Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Now is the time for nuance and subtlety – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,014
edited November 2023 in General
Now is the time for nuance and subtlety – politicalbetting.com

Nearly half of British adults think the UK should stay in the European Convention on Human Rights. There is no major political party, where a majority of either its supporters or voters support withdrawal. 2/12 pic.twitter.com/NfDVAkuaex

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,358
    edited November 2023
    You all knew from the headline that I wrote this piece.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,148
    Second (real first)
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,875
    @holyroodmandy

    Oh, god, Michael Matheson has just shoved his kids under a bus...
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,800
    Nuance is necessary, on almost every issue.

    Social media and debate by soundbite work against it. It's rare to have a discussion where one person says "You have a point about that, I agree, but have you considered this ...?"
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,192
    Scott_xP said:

    @holyroodmandy

    Oh, god, Michael Matheson has just shoved his kids under a bus...

    Contemptible. And frankly raises far more questions than it answers, such as why the hell did you ever think that was something you could charge to the tax payer and why did you lie about it being constituency work?
  • Options
    The Israeli air force dropped leaflets overnight on Thursday in eastern areas of Khan Younis in the south of the Gaza Strip telling people to evacuate to shelters for their own safety – suggesting imminent military operations in the area.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,679
    This just reminds me of the "British public wrong about nearly everything" survey from 2013

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

    People believe things like "immigrants harmed the recovery" because that's what the papers tell them. There does seem to be an air that it is a reasonable response from a right winger to something factual is "yeah, you might have evidence, but it just sounds like bollocks, don't it?"
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @holyroodmandy

    Oh, god, Michael Matheson has just shoved his kids under a bus...

    Contemptible. And frankly raises far more questions than it answers, such as why the hell did you ever think that was something you could charge to the tax payer and why did you lie about it being constituency work?
    So his kids had access to his constituency work?

    Shocking.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited November 2023
    Sean_F said:

    Nuance is necessary, on almost every issue.

    Social media and debate by soundbite work against it. It's rare to have a discussion where one person says "You have a point about that, I agree, but have you considered this ...?"

    The media also have an element of blame...the focus on getting their gotcha moment, interrupting, shouting over guests, etc, doesn't lend itself to having a proper nuanced debate.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,980
    60% of current and 2019 Conservative voters still want to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, even if only a plurality want to withdraw from the ECHR.

    Hence Sunak is right to try and renegotiate with Rwanda to ensure asylum seekers cannot be deported back to where they fled from, as the SC wanted assurances on yesterday
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    I’m coming to the conclusion that the Tories WILL elect a Braverman type character when Sunak is gone. It might not be Braverman, it might be someone we’ve barely heard of, I doubt it will be Demi Bad Enoch, but it will be someone with - apparently - the minerals to challenge the Woke and a populist right wing agenda

    Then we might see these polls tested in real elex. FWIW I have no idea who would win, it obvs depends on the opposition and the socioeconomic context, and whether we have all been killed in a nuclear war, or enslaved by AI or aliens
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,474
    Are the 15% who think that there is no racism at all the racists ?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,960
    HYUFD said:

    60% of current and 2019 Conservative voters still want to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, even if only a plurality want to withdraw from the ECHR.

    Hence Sunak is right to try and renegotiate with Rwanda to ensure asylum seekers cannot be deported back to where they fled from, as the SC wanted assurances on yesterday

    I would have thought it was obvious that genuine asylum seekers should not be repatriated to their own countries.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,909
    Aus - SA now far enough along so no no result if rain.

    https://resources.ecb.co.uk/ecb/document/2023/03/31/e382094c-98ab-4809-a4c6-18596a3a9c23/14-Duckworth-Lewis-Stern-Regulations-2023.pdf

    Aus about 46 ahead of DLS par at the moment.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994

    The Israeli air force dropped leaflets overnight on Thursday in eastern areas of Khan Younis in the south of the Gaza Strip telling people to evacuate to shelters for their own safety – suggesting imminent military operations in the area.

    They are going to level the entire Strip. Or near enough as makes no difference
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,117
    Has this been discussed?

    Michael Matheson says sons used iPad data to watch football
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67437534
  • Options

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @holyroodmandy

    Oh, god, Michael Matheson has just shoved his kids under a bus...

    Contemptible. And frankly raises far more questions than it answers, such as why the hell did you ever think that was something you could charge to the tax payer and why did you lie about it being constituency work?
    So his kids had access to his constituency work?

    Shocking.
    Many more WFH scandals to come around kids' and spouses' access to confidential information imo.

    Mind you, round about the turn of the century, it was common to overhear confidential information while commuting. Doctors, lawyers and social workers would openly discuss cases on mobile phones as if surrounded by a cone of silence.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    60% of current and 2019 Conservative voters still want to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, even if only a plurality want to withdraw from the ECHR.

    Hence Sunak is right to try and renegotiate with Rwanda to ensure asylum seekers cannot be deported back to where they fled from, as the SC wanted assurances on yesterday

    I hear Gaza's nice this time of year...
  • Options

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @holyroodmandy

    Oh, god, Michael Matheson has just shoved his kids under a bus...

    Contemptible. And frankly raises far more questions than it answers, such as why the hell did you ever think that was something you could charge to the tax payer and why did you lie about it being constituency work?
    So his kids had access to his constituency work?

    Shocking.
    Many more WFH scandals to come around kids' and spouses' access to confidential information imo.

    Mind you, round about the turn of the century, it was common to overhear confidential information while commuting. Doctors, lawyers and social workers would openly discuss cases on mobile phones as if surrounded by a cone of silence.
    Re the second paragraph, a good number of people still do this!
  • Options

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @holyroodmandy

    Oh, god, Michael Matheson has just shoved his kids under a bus...

    Contemptible. And frankly raises far more questions than it answers, such as why the hell did you ever think that was something you could charge to the tax payer and why did you lie about it being constituency work?
    So his kids had access to his constituency work?

    Shocking.
    Many more WFH scandals to come around kids' and spouses' access to confidential information imo.

    Mind you, round about the turn of the century, it was common to overhear confidential information while commuting. Doctors, lawyers and social workers would openly discuss cases on mobile phones as if surrounded by a cone of silence.
    We haven't had a good politician blabs something on train scandal for a while.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,474
    Chris said:

    Has this been discussed?

    Michael Matheson says sons used iPad data to watch football
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67437534

    It raises the question of why we elect politicians dumb enough not to have heard of inexpensive eSIMs for foreign holidays.
    And did he really think he could take kids abroad and not have them want to use the internet ?

    Utter pillock.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,939
    edited November 2023
    Mother and former queen support comeback queen? (4,9,5)
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril

    Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin. It is obsessed with race and colour, to a pathological degree. If you are white you are intrinsically evil and sinful and racist and there is nothing you can do about it, you are privileged and must forever apologize (but you can never apologize enough), and if you are black you are ALWAYS oppressed and exploited and the descendant of slaves even if you are a billionaire and don’t even notice race, thus you are infantilised, insultingly

    That is one reason Wokeness is SO insidious and poisonous. it pains me that bright people like you cannot see the danger of this
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,319
    A

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @holyroodmandy

    Oh, god, Michael Matheson has just shoved his kids under a bus...

    Contemptible. And frankly raises far more questions than it answers, such as why the hell did you ever think that was something you could charge to the tax payer and why did you lie about it being constituency work?
    So his kids had access to his constituency work?

    Shocking.
    Many more WFH scandals to come around kids' and spouses' access to confidential information imo.

    Mind you, round about the turn of the century, it was common to overhear confidential information while commuting. Doctors, lawyers and social workers would openly discuss cases on mobile phones as if surrounded by a cone of silence.
    I regularly pass through Westminster station on the way to work. You do hear stuff.

    A moment was a lady shouting into her mobile phone that Raul Moats gun was stolen, so they couldn’t use the incident for The Ministers gun control agenda.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,474
    .
    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    As indeed TSE's header suggests.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,319

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @holyroodmandy

    Oh, god, Michael Matheson has just shoved his kids under a bus...

    Contemptible. And frankly raises far more questions than it answers, such as why the hell did you ever think that was something you could charge to the tax payer and why did you lie about it being constituency work?
    So his kids had access to his constituency work?

    Shocking.
    Many more WFH scandals to come around kids' and spouses' access to confidential information imo.

    Mind you, round about the turn of the century, it was common to overhear confidential information while commuting. Doctors, lawyers and social workers would openly discuss cases on mobile phones as if surrounded by a cone of silence.
    Given the number of people living in cramped flatshares…

    Mind you, I think this has driven a bunch of people back to work - balancing a laptop on the ironing board vs a desk with free coffee…
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    I had no idea that more than half of conservatives pretend to be gay.

    Wow.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,005
    edited November 2023
    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    I’d suggest the replies on twitter/x from your fellow Unionists among others to tweets from ‘Yousless’ (haw haw haw) should be an impediment to any self congratulation.
  • Options
    Chris said:

    Has this been discussed?

    Michael Matheson says sons used iPad data to watch football
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67437534

    “Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”

    Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @holyroodmandy

    Oh, god, Michael Matheson has just shoved his kids under a bus...

    Contemptible. And frankly raises far more questions than it answers, such as why the hell did you ever think that was something you could charge to the tax payer and why did you lie about it being constituency work?
    So his kids had access to his constituency work?

    Shocking.
    Many more WFH scandals to come around kids' and spouses' access to confidential information imo.

    Mind you, round about the turn of the century, it was common to overhear confidential information while commuting. Doctors, lawyers and social workers would openly discuss cases on mobile phones as if surrounded by a cone of silence.
    Given the number of people living in cramped flatshares…

    Mind you, I think this has driven a bunch of people back to work - balancing a laptop on the ironing board vs a desk with free coffee…
    ....and heating
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,474
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril

    Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin..
    Is it ?
    On the contrary, it's a nebulous term which covers a very wide range of beliefs, IMO.

    It's rather that you (or the strain of right wing thought you've currently adopted) are determined to label anyone with vaguely liberal beliefs as obsessed by the colour of people's skin.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,679

    Mother and former queen support comeback queen? (4,9,5)

    I want to say Mary for the first word, but the nine letter word is throwing me.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril

    Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin..
    Is it ?
    On the contrary, it's a nebulous term which covers a very wide range of beliefs, IMO.

    It's rather that you (or the strain of right wing thought you've currently adopted) are determined to label anyone with vaguely liberal beliefs as obsessed by the colour of people's skin.
    but you are
  • Options
    CatManCatMan Posts: 2,765
    148grss said:

    Mother and former queen support comeback queen? (4,9,5)

    I want to say Mary for the first word, but the nine letter word is throwing me.
    It's pretty obvious, although I did have to double check the 9 letter bit
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @holyroodmandy

    Oh, god, Michael Matheson has just shoved his kids under a bus...

    Contemptible. And frankly raises far more questions than it answers, such as why the hell did you ever think that was something you could charge to the tax payer and why did you lie about it being constituency work?
    So his kids had access to his constituency work?

    Shocking.
    Many more WFH scandals to come around kids' and spouses' access to confidential information imo.

    Mind you, round about the turn of the century, it was common to overhear confidential information while commuting. Doctors, lawyers and social workers would openly discuss cases on mobile phones as if surrounded by a cone of silence.
    Oh, the British Airways business class lounge at Heathrow would have been amazing for any potential insider trader. One would just need to wander round with ones ears open to hear people hard at work on acquisitions.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    I had no idea that more than half of conservatives pretend to be gay.

    Wow.

    "PBers who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be Tory."
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,474

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril

    Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin..
    Is it ?
    On the contrary, it's a nebulous term which covers a very wide range of beliefs, IMO.

    It's rather that you (or the strain of right wing thought you've currently adopted) are determined to label anyone with vaguely liberal beliefs as obsessed by the colour of people's skin.
    but you are
    Ah, another of Leon's alter egos.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,960
    edited November 2023
    Another Aussie wicket; looking a bit iffy now.
    Although Maxwell has just arrived at the crease. Lightening twice?


    Edit: no. Out for one!
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    Has this been discussed?

    Michael Matheson says sons used iPad data to watch football
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67437534

    It raises the question of why we elect politicians dumb enough not to have heard of inexpensive eSIMs for foreign holidays.
    And did he really think he could take kids abroad and not have them want to use the internet ?

    Utter pillock.
    Also illustrates what an utter scam roaming charges are.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,359
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril

    Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin. It is obsessed with race and colour, to a pathological degree. If you are white you are intrinsically evil and sinful and racist and there is nothing you can do about it, you are privileged and must forever apologize (but you can never apologize enough), and if you are black you are ALWAYS oppressed and exploited and the descendant of slaves even if you are a billionaire and don’t even notice race, thus you are infantilised, insultingly

    That is one reason Wokeness is SO insidious and poisonous. it pains me that bright people like you cannot see the danger of this
    It's also, at heart, racist. It believes, that given the same opportunities, and all else being equal, black kids will be outperformed by their white counterparts. I think this is unscientific rubbish, and means that the genuine reasons that some immigrant communities get left behind are not solved.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @holyroodmandy

    Oh, god, Michael Matheson has just shoved his kids under a bus...

    Contemptible. And frankly raises far more questions than it answers, such as why the hell did you ever think that was something you could charge to the tax payer and why did you lie about it being constituency work?
    So his kids had access to his constituency work?

    Shocking.
    Many more WFH scandals to come around kids' and spouses' access to confidential information imo.

    Mind you, round about the turn of the century, it was common to overhear confidential information while commuting. Doctors, lawyers and social workers would openly discuss cases on mobile phones as if surrounded by a cone of silence.
    We haven't had a good politician blabs something on train scandal for a while.
    Come to think it of, it’s also been a while since someone walked down Downing St with their papers on view.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,679

    Mother and former queen support comeback queen? (4,9,5)

    Mary Elizabeth Truss.
    Of course!
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    edited November 2023
    Leon said:

    The Israeli air force dropped leaflets overnight on Thursday in eastern areas of Khan Younis in the south of the Gaza Strip telling people to evacuate to shelters for their own safety – suggesting imminent military operations in the area.

    They are going to level the entire Strip. Or near enough as makes no difference
    That was - and is - my fear when the operation started. I didn't really want to believe it but we have to take seriously that Netenyahu is using the legitimate aim of going after Hamas to ethnically cleanse Gaza. If emptied, it won't be rebuilt.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril

    Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin..
    Is it ?
    On the contrary, it's a nebulous term which covers a very wide range of beliefs, IMO.

    It's rather that you (or the strain of right wing thought you've currently adopted) are determined to label anyone with vaguely liberal beliefs as obsessed by the colour of people's skin.
    Jesus. Have you missed all the seminal texts of Woke Racial Theory? Here’s a reading list, These really are THE texts os Wokeness where it collides with race


    https://www.amazon.co.uk/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/dp/B07N961MC8/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1CK614R495RLT&keywords=White+fragility&qid=1700146855&sprefix=white+fragilit,aps,298&sr=8-1

    WHITE FRAGILITY

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07ZKW6G5X?plink=9TPnYyfp2ecuNVE2&pf_rd_r=9WENSNDN6Y4K7SDTB2E2&ref_=adblp13nvvxx_0_2_im

    ME AND WHITE SUPREMACY

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B06XGMTRPJ?plink=9TPnYyfp2ecuNVE2&pf_rd_r=9WENSNDN6Y4K7SDTB2E2&ref_=adblp13nvvxx_0_1_im

    WHY I’M NO LONGER TALKING TO WHITE PEOPLE ABOUT RACE


    You are a strange PB character. Never that exciting, but occasionally somewhat sage, but I wonder if the sageness is merely a false impression created by your having a decent education and being quite polite, and actually you are dumb as a bloody breezeblock
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,679

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril

    Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin. It is obsessed with race and colour, to a pathological degree. If you are white you are intrinsically evil and sinful and racist and there is nothing you can do about it, you are privileged and must forever apologize (but you can never apologize enough), and if you are black you are ALWAYS oppressed and exploited and the descendant of slaves even if you are a billionaire and don’t even notice race, thus you are infantilised, insultingly

    That is one reason Wokeness is SO insidious and poisonous. it pains me that bright people like you cannot see the danger of this
    It's also, at heart, racist. It believes, that given the same opportunities, and all else being equal, black kids will be outperformed by their white counterparts. I think this is unscientific rubbish, and means that the genuine reasons that some immigrant communities get left behind are not solved.
    My understanding is that it literally disagrees with that, and just argues that the first bit (same opportunities) are literally what isn't provided, hence the unequal outcomes.

    If the remnants of previous more obviously unequal societal structures are not the causes of the still unequal societal structures of today - what are the causes?
  • Options

    Leon said:

    The Israeli air force dropped leaflets overnight on Thursday in eastern areas of Khan Younis in the south of the Gaza Strip telling people to evacuate to shelters for their own safety – suggesting imminent military operations in the area.

    They are going to level the entire Strip. Or near enough as makes no difference
    That was - and is - my fear when the operation started. I didn't really want to believe it but we have to take seriously that Netenyahu is using the legitimate aim of going after Hamas to ethnically cleanse Gaza. If emptied, it won't be rebuilt.
    From the River to the Sea!
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,192

    Another Aussie wicket; looking a bit iffy now.
    Although Maxwell has just arrived at the crease. Lightening twice?


    Edit: no. Out for one!

    It has the potential to get exciting but Steve Smith is still there.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,960

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril

    Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin. It is obsessed with race and colour, to a pathological degree. If you are white you are intrinsically evil and sinful and racist and there is nothing you can do about it, you are privileged and must forever apologize (but you can never apologize enough), and if you are black you are ALWAYS oppressed and exploited and the descendant of slaves even if you are a billionaire and don’t even notice race, thus you are infantilised, insultingly

    That is one reason Wokeness is SO insidious and poisonous. it pains me that bright people like you cannot see the danger of this
    It's also, at heart, racist. It believes, that given the same opportunities, and all else being equal, black kids will be outperformed by their white counterparts. I think this is unscientific rubbish, and means that the genuine reasons that some immigrant communities get left behind are not solved.
    My ‘favourite’ example is in my extended family, where one of the girls married the son of an Irish Traveller. The lad now works at quite a high level in the NHS. One of his brothers became a solicitor. The third did time for theft and eventually died a drug addict.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    edited November 2023
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril

    Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin..
    Is it ?
    On the contrary, it's a nebulous term which covers a very wide range of beliefs, IMO.

    It's rather that you (or the strain of right wing thought you've currently adopted) are determined to label anyone with vaguely liberal beliefs as obsessed by the colour of people's skin.
    but you are
    Ah, another of Leon's alter egos.
    Yeah but you do. It's one of the things you like to make a point of when attacking people from the other side of the political spectrum. A kind of moral comfort blanket. I often find it quite amazing how in one of the least racist countries in the world its ok to slander most of the population. The UK by any measure is a tolerant nation and while we get some prats you cant legislate against dickheads. So rather than just treat people as people the Left love their dividing lines to vilify the other side.

    The right of course do the same but just on different parameters.
  • Options
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril

    Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin. It is obsessed with race and colour, to a pathological degree. If you are white you are intrinsically evil and sinful and racist and there is nothing you can do about it, you are privileged and must forever apologize (but you can never apologize enough), and if you are black you are ALWAYS oppressed and exploited and the descendant of slaves even if you are a billionaire and don’t even notice race, thus you are infantilised, insultingly

    That is one reason Wokeness is SO insidious and poisonous. it pains me that bright people like you cannot see the danger of this

    That is how I always understood Wokeness. But it seems to have expanded in meaning massively so that now it has become meaningless.

  • Options
    Is there an epithet used by white people to describe or address other white people?

    The only thing that I can think of that's vaguely similar to the n-word or 'brother' and 'sister' (or is it brotha and sista?) for the whites is to describe someone as 'a local', but though that implies white in white countries, it certainly doesn't cover all whites even from the same country
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,359
    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril

    Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin. It is obsessed with race and colour, to a pathological degree. If you are white you are intrinsically evil and sinful and racist and there is nothing you can do about it, you are privileged and must forever apologize (but you can never apologize enough), and if you are black you are ALWAYS oppressed and exploited and the descendant of slaves even if you are a billionaire and don’t even notice race, thus you are infantilised, insultingly

    That is one reason Wokeness is SO insidious and poisonous. it pains me that bright people like you cannot see the danger of this
    It's also, at heart, racist. It believes, that given the same opportunities, and all else being equal, black kids will be outperformed by their white counterparts. I think this is unscientific rubbish, and means that the genuine reasons that some immigrant communities get left behind are not solved.
    My understanding is that it literally disagrees with that, and just argues that the first bit (same opportunities) are literally what isn't provided, hence the unequal outcomes.

    If the remnants of previous more obviously unequal societal structures are not the causes of the still unequal societal structures of today - what are the causes?
    Then why the calls for alterations to the education system because the measures of success used are apparently not conducive to black kids succeeding? There should be no reason why black kids can't succeed by the same academic yardsticks as their white counterparts, and lowering expectations for all is not helpful at all in achieving this.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,117
    HYUFD said:

    60% of current and 2019 Conservative voters still want to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, even if only a plurality want to withdraw from the ECHR.

    Hence Sunak is right to try and renegotiate with Rwanda to ensure asylum seekers cannot be deported back to where they fled from, as the SC wanted assurances on yesterday

    No, that's quite wrong. The Supreme Court didn't "want assurances". Assurances had already been given.

    The Supreme Court ruled that despite those assurances there were "substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of refoulement". That was partly because in a previous arrangement with Israel, Rwanda had given similar assurances and failed to respect them.

    Sunak's approach seems to be along the lines of "OK you pointed out I can't trust this bloke because he's lied to people before. But it's OK - I'll ask him to say he really means it this time."
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,679
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril

    Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin..
    Is it ?
    On the contrary, it's a nebulous term which covers a very wide range of beliefs, IMO.

    It's rather that you (or the strain of right wing thought you've currently adopted) are determined to label anyone with vaguely liberal beliefs as obsessed by the colour of people's skin.
    Jesus. Have you missed all the seminal texts of Woke Racial Theory? Here’s a reading list, These really are THE texts os Wokeness where it collides with race


    https://www.amazon.co.uk/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/dp/B07N961MC8/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1CK614R495RLT&keywords=White+fragility&qid=1700146855&sprefix=white+fragilit,aps,298&sr=8-1

    WHITE FRAGILITY

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07ZKW6G5X?plink=9TPnYyfp2ecuNVE2&pf_rd_r=9WENSNDN6Y4K7SDTB2E2&ref_=adblp13nvvxx_0_2_im

    ME AND WHITE SUPREMACY

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B06XGMTRPJ?plink=9TPnYyfp2ecuNVE2&pf_rd_r=9WENSNDN6Y4K7SDTB2E2&ref_=adblp13nvvxx_0_1_im

    WHY I’M NO LONGER TALKING TO WHITE PEOPLE ABOUT RACE


    You are a strange PB character. Never that exciting, but occasionally somewhat sage, but I wonder if the sageness is merely a false impression created by your having a decent education and being quite polite, and actually you are dumb as a bloody breezeblock
    The earliest usage of woke in this context seems to be around 100 years ago. It's part of African American slang as a general expression of being politically active, or as a way to express the idea that whilst things might get better, incremental change / individual success is not the same as equality - "stay woke brother" being something you might say to someone who got a corporate job or such to remember where they came from.

    https://www.vox.com/culture/21437879/stay-woke-wokeness-history-origin-evolution-controversy

    In the modern vernacular it has taken over from "PC gone mad". To me it just seems to be a catch all phrase for anything reactionaries think the left believe and therefore they hate.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,192
    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    60% of current and 2019 Conservative voters still want to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, even if only a plurality want to withdraw from the ECHR.

    Hence Sunak is right to try and renegotiate with Rwanda to ensure asylum seekers cannot be deported back to where they fled from, as the SC wanted assurances on yesterday

    No, that's quite wrong. The Supreme Court didn't "want assurances". Assurances had already been given.

    The Supreme Court ruled that despite those assurances there were "substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of refoulement". That was partly because in a previous arrangement with Israel, Rwanda had given similar assurances and failed to respect them.

    Sunak's approach seems to be along the lines of "OK you pointed out I can't trust this bloke because he's lied to people before. But it's OK - I'll ask him to say he really means it this time."
    Excellent summary. I really do not see how the government overcomes the evidential basis for the Supreme Court decision.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,939

    Mother and former queen support comeback queen? (4,9,5)

    Mary Elizabeth Truss.

    Her time.
  • Options

    Leon said:

    The Israeli air force dropped leaflets overnight on Thursday in eastern areas of Khan Younis in the south of the Gaza Strip telling people to evacuate to shelters for their own safety – suggesting imminent military operations in the area.

    They are going to level the entire Strip. Or near enough as makes no difference
    That was - and is - my fear when the operation started. I didn't really want to believe it but we have to take seriously that Netenyahu is using the legitimate aim of going after Hamas to ethnically cleanse Gaza. If emptied, it won't be rebuilt.
    From the River to the Sea!
    I've said for a while that a one-state solution is the only realistic long-term solution. Two states, neither of which have geospatial security, and which would almost define themselves against each other, is completely unstable (and essentially what we already have). Substantial devolution to Palestinian areas within Israel, which would retain exclusive rights to foreign and defence policies, is probably the only realistic way it could work.

    But even that would need both of the two sides to not want to eradicate the other.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited November 2023
    Woke is now a catch all terms for all sorts of stuff.

    The core driver of the more insane stuff is actually the extreme end of ideas that come from intersectionality. Which while itself came from originally from a perfectly rational place in times when not only racial segregation in the US, but also segregation of jobs based up sex, has morphed into this lens of seeing everything through this lens of you must consider race / sex first and foremost...which is well racist.

    Hence you get this nonsense of progressives / anti-racists arguing it was bad that college admissions weren't allowed to discriminate against Asians, because they are too successful....because intersectionality tells them that bucketing of Asian is different from bucketing of African Americans, and on the oppression Olympics scale, Asians aren't as oppressed as African Americans, so its ok to discriminate.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,148
    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril

    Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin..
    Is it ?
    On the contrary, it's a nebulous term which covers a very wide range of beliefs, IMO.

    It's rather that you (or the strain of right wing thought you've currently adopted) are determined to label anyone with vaguely liberal beliefs as obsessed by the colour of people's skin.
    Jesus. Have you missed all the seminal texts of Woke Racial Theory? Here’s a reading list, These really are THE texts os Wokeness where it collides with race


    https://www.amazon.co.uk/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/dp/B07N961MC8/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1CK614R495RLT&keywords=White+fragility&qid=1700146855&sprefix=white+fragilit,aps,298&sr=8-1

    WHITE FRAGILITY

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07ZKW6G5X?plink=9TPnYyfp2ecuNVE2&pf_rd_r=9WENSNDN6Y4K7SDTB2E2&ref_=adblp13nvvxx_0_2_im

    ME AND WHITE SUPREMACY

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B06XGMTRPJ?plink=9TPnYyfp2ecuNVE2&pf_rd_r=9WENSNDN6Y4K7SDTB2E2&ref_=adblp13nvvxx_0_1_im

    WHY I’M NO LONGER TALKING TO WHITE PEOPLE ABOUT RACE


    You are a strange PB character. Never that exciting, but occasionally somewhat sage, but I wonder if the sageness is merely a false impression created by your having a decent education and being quite polite, and actually you are dumb as a bloody breezeblock
    The earliest usage of woke in this context seems to be around 100 years ago. It's part of African American slang as a general expression of being politically active, or as a way to express the idea that whilst things might get better, incremental change / individual success is not the same as equality - "stay woke brother" being something you might say to someone who got a corporate job or such to remember where they came from.

    https://www.vox.com/culture/21437879/stay-woke-wokeness-history-origin-evolution-controversy

    In the modern vernacular it has taken over from "PC gone mad". To me it just seems to be a catch all phrase for anything reactionaries think the left believe and therefore they hate.
    And yet there are things that the left seem to believe are absolutely true that others do not accept. Take gender ID. Many people do not believe that you can choose to be a woman if you are born genetically as a man. This should not affect (within reason) how someone lives their life, but there are lines that ought not be crossed. Sporting categories for women being one. Safe spaces for women being another.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    60% of current and 2019 Conservative voters still want to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, even if only a plurality want to withdraw from the ECHR.

    Hence Sunak is right to try and renegotiate with Rwanda to ensure asylum seekers cannot be deported back to where they fled from, as the SC wanted assurances on yesterday

    No, that's quite wrong. The Supreme Court didn't "want assurances". Assurances had already been given.

    The Supreme Court ruled that despite those assurances there were "substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of refoulement". That was partly because in a previous arrangement with Israel, Rwanda had given similar assurances and failed to respect them.

    Sunak's approach seems to be along the lines of "OK you pointed out I can't trust this bloke because he's lied to people before. But it's OK - I'll ask him to say he really means it this time."
    Excellent summary. I really do not see how the government overcomes the evidential basis for the Supreme Court decision.

    Does it need to overcome anything? Doesn't it just legislate the issue away by saying that what it wants to be true is, in law, true.

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,980
    Leon said:

    I’m coming to the conclusion that the Tories WILL elect a Braverman type character when Sunak is gone. It might not be Braverman, it might be someone we’ve barely heard of, I doubt it will be Demi Bad Enoch, but it will be someone with - apparently - the minerals to challenge the Woke and a populist right wing agenda

    Then we might see these polls tested in real elex. FWIW I have no idea who would win, it obvs depends on the opposition and the socioeconomic context, and whether we have all been killed in a nuclear war, or enslaved by AI or aliens

    Either Braverman or Rees Mogg will be Conservative leader within a decade if the Tories lose the next general election under Sunak and Hunt and Cameron is my view
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @holyroodmandy

    Oh, god, Michael Matheson has just shoved his kids under a bus...

    Contemptible. And frankly raises far more questions than it answers, such as why the hell did you ever think that was something you could charge to the tax payer and why did you lie about it being constituency work?
    So his kids had access to his constituency work?

    Shocking.
    Many more WFH scandals to come around kids' and spouses' access to confidential information imo.

    Mind you, round about the turn of the century, it was common to overhear confidential information while commuting. Doctors, lawyers and social workers would openly discuss cases on mobile phones as if surrounded by a cone of silence.
    We haven't had a good politician blabs something on train scandal for a while.
    Come to think it of, it’s also been a while since someone walked down Downing St with their papers on view.
    On a mildly related note, at the weekend some expressed their wonder at Michael Gove's propensity to get caught up in demos when television cameras were nearby.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,386
    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril

    Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin. It is obsessed with race and colour, to a pathological degree. If you are white you are intrinsically evil and sinful and racist and there is nothing you can do about it, you are privileged and must forever apologize (but you can never apologize enough), and if you are black you are ALWAYS oppressed and exploited and the descendant of slaves even if you are a billionaire and don’t even notice race, thus you are infantilised, insultingly

    That is one reason Wokeness is SO insidious and poisonous. it pains me that bright people like you cannot see the danger of this
    It's also, at heart, racist. It believes, that given the same opportunities, and all else being equal, black kids will be outperformed by their white counterparts. I think this is unscientific rubbish, and means that the genuine reasons that some immigrant communities get left behind are not solved.
    My understanding is that it literally disagrees with that, and just argues that the first bit (same opportunities) are literally what isn't provided, hence the unequal outcomes.

    If the remnants of previous more obviously unequal societal structures are not the causes of the still unequal societal structures of today - what are the causes?
    Well at the risk of misunderstanding the question - apologies if so - let's take, for example, the underrepresentation of non-white people in the top echelons of FTSE 250 companies. (I don't know if this is in fact the case, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that it might be. Let's assume it is for the purposes of this argument.) My contention is that this stems from the very low numbers of non-white people in the classes of society - for shorthand, let's say the private schools, though it's wider than that - of 30 years ago. My theory is that if you look at the ethnic make up of FTSE 250 leadership, and look at the ethnic make up of the class from which those people are drawn AS IT WAS 30 YEARS AGOm it would match pretty closely.

    i.e. there is no racial disparity, there is i) a class disparity, and ii) a temporal lag - since successful people don't simply arrive at 45 years old as a chief executive but are hewn into that role over a period of 30 years.

    That's my contention, anyway.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,800
    148grss said:

    This just reminds me of the "British public wrong about nearly everything" survey from 2013

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

    People believe things like "immigrants harmed the recovery" because that's what the papers tell them. There does seem to be an air that it is a reasonable response from a right winger to something factual is "yeah, you might have evidence, but it just sounds like bollocks, don't it?"

    All that tells us is that most people are not statisticians. The same way they aren't historians or scientists or lawyers. Most people have big misconceptions about things that are outside their own field of experience.

    It's like when a writer was complaining that nobody had heard of Marcus Lollius Urbicus, among famous black Britons. Why on earth would anyone who was not a specialist on Third Century Britain have heard of the man?
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    I’m coming to the conclusion that the Tories WILL elect a Braverman type character when Sunak is gone. It might not be Braverman, it might be someone we’ve barely heard of, I doubt it will be Demi Bad Enoch, but it will be someone with - apparently - the minerals to challenge the Woke and a populist right wing agenda

    Then we might see these polls tested in real elex. FWIW I have no idea who would win, it obvs depends on the opposition and the socioeconomic context, and whether we have all been killed in a nuclear war, or enslaved by AI or aliens

    Either Braverman or Rees Mogg will be Conservative leader within a decade if the Tories lose the next general election under Sunak and Hunt and Cameron is my view
    Rees Mogg is at danger of losing his seat if it is a landslide.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    edited November 2023

    DavidL said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    60% of current and 2019 Conservative voters still want to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, even if only a plurality want to withdraw from the ECHR.

    Hence Sunak is right to try and renegotiate with Rwanda to ensure asylum seekers cannot be deported back to where they fled from, as the SC wanted assurances on yesterday

    No, that's quite wrong. The Supreme Court didn't "want assurances". Assurances had already been given.

    The Supreme Court ruled that despite those assurances there were "substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of refoulement". That was partly because in a previous arrangement with Israel, Rwanda had given similar assurances and failed to respect them.

    Sunak's approach seems to be along the lines of "OK you pointed out I can't trust this bloke because he's lied to people before. But it's OK - I'll ask him to say he really means it this time."
    Excellent summary. I really do not see how the government overcomes the evidential basis for the Supreme Court decision.

    Does it need to overcome anything? Doesn't it just legislate the issue away by saying that what it wants to be true is, in law, true.

    The government doesn't legislate; parliament does.

    (Not on something it hasn't been given Henry VIII clause powers, anyway)
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,800

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    I’m coming to the conclusion that the Tories WILL elect a Braverman type character when Sunak is gone. It might not be Braverman, it might be someone we’ve barely heard of, I doubt it will be Demi Bad Enoch, but it will be someone with - apparently - the minerals to challenge the Woke and a populist right wing agenda

    Then we might see these polls tested in real elex. FWIW I have no idea who would win, it obvs depends on the opposition and the socioeconomic context, and whether we have all been killed in a nuclear war, or enslaved by AI or aliens

    Either Braverman or Rees Mogg will be Conservative leader within a decade if the Tories lose the next general election under Sunak and Hunt and Cameron is my view
    Rees Mogg is at danger of losing his seat if it is a landslide.
    The problem with Rees Mogg is that he is a parody of an aristocrat, rather than the real thing.
  • Options

    Is there an epithet used by white people to describe or address other white people?

    The only thing that I can think of that's vaguely similar to the n-word or 'brother' and 'sister' (or is it brotha and sista?) for the whites is to describe someone as 'a local', but though that implies white in white countries, it certainly doesn't cover all whites even from the same country

    How about mate?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,192

    DavidL said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    60% of current and 2019 Conservative voters still want to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, even if only a plurality want to withdraw from the ECHR.

    Hence Sunak is right to try and renegotiate with Rwanda to ensure asylum seekers cannot be deported back to where they fled from, as the SC wanted assurances on yesterday

    No, that's quite wrong. The Supreme Court didn't "want assurances". Assurances had already been given.

    The Supreme Court ruled that despite those assurances there were "substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of refoulement". That was partly because in a previous arrangement with Israel, Rwanda had given similar assurances and failed to respect them.

    Sunak's approach seems to be along the lines of "OK you pointed out I can't trust this bloke because he's lied to people before. But it's OK - I'll ask him to say he really means it this time."
    Excellent summary. I really do not see how the government overcomes the evidential basis for the Supreme Court decision.

    Does it need to overcome anything? Doesn't it just legislate the issue away by saying that what it wants to be true is, in law, true.

    No, or at least no when we remain in the ECHR and a signatory to a number of UN agreements which are referred to in the judgment. That requires the court to look behind the legislation to see what the substantive effect is on the rights given by those documents. The Court of Appeal did look and did not like what they saw and the Supreme Court has agreed with them.

    In theory, Parliamentary Supremacy requires the court to have due regard to the laws passed by Parliament so an Act which made it the law that the world is resting on the back of a turtle held up by 4 elephants would require the courts to determine any cases on that basis. But when the law requires the courts to have regard to the rights and obligations that we have given and undertaking we are in different territory. I don't see how mere legislation can fix that.
  • Options

    Chris said:

    Has this been discussed?

    Michael Matheson says sons used iPad data to watch football
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67437534

    “Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”

    Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
    Saying he didn't know about this til his wife told him. If they were hot spotting from his iPad without him knowing, then someone other than him must have known his password to get into the iPad to set up the hotspot in the first place.
    It's would be a breach of IT compliance in almost any organisation I know.
  • Options

    Is there an epithet used by white people to describe or address other white people?

    The only thing that I can think of that's vaguely similar to the n-word or 'brother' and 'sister' (or is it brotha and sista?) for the whites is to describe someone as 'a local', but though that implies white in white countries, it certainly doesn't cover all whites even from the same country

    How about mate?
    Rather less racially appointed application of it than for the n-word..
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,909
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    60% of current and 2019 Conservative voters still want to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, even if only a plurality want to withdraw from the ECHR.

    Hence Sunak is right to try and renegotiate with Rwanda to ensure asylum seekers cannot be deported back to where they fled from, as the SC wanted assurances on yesterday

    No, that's quite wrong. The Supreme Court didn't "want assurances". Assurances had already been given.

    The Supreme Court ruled that despite those assurances there were "substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of refoulement". That was partly because in a previous arrangement with Israel, Rwanda had given similar assurances and failed to respect them.

    Sunak's approach seems to be along the lines of "OK you pointed out I can't trust this bloke because he's lied to people before. But it's OK - I'll ask him to say he really means it this time."
    Excellent summary. I really do not see how the government overcomes the evidential basis for the Supreme Court decision.

    Does it need to overcome anything? Doesn't it just legislate the issue away by saying that what it wants to be true is, in law, true.

    No, or at least no when we remain in the ECHR and a signatory to a number of UN agreements which are referred to in the judgment. That requires the court to look behind the legislation to see what the substantive effect is on the rights given by those documents. The Court of Appeal did look and did not like what they saw and the Supreme Court has agreed with them.

    In theory, Parliamentary Supremacy requires the court to have due regard to the laws passed by Parliament so an Act which made it the law that the world is resting on the back of a turtle held up by 4 elephants would require the courts to determine any cases on that basis. But when the law requires the courts to have regard to the rights and obligations that we have given and undertaking we are in different territory. I don't see how mere legislation can fix that.
    How about sticking in a whole bunch of "notwithstanding" ?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,192
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    I’m coming to the conclusion that the Tories WILL elect a Braverman type character when Sunak is gone. It might not be Braverman, it might be someone we’ve barely heard of, I doubt it will be Demi Bad Enoch, but it will be someone with - apparently - the minerals to challenge the Woke and a populist right wing agenda

    Then we might see these polls tested in real elex. FWIW I have no idea who would win, it obvs depends on the opposition and the socioeconomic context, and whether we have all been killed in a nuclear war, or enslaved by AI or aliens

    Either Braverman or Rees Mogg will be Conservative leader within a decade if the Tories lose the next general election under Sunak and Hunt and Cameron is my view
    Rees Mogg is at danger of losing his seat if it is a landslide.
    The problem with Rees Mogg is that he is a parody of an aristocrat, rather than the real thing.
    There are a long list of problems. That one is actually quite far down the list for me.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    I’m coming to the conclusion that the Tories WILL elect a Braverman type character when Sunak is gone. It might not be Braverman, it might be someone we’ve barely heard of, I doubt it will be Demi Bad Enoch, but it will be someone with - apparently - the minerals to challenge the Woke and a populist right wing agenda

    Then we might see these polls tested in real elex. FWIW I have no idea who would win, it obvs depends on the opposition and the socioeconomic context, and whether we have all been killed in a nuclear war, or enslaved by AI or aliens

    Either Braverman or Rees Mogg will be Conservative leader within a decade if the Tories lose the next general election under Sunak and Hunt and Cameron is my view
    Rees Mogg is at danger of losing his seat if it is a landslide.
    The problem with Rees Mogg is that he is a parody of an aristocrat, rather than the real thing.
    There are other problems with him. But yes.
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,767
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    I’m coming to the conclusion that the Tories WILL elect a Braverman type character when Sunak is gone. It might not be Braverman, it might be someone we’ve barely heard of, I doubt it will be Demi Bad Enoch, but it will be someone with - apparently - the minerals to challenge the Woke and a populist right wing agenda

    Then we might see these polls tested in real elex. FWIW I have no idea who would win, it obvs depends on the opposition and the socioeconomic context, and whether we have all been killed in a nuclear war, or enslaved by AI or aliens

    Either Braverman or Rees Mogg will be Conservative leader within a decade if the Tories lose the next general election under Sunak and Hunt and Cameron is my view
    Rees-Mogg seems to have smoked something or other a little before Brexit. He's not what he was. Given his current state, and the Eton posh stuff he can't be leader.

    Braverman has shown herself to be inconsiderate in an extreme sense. I hope we can rule her out too.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,980

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    I’m coming to the conclusion that the Tories WILL elect a Braverman type character when Sunak is gone. It might not be Braverman, it might be someone we’ve barely heard of, I doubt it will be Demi Bad Enoch, but it will be someone with - apparently - the minerals to challenge the Woke and a populist right wing agenda

    Then we might see these polls tested in real elex. FWIW I have no idea who would win, it obvs depends on the opposition and the socioeconomic context, and whether we have all been killed in a nuclear war, or enslaved by AI or aliens

    Either Braverman or Rees Mogg will be Conservative leader within a decade if the Tories lose the next general election under Sunak and Hunt and Cameron is my view
    Rees Mogg is at danger of losing his seat if it is a landslide.
    Albeit Labour and the LDs were almost neck and neck in 2019 so split opposition helps him.

    Even if he did Tony Benn lost his Bristol seat in the Conservative 1983 landslide but was back as an MP the following year when he won the 1984 Chesterfield by election
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,636
    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    I’m coming to the conclusion that the Tories WILL elect a Braverman type character when Sunak is gone. It might not be Braverman, it might be someone we’ve barely heard of, I doubt it will be Demi Bad Enoch, but it will be someone with - apparently - the minerals to challenge the Woke and a populist right wing agenda

    Then we might see these polls tested in real elex. FWIW I have no idea who would win, it obvs depends on the opposition and the socioeconomic context, and whether we have all been killed in a nuclear war, or enslaved by AI or aliens

    Either Braverman or Rees Mogg will be Conservative leader within a decade if the Tories lose the next general election under Sunak and Hunt and Cameron is my view
    Rees-Mogg seems to have smoked something or other a little before Brexit. He's not what he was. Given his current state, and the Eton posh stuff he can't be leader.

    Braverman has shown herself to be inconsiderate in an extreme sense. I hope we can rule her out too.
    Rees-Mogg is not what he was, he's what his 18th century ancestor was.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    60% of current and 2019 Conservative voters still want to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, even if only a plurality want to withdraw from the ECHR.

    Hence Sunak is right to try and renegotiate with Rwanda to ensure asylum seekers cannot be deported back to where they fled from, as the SC wanted assurances on yesterday

    No, that's quite wrong. The Supreme Court didn't "want assurances". Assurances had already been given.

    The Supreme Court ruled that despite those assurances there were "substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of refoulement". That was partly because in a previous arrangement with Israel, Rwanda had given similar assurances and failed to respect them.

    Sunak's approach seems to be along the lines of "OK you pointed out I can't trust this bloke because he's lied to people before. But it's OK - I'll ask him to say he really means it this time."
    Excellent summary. I really do not see how the government overcomes the evidential basis for the Supreme Court decision.

    Does it need to overcome anything? Doesn't it just legislate the issue away by saying that what it wants to be true is, in law, true.

    No, or at least no when we remain in the ECHR and a signatory to a number of UN agreements which are referred to in the judgment. That requires the court to look behind the legislation to see what the substantive effect is on the rights given by those documents. The Court of Appeal did look and did not like what they saw and the Supreme Court has agreed with them.

    In theory, Parliamentary Supremacy requires the court to have due regard to the laws passed by Parliament so an Act which made it the law that the world is resting on the back of a turtle held up by 4 elephants would require the courts to determine any cases on that basis. But when the law requires the courts to have regard to the rights and obligations that we have given and undertaking we are in different territory. I don't see how mere legislation can fix that.

    Notwithstanding clauses?

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,980
    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    I’m coming to the conclusion that the Tories WILL elect a Braverman type character when Sunak is gone. It might not be Braverman, it might be someone we’ve barely heard of, I doubt it will be Demi Bad Enoch, but it will be someone with - apparently - the minerals to challenge the Woke and a populist right wing agenda

    Then we might see these polls tested in real elex. FWIW I have no idea who would win, it obvs depends on the opposition and the socioeconomic context, and whether we have all been killed in a nuclear war, or enslaved by AI or aliens

    Either Braverman or Rees Mogg will be Conservative leader within a decade if the Tories lose the next general election under Sunak and Hunt and Cameron is my view
    Rees-Mogg seems to have smoked something or other a little before Brexit. He's not what he was. Given his current state, and the Eton posh stuff he can't be leader.

    Braverman has shown herself to be inconsiderate in an extreme sense. I hope we can rule her out too.
    Only those 2 will be ideologically pure enough for the leader the members will want by then, assuming Sunak, Hunt and Cameron do lead the party to landslide defeat as the latest polls suggest
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,800
    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    I’m coming to the conclusion that the Tories WILL elect a Braverman type character when Sunak is gone. It might not be Braverman, it might be someone we’ve barely heard of, I doubt it will be Demi Bad Enoch, but it will be someone with - apparently - the minerals to challenge the Woke and a populist right wing agenda

    Then we might see these polls tested in real elex. FWIW I have no idea who would win, it obvs depends on the opposition and the socioeconomic context, and whether we have all been killed in a nuclear war, or enslaved by AI or aliens

    Either Braverman or Rees Mogg will be Conservative leader within a decade if the Tories lose the next general election under Sunak and Hunt and Cameron is my view
    Rees Mogg is at danger of losing his seat if it is a landslide.
    The problem with Rees Mogg is that he is a parody of an aristocrat, rather than the real thing.
    There are a long list of problems. That one is actually quite far down the list for me.
    I think it has a bearing on the rest. It means that he acts like a complete tit.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,679
    edited November 2023

    Is there an epithet used by white people to describe or address other white people?

    The only thing that I can think of that's vaguely similar to the n-word or 'brother' and 'sister' (or is it brotha and sista?) for the whites is to describe someone as 'a local', but though that implies white in white countries, it certainly doesn't cover all whites even from the same country

    I think there are regional ones - but probably not all white people (but that's partly because whiteness is a construct).

    The reasons why AAV is what it is is partly because there is such a thing as "black" people in the American context - because descendants of slaves did not know which African countries or traditions they came from, so the thing they had in common was (and is) skin colour and their treatment because of it. That isn't the case for white people, who can point to a specific country / tradition (which is why many white Americans still describe themselves as being "German" or "Irish" or "Italian" despite three or four generations having been on American soil)
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril

    Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin. It is obsessed with race and colour, to a pathological degree. If you are white you are intrinsically evil and sinful and racist and there is nothing you can do about it, you are privileged and must forever apologize (but you can never apologize enough), and if you are black you are ALWAYS oppressed and exploited and the descendant of slaves even if you are a billionaire and don’t even notice race, thus you are infantilised, insultingly

    That is one reason Wokeness is SO insidious and poisonous. it pains me that bright people like you cannot see the danger of this

    That is how I always understood Wokeness. But it seems to have expanded in meaning massively so that now it has become meaningless.

    No, Woke exists and we all know it

    The best comparison is the term “Fascism”. It’s notoriously hard to define fascism in a couple of sentences - even Mussolini struggled! - but we all know what it is. Hitler’s Germany, Franco’s Spain, Benito’s Italy. I’d add iran under the ayatollahs and Gaza under Hamas, and several other Islamic examples. Islamofascism is real. Imperial Japan was fascist, too

    But in the meantime lefties have expanded fascism to mean “everything I don’t like”, perhaps unhelpfully, but that doesn’t mean fascism does not exist. It does, Likewise Wokeness. It is a nebulous but powerful ideology and it is absolutely obsessed with racial and sexual identity, definitely including skin colour
  • Options
    On topic, a difficulty with ECHR withdrawal/Human Rights Act repeal, as well as whether it is a vote winner is whether it achieves many of the things advocates of it want.

    Something many politicians seem to have forgotten (surprisingly given Brexit was an absolutely textbook example) is that having a popular policy isn't enough. If it's popular, you have to implement it and it has to deliver the key promised benefits.

    On this one, a lot of "problems" pinned on the ECHR don't survive scrutiny. In the Rwanda case, the Government had a factual problem regarding showing that asylum seekers would be safe from refoulement - ECHR wasn't actually raising a legal impediment and it is doubtful that "we will do it even if unsafe" is a sell-able policy beyond the far right. Further, the Home Office are, as a practical matter, crap at processing asylum applications - that they are a shambles is not going to change all that much with ECHR removal.

    Another recent example is Dominic Cummings raising Levi Bellfield marrying in prison as an anti-ECHR point the other day... except it's in the Marriage Act 1983 so was an enforceable right for prisoners (introduced by Thatcher, no less) long before the HRA enshrined the ECHR in UK law.

    Advocates may also find repeal brought some real drawbacks along with its largely imagined benefits. Freedom of speech arguments are rather useful to newspapers and broadcasters on the right in fending of regulation they'd see as heavy handed for example, and they are also important protections for private property rights etc.

    TL/DR - ideas need to be good as well as popular or you have a massive problem when you need to implement them.
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,767
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril

    Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin. It is obsessed with race and colour, to a pathological degree. If you are white you are intrinsically evil and sinful and racist and there is nothing you can do about it, you are privileged and must forever apologize (but you can never apologize enough), and if you are black you are ALWAYS oppressed and exploited and the descendant of slaves even if you are a billionaire and don’t even notice race, thus you are infantilised, insultingly

    That is one reason Wokeness is SO insidious and poisonous. it pains me that bright people like you cannot see the danger of this

    That is how I always understood Wokeness. But it seems to have expanded in meaning massively so that now it has become meaningless.

    No, Woke exists and we all know it

    The best comparison is the term “Fascism”. It’s notoriously hard to define fascism in a couple of sentences - even Mussolini struggled! - but we all know what it is. Hitler’s Germany, Franco’s Spain, Benito’s Italy. I’d add iran under the ayatollahs and Gaza under Hamas, and several other Islamic examples. Islamofascism is real. Imperial Japan was fascist, too

    But in the meantime lefties have expanded fascism to mean “everything I don’t like”, perhaps unhelpfully, but that doesn’t mean fascism does not exist. It does, Likewise Wokeness. It is a nebulous but powerful ideology and it is absolutely obsessed with racial and sexual identity, definitely including skin colour
    It's all Dohke!
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,358
    edited November 2023
    Sandpaper Smith out.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,014
    Leon said:

    I’m coming to the conclusion that the Tories WILL elect a Braverman type character when Sunak is gone. It might not be Braverman, it might be someone we’ve barely heard of, I doubt it will be Demi Bad Enoch, but it will be someone with - apparently - the minerals to challenge the Woke and a populist right wing agenda

    Then we might see these polls tested in real elex. FWIW I have no idea who would win, it obvs depends on the opposition and the socioeconomic context, and whether we have all been killed in a nuclear war, or enslaved by AI or aliens

    Aye, y’re drunk, y’re drunk, yer silly ol’ fool and still yer canna see
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,554
    I love the fact Cleverly described the Rwanda policy as "batshit" (or at least hasn't denied doing so). Perfect name for it.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,192

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    60% of current and 2019 Conservative voters still want to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, even if only a plurality want to withdraw from the ECHR.

    Hence Sunak is right to try and renegotiate with Rwanda to ensure asylum seekers cannot be deported back to where they fled from, as the SC wanted assurances on yesterday

    No, that's quite wrong. The Supreme Court didn't "want assurances". Assurances had already been given.

    The Supreme Court ruled that despite those assurances there were "substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of refoulement". That was partly because in a previous arrangement with Israel, Rwanda had given similar assurances and failed to respect them.

    Sunak's approach seems to be along the lines of "OK you pointed out I can't trust this bloke because he's lied to people before. But it's OK - I'll ask him to say he really means it this time."
    Excellent summary. I really do not see how the government overcomes the evidential basis for the Supreme Court decision.

    Does it need to overcome anything? Doesn't it just legislate the issue away by saying that what it wants to be true is, in law, true.

    No, or at least no when we remain in the ECHR and a signatory to a number of UN agreements which are referred to in the judgment. That requires the court to look behind the legislation to see what the substantive effect is on the rights given by those documents. The Court of Appeal did look and did not like what they saw and the Supreme Court has agreed with them.

    In theory, Parliamentary Supremacy requires the court to have due regard to the laws passed by Parliament so an Act which made it the law that the world is resting on the back of a turtle held up by 4 elephants would require the courts to determine any cases on that basis. But when the law requires the courts to have regard to the rights and obligations that we have given and undertaking we are in different territory. I don't see how mere legislation can fix that.

    Notwithstanding clauses?

    IANAE on this area of the law but my understanding is that a court could not construe a "not withstanding" clause in a way that was incompatible with Convention rights. That certainly seems to me to be the clear implication of the reasoning of the decision.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    I’m coming to the conclusion that the Tories WILL elect a Braverman type character when Sunak is gone. It might not be Braverman, it might be someone we’ve barely heard of, I doubt it will be Demi Bad Enoch, but it will be someone with - apparently - the minerals to challenge the Woke and a populist right wing agenda

    Then we might see these polls tested in real elex. FWIW I have no idea who would win, it obvs depends on the opposition and the socioeconomic context, and whether we have all been killed in a nuclear war, or enslaved by AI or aliens

    Either Braverman or Rees Mogg will be Conservative leader within a decade if the Tories lose the next general election under Sunak and Hunt and Cameron is my view
    Rees Mogg is at danger of losing his seat if it is a landslide.
    The problem with Rees Mogg is that he is a parody of an aristocrat, rather than the real thing.
    There are a long list of problems. That one is actually quite far down the list for me.
    Rees Mogg, like the dreaded Boris, inhabited a weird place in public consciousness where his persona shielded himself from criticism of a lot of his actions and views. That weird British love of the eccentric.

    Luckily, I think both have been found out now.

  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    I’m coming to the conclusion that the Tories WILL elect a Braverman type character when Sunak is gone. It might not be Braverman, it might be someone we’ve barely heard of, I doubt it will be Demi Bad Enoch, but it will be someone with - apparently - the minerals to challenge the Woke and a populist right wing agenda

    Then we might see these polls tested in real elex. FWIW I have no idea who would win, it obvs depends on the opposition and the socioeconomic context, and whether we have all been killed in a nuclear war, or enslaved by AI or aliens

    Either Braverman or Rees Mogg will be Conservative leader within a decade if the Tories lose the next general election under Sunak and Hunt and Cameron is my view
    Rees Mogg is at danger of losing his seat if it is a landslide.
    Albeit Labour and the LDs were almost neck and neck in 2019 so split opposition helps him.

    Even if he did Tony Benn lost his Bristol seat in the Conservative 1983 landslide but was back as an MP the following year when he won the 1984 Chesterfield by election
    Tony Benn was a political giant by comparison (whether or not you agree with his views, and I don't, he was certainly a heavyweight). Is Rees-Mogg first in the queue for a by-election in 2025? Doubt it. Would he win a by-election if selected? Perhaps, but his presence would certainly draw opponents in to make it a hell of a battle.

  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,596
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @holyroodmandy

    Oh, god, Michael Matheson has just shoved his kids under a bus...

    Contemptible. And frankly raises far more questions than it answers, such as why the hell did you ever think that was something you could charge to the tax payer and why did you lie about it being constituency work?
    So his kids had access to his constituency work?

    Shocking.
    Many more WFH scandals to come around kids' and spouses' access to confidential information imo.

    Mind you, round about the turn of the century, it was common to overhear confidential information while commuting. Doctors, lawyers and social workers would openly discuss cases on mobile phones as if surrounded by a cone of silence.
    Oh, the British Airways business class lounge at Heathrow would have been amazing for any potential insider trader. One would just need to wander round with ones ears open to hear people hard at work on acquisitions.
    I've just had to complete some mandatory training covering exactly this point.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    I’m coming to the conclusion that the Tories WILL elect a Braverman type character when Sunak is gone. It might not be Braverman, it might be someone we’ve barely heard of, I doubt it will be Demi Bad Enoch, but it will be someone with - apparently - the minerals to challenge the Woke and a populist right wing agenda

    Then we might see these polls tested in real elex. FWIW I have no idea who would win, it obvs depends on the opposition and the socioeconomic context, and whether we have all been killed in a nuclear war, or enslaved by AI or aliens

    Either Braverman or Rees Mogg will be Conservative leader within a decade if the Tories lose the next general election under Sunak and Hunt and Cameron is my view
    Rees Mogg is at danger of losing his seat if it is a landslide.
    Albeit Labour and the LDs were almost neck and neck in 2019 so split opposition helps him.

    Even if he did Tony Benn lost his Bristol seat in the Conservative 1983 landslide but was back as an MP the following year when he won the 1984 Chesterfield by election
    And missed the leadership contest as a result.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,679
    Cookie said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril

    Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin. It is obsessed with race and colour, to a pathological degree. If you are white you are intrinsically evil and sinful and racist and there is nothing you can do about it, you are privileged and must forever apologize (but you can never apologize enough), and if you are black you are ALWAYS oppressed and exploited and the descendant of slaves even if you are a billionaire and don’t even notice race, thus you are infantilised, insultingly

    That is one reason Wokeness is SO insidious and poisonous. it pains me that bright people like you cannot see the danger of this
    It's also, at heart, racist. It believes, that given the same opportunities, and all else being equal, black kids will be outperformed by their white counterparts. I think this is unscientific rubbish, and means that the genuine reasons that some immigrant communities get left behind are not solved.
    My understanding is that it literally disagrees with that, and just argues that the first bit (same opportunities) are literally what isn't provided, hence the unequal outcomes.

    If the remnants of previous more obviously unequal societal structures are not the causes of the still unequal societal structures of today - what are the causes?
    Well at the risk of misunderstanding the question - apologies if so - let's take, for example, the underrepresentation of non-white people in the top echelons of FTSE 250 companies. (I don't know if this is in fact the case, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that it might be. Let's assume it is for the purposes of this argument.) My contention is that this stems from the very low numbers of non-white people in the classes of society - for shorthand, let's say the private schools, though it's wider than that - of 30 years ago. My theory is that if you look at the ethnic make up of FTSE 250 leadership, and look at the ethnic make up of the class from which those people are drawn AS IT WAS 30 YEARS AGOm it would match pretty closely.

    i.e. there is no racial disparity, there is i) a class disparity, and ii) a temporal lag - since successful people don't simply arrive at 45 years old as a chief executive but are hewn into that role over a period of 30 years.

    That's my contention, anyway.
    I would say I broadly agree, but instead of saying that there is no racial disparity, only class disparity, I would say that there are multiple variables that include race and class (gender, for example) that impacts disparity, and where these things intersect those disparities are greater. I would also say that in many countries, including the UK, race and class are almost intrinsically linked - with a long history of people of certain races not having access to the middle and upper classes in part due to race.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,474
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril

    Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin..
    Is it ?
    On the contrary, it's a nebulous term which covers a very wide range of beliefs, IMO.

    It's rather that you (or the strain of right wing thought you've currently adopted) are determined to label anyone with vaguely liberal beliefs as obsessed by the colour of people's skin.
    Jesus. Have you missed all the seminal texts of Woke Racial Theory? Here’s a reading list, These really are THE texts os Wokeness where it collides with race


    https://www.amazon.co.uk/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/dp/B07N961MC8/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1CK614R495RLT&keywords=White+fragility&qid=1700146855&sprefix=white+fragilit,aps,298&sr=8-1

    WHITE FRAGILITY

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07ZKW6G5X?plink=9TPnYyfp2ecuNVE2&pf_rd_r=9WENSNDN6Y4K7SDTB2E2&ref_=adblp13nvvxx_0_2_im

    ME AND WHITE SUPREMACY

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B06XGMTRPJ?plink=9TPnYyfp2ecuNVE2&pf_rd_r=9WENSNDN6Y4K7SDTB2E2&ref_=adblp13nvvxx_0_1_im

    WHY I’M NO LONGER TALKING TO WHITE PEOPLE ABOUT RACE


    You are a strange PB character. Never that exciting, but occasionally somewhat sage, but I wonder if the sageness is merely a false impression created by your having a decent education and being quite polite, and actually you are dumb as a bloody breezeblock
    Of course I'm aware if that nonsense, you pill.

    Your IQ is clearly too low to understand my point - or indeed to challenge the new right tropes you've swallowed wholesale.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    edited November 2023
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.

    i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril

    Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin..
    Is it ?
    On the contrary, it's a nebulous term which covers a very wide range of beliefs, IMO.

    It's rather that you (or the strain of right wing thought you've currently adopted) are determined to label anyone with vaguely liberal beliefs as obsessed by the colour of people's skin.
    Jesus. Have you missed all the seminal texts of Woke Racial Theory? Here’s a reading list, These really are THE texts os Wokeness where it collides with race


    https://www.amazon.co.uk/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/dp/B07N961MC8/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1CK614R495RLT&keywords=White+fragility&qid=1700146855&sprefix=white+fragilit,aps,298&sr=8-1

    WHITE FRAGILITY

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07ZKW6G5X?plink=9TPnYyfp2ecuNVE2&pf_rd_r=9WENSNDN6Y4K7SDTB2E2&ref_=adblp13nvvxx_0_2_im

    ME AND WHITE SUPREMACY

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B06XGMTRPJ?plink=9TPnYyfp2ecuNVE2&pf_rd_r=9WENSNDN6Y4K7SDTB2E2&ref_=adblp13nvvxx_0_1_im

    WHY I’M NO LONGER TALKING TO WHITE PEOPLE ABOUT RACE


    You are a strange PB character. Never that exciting, but occasionally somewhat sage, but I wonder if the sageness is merely a false impression created by your having a decent education and being quite polite, and actually you are dumb as a bloody breezeblock
    I found the title of the last one particularly annoying; can anyone conceive of a book called Why I'm No Longer To Black People About Economics?

    But the funny bit is that there *is* an important bit of truth in there. All of us, at some time or another, have people who think highly of us for one reason, or lowly of us for another that have nothing to do with us personally.

    If someone looks like me, sounds like me, and - say - went to the same University as me, I will be predisposed to take what they say seriously, consciously or subconsciously. Likewise, if I turn up at a meeting for disabled lesbians and speak, I think it is unlikely that people will be immediately receptive to my message.

    Privilege and prejudice is not just (or even mainly) about race, and it's not context independent.

    But we are lying to ourselves if we claim it doesn't exist.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,939


    Parliamentarian.

    Father.

    Leader.
This discussion has been closed.