websites that make a meal out of it.....self identified hate crime by the victim.
Sorry prosecutable hate crimes are falling not rising.
If I punch someone in the nose because he grabs my girlfriends butt and he happens to be black doesn't mean I hit him because he was black despite him claiming it as a race crime
That's a bit like the aftermath of the Brexit referendum.
All the independent data shows the country has become progressively less racist and more tolerant of migration since then.
The anecdotal self-reported data shows a huge increase in racism and hate crimes.
What's all the more remarkable is those who log "hate crimes" where no crime has been committed.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
No, it's essentially a sticker to say you have seen what York council considers being racist and you promise to do those things York council asks you to do to be actively anti-racist. There is no accusation that sans any knowledge of this pledge you are a racist, or even not signing this pledge makes you a racist. Just a campaign to highlight this issue and tackle it.
It's a highly defensive posture to take this as an insult.
All anti-isms act as ideological ratchets because they set up claims that can never be satisfied.
Worse than that all anti isms are a form of thought police. You are only allowed to think the way we allow you to. It needs to be stamped on everytime it rears its ugly head.
So when it comes to anti-isms, we can take it that you're... against them?
Yes I am as I said its the thought police writ large, it starts with you have to be anti racist before you no it you will have to be anti people who put pineapple on pizza and take a stand when they do by shoving their pizza pie in their face.
It is not my job to police how others think. Nor is it yours or the governements
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Golly your posts today on gender and race! FFS give it a rest. P.B isn't 1984.
I mean, I'm just posting my position like any other poster here, I didn't realise I alone had the powers of Big Brother to send any user here to room 101.
There has always been a war between Political Betting and 538. There has always been a war between Political Betting and 538.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. Sometimes people say racist comments at social gatherings. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
Being half Jewish, I really like knowing where the racists are.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Golly your posts today on gender and race! FFS give it a rest. P.B isn't 1984.
I mean, I'm just posting my position like any other poster here, I didn't realise I alone had the powers of Big Brother to send any user here to room 101.
There has always been a war between Political Betting and 538. There has always been a war between Political Betting and 538.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Golly your posts today on gender and race! FFS give it a rest. P.B isn't 1984.
I mean, I'm just posting my position like any other poster here, I didn't realise I alone had the powers of Big Brother to send any user here to room 101.
There has always been a war between Political Betting and 538. There has always been a war between Political Betting and 538.
Its not room 101 people here fear being sent to.
Its ConservativeHome.
Surely ConHome is the thing that one finds in room 101?
"You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world."
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
No, it's essentially a sticker to say you have seen what York council considers being racist and you promise to do those things York council asks you to do to be actively anti-racist. There is no accusation that sans any knowledge of this pledge you are a racist, or even not signing this pledge makes you a racist. Just a campaign to highlight this issue and tackle it.
It's a highly defensive posture to take this as an insult.
I don't give a shit what you think as you are delusional. York council can still fuck off
I'm interested to know about these delusions, maybe I'd enjoy them - reality is rather depressing.
And the article says that this is part of a programme aimed at tackling increased hate crimes in York based on race, and is one part of a wider strategy. Anti-racism involves actively challenging racism, which I can see as being related to trying to reduce hate crimes based on race, and therefore seems like a rather logical action to take.
If you start from the premise that York suffers from systemic racism manifested by an under-reperesentation of ethnic minorities, and you need to take active steps to correct that, when is the task complete? Perhaps when the level of representation reflects the local community? But what if the local community is itself unrepresentative of the country due to not being welcoming enough to incomers? What if the country as a whole under-represents the 'global majority'?
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
No, it's essentially a sticker to say you have seen what York council considers being racist and you promise to do those things York council asks you to do to be actively anti-racist. There is no accusation that sans any knowledge of this pledge you are a racist, or even not signing this pledge makes you a racist. Just a campaign to highlight this issue and tackle it.
It's a highly defensive posture to take this as an insult.
All anti-isms act as ideological ratchets because they set up claims that can never be satisfied.
What? Anti-racism is just the position of actively challenging racism if you see it, rather than not actively participating in racism or just not being racist yourself. If you have an issue, like an increase in hate crimes based on race as is outlined in the article, then having a strategy asking people to be more active about challenging racism seems like a pretty reasonable step to take, no?
Is there an increase in prosecuted hate crime or a rise in hate crime claimed to the websites that make a meal out of it.....self identified hate crime by the victim.
Sorry prosecutable hate crimes are falling not rising.
If I punch someone in the nose because he grabs my girlfriends butt and he happens to be black doesn't mean I hit him because he was black despite him claiming it as a race crime
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I suspect they will pile in to support Labour if they think it inevitable
Yes, me too. Albeit in a qualified way. It'll be a 'he's rubbish, but I suppose he'll do. But watch out' type endorsement. Because that's what they think (probably correctly) their readership are thinking.
Honestly, the Sun isn't and never has acted as some sort of Prime-Minister-picking Svengali. It just writes what it thinks will most encourage people to buy (or click on) the Sun. It follows its readership.
Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits.
Ah, so that explains Johnson's appeal with that demographic
Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers.
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;
the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
the Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country,
and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
This is just such boring Woke drivel. Take it elsewhere
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I suspect they will pile in to support Labour if they think it inevitable
Yes, me too. Albeit in a qualified way. It'll be a 'he's rubbish, but I suppose he'll do. But watch out' type endorsement. Because that's what they think (probably correctly) their readership are thinking.
Honestly, the Sun isn't and never has acted as some sort of Prime-Minister-picking Svengali. It just writes what it thinks will most encourage people to buy (or click on) the Sun. It follows its readership.
You overstate the case. The Sun doesn't choose the government but it has a powerful influence.
What the Tories need to do is pick a big fight over Rwanda with the ECHR (which has nothing to do with the EU but how many Sun readers know that?), and if possible go to the mattresses. Follow Greece and Russia's lead and withdraw from the CofE. Say this is national security and it trumps international law. Turn the M20 into a lorry park, let supermarket shelves run bare, and say no-one must be allowed to push Britain around. Get some powerful "unintended" consequences that may well not even appear on the above list, and act tough. This kind of thing nearly happened towards the end of 2019. Goodness knows how the financial markets will react to a reneging by Britain on this particular treaty commitment. But if it's necessary to win the election, "lose" tens of billions of pounds as Truss and Kwarteng did in 2022. The most important consideration will be the timing. Sunak or a successor gets to choose the date of the election too. The Tories haven't lost yet.
Disestablishmentarianism is a recommended Tory policy? Jings, help ma boab.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
No, it's essentially a sticker to say you have seen what York council considers being racist and you promise to do those things York council asks you to do to be actively anti-racist. There is no accusation that sans any knowledge of this pledge you are a racist, or even not signing this pledge makes you a racist. Just a campaign to highlight this issue and tackle it.
It's a highly defensive posture to take this as an insult.
I don't give a shit what you think as you are delusional. York council can still fuck off
I'm interested to know about these delusions, maybe I'd enjoy them - reality is rather depressing.
And the article says that this is part of a programme aimed at tackling increased hate crimes in York based on race, and is one part of a wider strategy. Anti-racism involves actively challenging racism, which I can see as being related to trying to reduce hate crimes based on race, and therefore seems like a rather logical action to take.
If you start from the premise that York suffers from systemic racism manifested by an under-reperesentation of ethnic minorities, and you need to take active steps to correct that, when is the task complete? Perhaps when the level of representation reflects the local community? But what if the local community is itself unrepresentative of the country due to not being welcoming enough to incomers? What if the country as a whole under-represents the 'global majority'?
I mean, I just read the article and the article told me there was an increase in hate crimes associated with race. So if I'm supposed to disregard information in the article about the reasons why York council are doing things also listed in the article that people are complaining about - should we just not disregard the entire article and not discuss this? Like, people here are the ones complaining about the pledge - I'm just pointing out that the pledge is part of what York council plan to do in response to a noticeable increase in race related hate crimes.
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I suspect they will pile in to support Labour if they think it inevitable
Yes, me too. Albeit in a qualified way. It'll be a 'he's rubbish, but I suppose he'll do. But watch out' type endorsement. Because that's what they think (probably correctly) their readership are thinking.
Honestly, the Sun isn't and never has acted as some sort of Prime-Minister-picking Svengali. It just writes what it thinks will most encourage people to buy (or click on) the Sun. It follows its readership.
You overstate the case. The Sun doesn't choose the government but it has a powerful influence.
What the Tories need to do is pick a big fight over Rwanda with the ECHR (which has nothing to do with the EU but how many Sun readers know that?), and if possible go to the mattresses. Follow Greece and Russia's lead and withdraw from the CofE. Say this is national security and it trumps international law. Turn the M20 into a lorry park, let supermarket shelves run bare, and say no-one must be allowed to push Britain around. Get some powerful "unintended" consequences that may well not even appear on the above list, and act tough. This kind of thing nearly happened towards the end of 2019. Goodness knows how the financial markets will react to a reneging by Britain on this particular treaty commitment. But if it's necessary to win the election, "lose" tens of billions of pounds as Truss and Kwarteng did in 2022. The most important consideration will be the timing. Sunak or a successor gets to choose the date of the election too. The Tories haven't lost yet.
Disestablishmentarianism is a recommended Tory policy? Jings, help ma boab.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
This is just such boring Woke drivel. Take it elsewhere
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Golly your posts today on gender and race! FFS give it a rest. P.B isn't 1984.
I mean, I'm just posting my position like any other poster here, I didn't realise I alone had the powers of Big Brother to send any user here to room 101.
There has always been a war between Political Betting and 538. There has always been a war between Political Betting and 538.
You're really not. You're handing out instructions as you've done all day. You've been called out on your crap and sail on regardless. Bore off - they need your wisdom on Con Home.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Golly your posts today on gender and race! FFS give it a rest. P.B isn't 1984.
I mean, I'm just posting my position like any other poster here, I didn't realise I alone had the powers of Big Brother to send any user here to room 101.
There has always been a war between Political Betting and 538. There has always been a war between Political Betting and 538.
Its not room 101 people here fear being sent to.
Its ConservativeHome.
Political Betting has always been in alliance with 538 against ConservativeHome. Political Betting has always been in alliance with 538 against ConservativeHome.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Most of the nazi's seem to have joined the anti nazi groups as it gives them more scope for kicking peoples heads in
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
This is just such boring Woke drivel. Take it elsewhere
Fair enough. I merely find it worthy and dull. But I accept others might feel different, and I have been known to OCCASIONALLY rant away about my own obsessions, so, whatever, knock yerself out
I have to do some work, while slyly watching the cricket, so I shall bow out of PB for a bit. Later
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
I mean, that's essentially what anti racism is, with just that extra step of trying to not let it get to harassment first by intervening slightly earlier if you're aware there is potential for an issue. No one is asking you to go around moralising or trying to brainwash people.
Just if you see it, sort it. Say it, see it, sort it. (Political Betting has always been in alliance with ConservativeHome against 538)
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
No, it's essentially a sticker to say you have seen what York council considers being racist and you promise to do those things York council asks you to do to be actively anti-racist. There is no accusation that sans any knowledge of this pledge you are a racist, or even not signing this pledge makes you a racist. Just a campaign to highlight this issue and tackle it.
It's a highly defensive posture to take this as an insult.
I don't give a shit what you think as you are delusional. York council can still fuck off
I'm interested to know about these delusions, maybe I'd enjoy them - reality is rather depressing.
And the article says that this is part of a programme aimed at tackling increased hate crimes in York based on race, and is one part of a wider strategy. Anti-racism involves actively challenging racism, which I can see as being related to trying to reduce hate crimes based on race, and therefore seems like a rather logical action to take.
If you start from the premise that York suffers from systemic racism manifested by an under-reperesentation of ethnic minorities, and you need to take active steps to correct that, when is the task complete? Perhaps when the level of representation reflects the local community? But what if the local community is itself unrepresentative of the country due to not being welcoming enough to incomers? What if the country as a whole under-represents the 'global majority'?
I mean, I just read the article and the article told me there was an increase in hate crimes associated with race. So if I'm supposed to disregard information in the article about the reasons why York council are doing things also listed in the article that people are complaining about - should we just not disregard the entire article and not discuss this? Like, people here are the ones complaining about the pledge - I'm just pointing out that the pledge is part of what York council plan to do in response to a noticeable increase in race related hate crimes.
My first thought is to check whether the increase is a higher level of reporting.
A classic was a massive increase in rape reports to the police in Sweden some years back. As a result of a campaign by the police, government and prosecutorial services to do better at handling reports, and encouraging them.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
No, it's essentially a sticker to say you have seen what York council considers being racist and you promise to do those things York council asks you to do to be actively anti-racist. There is no accusation that sans any knowledge of this pledge you are a racist, or even not signing this pledge makes you a racist. Just a campaign to highlight this issue and tackle it.
It's a highly defensive posture to take this as an insult.
I don't give a shit what you think as you are delusional. York council can still fuck off
I'm interested to know about these delusions, maybe I'd enjoy them - reality is rather depressing.
And the article says that this is part of a programme aimed at tackling increased hate crimes in York based on race, and is one part of a wider strategy. Anti-racism involves actively challenging racism, which I can see as being related to trying to reduce hate crimes based on race, and therefore seems like a rather logical action to take.
If you start from the premise that York suffers from systemic racism manifested by an under-reperesentation of ethnic minorities, and you need to take active steps to correct that, when is the task complete? Perhaps when the level of representation reflects the local community? But what if the local community is itself unrepresentative of the country due to not being welcoming enough to incomers? What if the country as a whole under-represents the 'global majority'?
I mean, I just read the article and the article told me there was an increase in hate crimes associated with race. So if I'm supposed to disregard information in the article about the reasons why York council are doing things also listed in the article that people are complaining about - should we just not disregard the entire article and not discuss this? Like, people here are the ones complaining about the pledge - I'm just pointing out that the pledge is part of what York council plan to do in response to a noticeable increase in race related hate crimes.
"I mean, I just read the article"
It's very bad form to actually have read (or know anything about) the thing we're discussing, you know.
The article does have this interesting bit at the end: "According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), in 2021, 92.8 per cent of people in York identified their ethnic group within the “White” category, compared with 94.3 per cent in 2011.Meanwhile, the population of York’s BAME population, grew to approximately 14 per cent, meaning one in seven people are from ethnic minorities."
Assuming it's not just illiterate stats soup, or a near doubling of the BAME* population since 2021, that seems to suggest a substantial overlap between the BAME and White population, which is certainly very possible depending how you define ethnicity and minorities (although I'm not sure how you measure it well, outwith the census) but looks like a different issue to that covered in the article.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Neither would I because its insulting frankly
What's insulting about it? It's always useful to have clearly worded criteria for what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace and knowing who has read those and who says they will abide by it, if only for consumers to say "they're doing enough performative wokeness for me to like / hate them". If you're a company already doing these things, great, you get a sticker or something. If not, maybe you should be a better employer...
The insult is that you must be a racist and have to sign a pledge to say you wont anymore. Frankly they can fuck off
No, it's essentially a sticker to say you have seen what York council considers being racist and you promise to do those things York council asks you to do to be actively anti-racist. There is no accusation that sans any knowledge of this pledge you are a racist, or even not signing this pledge makes you a racist. Just a campaign to highlight this issue and tackle it.
It's a highly defensive posture to take this as an insult.
I don't give a shit what you think as you are delusional. York council can still fuck off
I'm interested to know about these delusions, maybe I'd enjoy them - reality is rather depressing.
And the article says that this is part of a programme aimed at tackling increased hate crimes in York based on race, and is one part of a wider strategy. Anti-racism involves actively challenging racism, which I can see as being related to trying to reduce hate crimes based on race, and therefore seems like a rather logical action to take.
If you start from the premise that York suffers from systemic racism manifested by an under-reperesentation of ethnic minorities, and you need to take active steps to correct that, when is the task complete? Perhaps when the level of representation reflects the local community? But what if the local community is itself unrepresentative of the country due to not being welcoming enough to incomers? What if the country as a whole under-represents the 'global majority'?
I mean, I just read the article and the article told me there was an increase in hate crimes associated with race. So if I'm supposed to disregard information in the article about the reasons why York council are doing things also listed in the article that people are complaining about - should we just not disregard the entire article and not discuss this? Like, people here are the ones complaining about the pledge - I'm just pointing out that the pledge is part of what York council plan to do in response to a noticeable increase in race related hate crimes.
My first thought is to check whether the increase is a higher level of reporting.
A classic was a massive increase in rape reports to the police in Sweden some years back. As a result of a campaign by the police, government and prosecutorial services to do better at handling reports, and encouraging them.
Sure, but even if it is just an increase in reporting, that shows us the issue was more significant than previously thought - so it is still important to take extra actions to tackle it.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. Sometimes people say racist comments at social gatherings. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
I guess you either don't have any friends or relatives from a minority, or don't think you owe it to them to stand up for them against bigots?
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
I mean, that's essentially what anti racism is, with just that extra step of trying to not let it get to harassment first by intervening slightly earlier if you're aware there is potential for an issue. No one is asking you to go around moralising or trying to brainwash people.
Just if you see it, sort it. Say it, see it, sort it. (Political Betting has always been in alliance with ConservativeHome against 538)
That's not all it is according to Ibram X. Kendi, author of "How to Be an Antiracist" who defines it as an ongoing process of active discrimination:
The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. Sometimes people say racist comments at social gatherings. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
I guess you either don't have any friends or relatives from a minority, or don't think you owe it to them to stand up for them against bigots?
My adopted daughter is afro caribbean if that counts? I am not sean_f but I have the same thought pattern. She feels I have always looked out for her enough
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Golly your posts today on gender and race! FFS give it a rest. P.B isn't 1984.
I mean, I'm just posting my position like any other poster here, I didn't realise I alone had the powers of Big Brother to send any user here to room 101.
There has always been a war between Political Betting and 538. There has always been a war between Political Betting and 538.
You're really not. You're handing out instructions as you've done all day. You've been called out on your crap and sail on regardless. Bore off - they need your wisdom on Con Home.
I didn't realise I was giving out instructions and had the apparatus of the state to enforce them! If I did, I assure you, this place would be a lot more draconian.
Anyway, 2+2 = ? That's right, a conservative majority. 2+2 = a conservative majority
(Political Betting has always been at war with 538 and ConservativeHome. Political Betting has always been at war with 538 and ConservativeHome)
P.S - can I pick another Orwell book to have to pastiche? I could claim 4 bets good, 2 bets better?
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Comments
"The Spectator itself is up for sale, along with sister newspaper the Telegraph, after the owner’s financial troubles came to light. Prevailing wisdom is that the siblings will be separated. “The Spectator is the cute baby everybody wants to snatch, the Telegraph is the difficult teenager,”"
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1676953682288721921?s=20
Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers.
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;
the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
the Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country,
and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
And a majority of American blacks now live in suburbs.
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/11/04/mixed-race-neighborhoods/
(That change was obvious to me when watching the children's 4th of July parade, two days ago. When my mother moved to this Seattle suburb in 1961, it was probably at least 95 percent white.
Judging by that parade, and the students I see at the local grade school, it has become especially attractive to East Asians and South Asians.)
However the nuclear scientists themselves are less agitated. Apparently the plant has now been shut for so long the chances of anything Chernobyl-esque are minimal-to-zero
Tho it would represent yet another escalation by Putin, even if it wasn't that damaging in reality
The only person who has standing is the person who is harmed by the decision to grant charitable status to LGBA, the Charity Commission itself, or the Attorney General.
Jolyon, once again, is proving himself the Max Bialystock of the English Bar.
RBS seem to have got all difficult about people paying bills or moving money to new accounts, *even when there is no possible question of fraud*, to the extent of putting a stop on accounts for the crime of trying to book the same holiday home as in previous years, just cos one hasn't spoken to the owner face to face or on a video call (just happened to a colleague of mine). And Mrs C had a long interrogation for the crime of trying to open a savings account with another bank with an £10 to check if it went through OK before sending the main payment. It's not easy to close sabvings accounts - I have had to send written requests, in one case told to do so to a local branch that didn't exist since they closed it. And today I got a minatory circular email basically saying they'd do a Farage on me if one of their staff so much as thought I smelt a tiny bit funny.
Presumably Nat West is also going all pearl-clutchy too?
I had a whole wad of cash returned to my account when I bought my last car as I did a similar thing, sending a pound before the main payment to ensure details are correct. At one point I had the car and the cash. Of course I made sure it got through to the seller eventually but it wasn't that easy and the seller was shitting bricks thinking I'd nicked 7 grands worth of motor off them.
Edit: the excuse given was that that is a fraudster SOP. But Mrs C is articulate, middle aged and not your drooling victim, and she had just opened a new account (albeit with one f those latter banks). What was amazing is that the conversation was far, far longer than one would think as a simple check (which is fair enough).
Officials in the Treasury and the Office of the Advocate General of Scotland will look into cash spent working on Scottish independence – an area reserved to Westminster.
Scottish Labour peer Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, who has been campaigning on the issue, said he had been assured by the Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, that “ultra-vires” expenditure would be looked into.
https://news.stv.tv/scotland/scottish-government-independence-spending-to-be-investigated-by-uk-officials
A few days later spoke to Barclays as they'd put a stop on my card for fraud alert. Thought it would be that and was ready to explain but they were perfectly fine with that transaction.
No, the problem was I'd spent £2.50 at ASDA. Yes, on my drive home I'd bought a sandwich and that was the suspicious transaction, not the fact I'd spent considerable sums elsewhere.
What the Tories need to do is pick a big fight over Rwanda with the ECHR (which has nothing to do with the EU but how many Sun readers know that?), and if possible go to the mattresses. Follow Greece and Russia's lead and withdraw from the CofE. Say this is national security and it trumps international law. Turn the M20 into a lorry park, let supermarket shelves run bare, and say no-one must be allowed to push Britain around. Get some powerful "unintended" consequences that may well not even appear on the above list, and act tough. This kind of thing nearly happened towards the end of 2019. Goodness knows how the financial markets will react to a reneging by Britain on this particular treaty commitment. But if it's necessary to win the election, "lose" tens of billions of pounds as Truss and Kwarteng did in 2022. The most important consideration will be the timing. Sunak or a successor gets to choose the date of the election too. The Tories haven't lost yet.
Bypassing Biden?
In Michigan, a governor with a powerful message seems ready for the next step, but an octogenarian president stands in her way.
Almost everyone will sign the pledge because they will be terrified of looking "like a racist". What does non-signing mean - "Oh yeah I'm in the Klan, not gonna sign, I hate Jews and Pakistanis"
Any actual racists will sign it just for larks and to stay out of trouble. The only people who won't sign it will be principled libertarians like Sean F, who will then get unfairly persecuted for being "racist"
It is absolutely pointless fuckwittery, a counter productive piece of theatre, and a total waste of money
It's a highly defensive posture to take this as an insult.
I hesitate to judge this too much without seeing the detail of the programme (and, indeed, the pledge). But simply signing up to something is a thing that companies will often do, without actually changing any practices.
And the article says that this is part of a programme aimed at tackling increased hate crimes in York based on race, and is one part of a wider strategy. Anti-racism involves actively challenging racism, which I can see as being related to trying to reduce hate crimes based on race, and therefore seems like a rather logical action to take.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
6
Woakes to Marsh, SIX runs
Absolutely scorched into the Western Stand! Back of a length, Woakes is cherry-picked, high and mighty, umpteen rows back!
Sorry prosecutable hate crimes are falling not rising.
If I punch someone in the nose because he grabs my girlfriends butt and he happens to be black doesn't mean I hit him because he was black despite him claiming it as a race crime
All the independent data shows the country has become progressively less racist and more tolerant of migration since then.
The anecdotal self-reported data shows a huge increase in racism and hate crimes.
What's all the more remarkable is those who log "hate crimes" where no crime has been committed.
It is not my job to police how others think. Nor is it yours or the governements
There has always been a war between Political Betting and 538. There has always been a war between Political Betting and 538.
Preferably under 500 meters, low cross wind.
Its ConservativeHome.
Stood a couple of rows back from the stage at Hyde Park watching Frank Turner and waiting for Bruce Springsteen this evening.
Pretty damn fine day whatever politics and the world might be doing
"You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world."
Simple fact is in my example I punched him for grabbing my girlfriends butt. His race/creed/sexuality doesn't come into the decision
That sews up the Scrabble vote.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
I have to do some work, while slyly watching the cricket, so I shall bow out of PB for a bit. Later
Just if you see it, sort it. Say it, see it, sort it. (Political Betting has always been in alliance with ConservativeHome against 538)
A classic was a massive increase in rape reports to the police in Sweden some years back. As a result of a campaign by the police, government and prosecutorial services to do better at handling reports, and encouraging them.
It's very bad form to actually have read (or know anything about) the thing we're discussing, you know.
The article does have this interesting bit at the end:
"According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), in 2021, 92.8 per cent of people in York identified their ethnic group within the “White” category, compared with 94.3 per cent in 2011.Meanwhile, the population of York’s BAME population, grew to approximately 14 per cent, meaning one in seven people are from ethnic minorities."
Assuming it's not just illiterate stats soup, or a near doubling of the BAME* population since 2021, that seems to suggest a substantial overlap between the BAME and White population, which is certainly very possible depending how you define ethnicity and minorities (although I'm not sure how you measure it well, outwith the census) but looks like a different issue to that covered in the article.
The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.
https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/06/ibram-x-kendi-definition-of-antiracist
Anyway, 2+2 = ? That's right, a conservative majority. 2+2 = a conservative majority
(Political Betting has always been at war with 538 and ConservativeHome. Political Betting has always been at war with 538 and ConservativeHome)
P.S - can I pick another Orwell book to have to pastiche? I could claim 4 bets good, 2 bets better?
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.