Labour's constant preference for dividing society into different groups is highly divisive and belies their claim to be a One Nation party. I don't know why anyone who subscribes to racial equality thinks it is a good idea to emphasise difference on racial grounds. Sadly, this sort of thinking is endemic in public life. The BBC hosted a debate just for racially Asian people. Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate? It seems like racism only counts if it benefits white people. The black leader of Goldsmiths Student Union tweeted "kill all white men" and the police did nothing.
She is their diversity officer.
It should be obvious, I hope, that statements have different implications in different contexts. As with everyone who has defended something as a joke between friends.
Thus a statement made by an ethnic minority is made in a different context to one made by a white person, and should be treated differently. Its implications could be far more or far less serious.
People should not be treated differently depending on the colour of their skin. Their words and their actions should not be treated differently either. Calling for one racial group to be killed, or banning one racial group from attending events, as that student union has done, is racism, and should be treated as such.
Yes, I'd rather she hadn't said it; yes, it is damaging.
But it does not call for the same response as if a man had called for death to all women. "Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate?" is not the right question.
Of course it calls for the same response. Either you believe in equal treatment, or you believe in racial/gender prejudice.
A quick thought on FIFA- the documents released by DOJ on Wednesday detail the movement of dirty money - including though several British banks in the UK (Barclays and HSBC among others were mentioned).
Why did the Serious Fraud Office not get involved?
Britain’s Serious Fraud Office has said it is actively assessing material relating to alleged corrupt payments to officials connected to Fifa.
Labour's constant preference for dividing society into different groups is highly divisive and belies their claim to be a One Nation party. I don't know why anyone who subscribes to racial equality thinks it is a good idea to emphasise difference on racial grounds. Sadly, this sort of thinking is endemic in public life. The BBC hosted a debate just for racially Asian people. Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate? It seems like racism only counts if it benefits white people. The black leader of Goldsmiths Student Union tweeted "kill all white men" and the police did nothing.
She is their diversity officer.
It should be obvious, I hope, that statements have different implications in different contexts. As with everyone who has defended something as a joke between friends.
Thus a statement made by an ethnic minority is made in a different context to one made by a white person, and should be treated differently. Its implications could be far more or far less serious.
People should not be treated differently depending on the colour of their skin. Their words and their actions should not be treated differently either. Calling for one racial group to be killed, or banning one racial group from attending events, as that student union has done, is racism, and should be treated as such.
Yes, I'd rather she hadn't said it; yes, it is damaging.
But it does not call for the same response as if a man had called for death to all women. "Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate?" is not the right question.
Of course it calls for the same response. Either you believe in equal treatment, or you believe in racial/gender prejudice.
One statement is more damaging than the other.
Presumably you think it's important that the speaker was a diversity officer, and yet don't think it's important that the speaker is a woman, or if the speaker had been black?
A quick thought on FIFA- the documents released by DOJ on Wednesday detail the movement of dirty money - including though several British banks in the UK (Barclays and HSBC among others were mentioned).
Why did the Serious Fraud Office not get involved?
Private Eye refer to them as the Serious Farce Office because of how useless they are
To be fair to the SFO, they really haven't recovered since Blair cut their balls off into the BAE arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
Sent a signal to them not to investigate things that might be difficult/awkward/embarrassing.
TSE, I know that you're a legal eagle and I'm not. But, IIRC the SFO didn't exactly have a stellar reputation before Blair done what he did. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.
A quick thought on FIFA- the documents released by DOJ on Wednesday detail the movement of dirty money - including though several British banks in the UK (Barclays and HSBC among others were mentioned).
Why did the Serious Fraud Office not get involved?
Private Eye refer to them as the Serious Farce Office because of how useless they are
To be fair to the SFO, they really haven't recovered since Blair cut their balls off into the BAE arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
Sent a signal to them not to investigate things that might be difficult/awkward/embarrassing.
TSE, I know that you're a legal eagle and I'm not. But, IIRC the SFO didn't exactly have a stellar reputation before Blair done what he did. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.
You are right, they went from being dire to appalling following that intervention.
The EU response would be to do the opposite to the referendum result, without even a second referendum. That was what happened in the Netherlands and France.
While I'm an "In", I think it's inevitable we will not put the issue to bed if the referendum is held on the current terms. The "Out" side has very legitimate grievances in terms of how slanted the current plans are:
- The status quo option oddly being "In", with the action "Out", contrary to the advice of the Electoral Commission on the most impartial option - Cabinet members being whipped to argue for "In", thus depriving the "Out" side of many of their most senior figures - Use of the Civil Service and taxpayer money to publicise propaganda for the "In" side of the debate, despite the much milder bias in the Scottish referendum being criticised by select committee
You hit the nail on the head Anne, was just thinking the same thing this week after watching the antics of the new SNP intake dancing away to the carefully choreographed routine from their Westminster leaders. A lot of voters must now be feeling vindicated on their voting choice, it may also make some of the more vociferous critics of the last Coalition between Conservatives and the Libdems realise just what a tough job it was to navigate a stable and successful Coalition that made it to full term.
I guess it's just as well that SNP didn't manage to put Labour into government. Now that the aim of maximum disruption is becoming clear, their 'support' would have been of the 'who needs enemies' kind. Mr Miliband dodged a bullet, I feel.
Labour's constant preference for dividing society into different groups is highly divisive and belies their claim to be a One Nation party. I don't know why anyone who subscribes to racial equality thinks it is a good idea to emphasise difference on racial grounds. Sadly, this sort of thinking is endemic in public life. The BBC hosted a debate just for racially Asian people. Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate? It seems like racism only counts if it benefits white people. The black leader of Goldsmiths Student Union tweeted "kill all white men" and the police did nothing.
She is their diversity officer.
It should be obvious, I hope, that statements have different implications in different contexts. As with everyone who has defended something as a joke between friends.
Thus a statement made by an ethnic minority is made in a different context to one made by a white person, and should be treated differently. Its implications could be far more or far less serious.
People should not be treated differently depending on the colour of their skin. Their words and their actions should not be treated differently either. Calling for one racial group to be killed, or banning one racial group from attending events, as that student union has done, is racism, and should be treated as such.
Yes, I'd rather she hadn't said it; yes, it is damaging.
But it does not call for the same response as if a man had called for death to all women. "Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate?" is not the right question.
Of course it calls for the same response. Either you believe in equal treatment, or you believe in racial/gender prejudice.
One statement is more damaging than the other.
Presumably you think it's important that the speaker was a diversity officer, and yet don't think it's important that the speaker is a woman, or if the speaker had been black?
Yes, that's correct. It is reasonable to judge people on the position they hold. It is unreasonable to judge people on their skin colour or gender. This should not be controversial.
It's odd that the world is looking to one of the few countries where soccer is not a major sport to bring down the monster that is FIFA - for the game. For the World
Er, Soccer is now a major sport in the USA. More American kids play soccer than any other sport, bar basketball. In the end these kids will grow up and they will change American sport.
Moreover many of the major investors in FIFA are American. Tens of billions of dollars. This significantly affects the US economy, long term.
That said, everything else you claim is true. Only America could have launched this investigation because it is the only proper and powerful democracy which is sufficiently uninvested to see FIFA for what it is - a horrible heap of corruption - and also have the cullions to do something about it.
We've had this conversation before, I think. Certainly where I live petty much every school kid plays soccer at school and / or in a league. But that's it. It stops there, as the article says. In fact the article pretty much backs me up 100%.
Major League Soccer (MLS) is a dreadful product. As the Forbes article says, MLS Championship games get terrible audience numbers.
There is no money being a professional soccer player here, that's why US players go abroad. Soccer will only take off here when MLS can produce the David Beckham or (insert name here) equivalent of home grown talent, and many of them.
The World Cup gets pretty good ratings, but that's a quadrennial event that has mainly novelty value here.
A major sport means a professional league with a big TV contract, big names, good ratings, and big money. None of that applies to soccer at present. Merely because school kids play it doesn't make it a 'major sport'. But soccer certainly has mass youth participation.
Is it possible that soccer will grow to the size of (say) the NHL? Certainly it is. Whether it will or not, who knows.Even having the World Cup here in 1994 didn't make a blip.
Labour's constant preference for dividing society into different groups is highly divisive and belies their claim to be a One Nation party. I don't know why anyone who subscribes to racial equality thinks it is a good idea to emphasise difference on racial grounds. Sadly, this sort of thinking is endemic in public life. The BBC hosted a debate just for racially Asian people. Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate? It seems like racism only counts if it benefits white people. The black leader of Goldsmiths Student Union tweeted "kill all white men" and the police did nothing.
She is their diversity officer.
It should be obvious, I hope, that statements have different implications in different contexts. As with everyone who has defended something as a joke between friends.
Thus a statement made by an ethnic minority is made in a different context to one made by a white person, and should be treated differently. Its implications could be far more or far less serious.
People should not be treated differently depending on the colour of their skin. Their words and their actions should not be treated differently either. Calling for one racial group to be killed, or banning one racial group from attending events, as that student union has done, is racism, and should be treated as such.
Yes, I'd rather she hadn't said it; yes, it is damaging.
But it does not call for the same response as if a man had called for death to all women. "Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate?" is not the right question.
Of course it calls for the same response. Either you believe in equal treatment, or you believe in racial/gender prejudice.
One statement is more damaging than the other.
Presumably you think it's important that the speaker was a diversity officer, and yet don't think it's important that the speaker is a woman, or if the speaker had been black?
Yes, that's correct. It is reasonable to judge people on the position they hold. It is unreasonable to judge people on their skin colour or gender. This should not be controversial.
Believing in equality means realising that the status quo is important, and the status quo is that white, cis, men like me hold all the cards; and my pronouncements can do more damage than other people's.
I would very much like a time to come about when that is not the status quo, and, as I say, any racist pronouncement would be better off not had.
A quick thought on FIFA- the documents released by DOJ on Wednesday detail the movement of dirty money - including though several British banks in the UK (Barclays and HSBC among others were mentioned).
Why did the Serious Fraud Office not get involved?
Private Eye refer to them as the Serious Farce Office because of how useless they are
To be fair to the SFO, they really haven't recovered since Blair cut their balls off into the BAE arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
Sent a signal to them not to investigate things that might be difficult/awkward/embarrassing.
Wait...are you saying sometimes arms deals are a bit shady?
Jonathan Aitken was a former arms dealer, so I don't know how you can say that arms deals are a bit shady
A quick thought on FIFA- the documents released by DOJ on Wednesday detail the movement of dirty money - including though several British banks in the UK (Barclays and HSBC among others were mentioned).
Why did the Serious Fraud Office not get involved?
Britain’s Serious Fraud Office has said it is actively assessing material relating to alleged corrupt payments to officials connected to Fifa.
They are prepared to "assist international enquiries". Hardly sounds like they're sliding down the edge of the razor blade using their balls as brakes, does it?
I think that you have identified that we need to be clear and outspoken in our defence of universal human rights as defined. It has taken generations of struggle to get these post-enlightenment values agreed across the continent. The fact that there is another group of countries who hold to older barbaric practices is no reason to shrink back from defending our values.
Human rights as defined in Europe and protected by the Strasbourg court are superior to fossilised 8th century practices, and we should not be intimidated away from them.
I think that you have identified that we need to be clear and outspoken in our defence of universal human rights as defined. It has taken generations of struggle to get these post-enlightenment values agreed across the continent. The fact that there is another group of countries who hold to older barbaric practices is no reason to shrink back from defending our values.
Human rights as defined in Europe and protected by the Strasbourg court are superior to fossilised 8th century practices, and we should not be intimidated away from them.
So you would presumably agree that we need to be clear and outspoken in our defence of the universal right to a paid holiday? What about article 8 ECHR?
1.Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2.There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others
It is difficult to understand how anyone can defend this convoluted charter for judicial supremacy as a universal value, or why anyone would want a bunch of second rate judges in Strasbourg defending it for them. Would the text be improved if "morals" were omitted from paragraph 2, or if "religion" was substituted for "morals"? These are matters on which reasonable people may disagree, not universal human rights which cannot be changed.
Believing in equality means realising that the status quo is important, and the status quo is that white, cis, men like me hold all the cards
That statement is self evidently preposterous. It suggests that we are living in Mississippi in 1920 not England in 2015.
The food is better though
In England 2015, we do not have the scale of scale of the problem of 1920s Mississippi. But we aren't really talking about scale. All I was arguing was that a statement could be more damaging, more worthy of criticism, made one way round than the other.
Both statements are racist, one is more damaging to society than the other.
A quick thought on FIFA- the documents released by DOJ on Wednesday detail the movement of dirty money - including though several British banks in the UK (Barclays and HSBC among others were mentioned).
Why did the Serious Fraud Office not get involved?
Private Eye refer to them as the Serious Farce Office because of how useless they are
To be fair to the SFO, they really haven't recovered since Blair cut their balls off into the BAE arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
Sent a signal to them not to investigate things that might be difficult/awkward/embarrassing.
Wait...are you saying sometimes arms deals are a bit shady?
Jonathan Aitken was a former arms dealer, so I don't know how you can say that arms deals are a bit shady
Labour's constant preference for dividing society into different groups is highly divisive and belies their claim to be a One Nation party. I don't know why anyone who subscribes to racial equality thinks it is a good idea to emphasise difference on racial grounds. Sadly, this sort of thinking is endemic in public life. The BBC hosted a debate just for racially Asian people. Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate? It seems like racism only counts if it benefits white people. The black leader of Goldsmiths Student Union tweeted "kill all white men" and the police did nothing.
She is their diversity officer.
It should be obvious, I hope, that statements have different implications in different contexts. As with everyone who has defended something as a joke between friends.
Thus a statement made by an ethnic minority is made in a different context to one made by a white person, and should be treated differently. Its implications could be far more or far less serious.
A quick thought on FIFA- the documents released by DOJ on Wednesday detail the movement of dirty money - including though several British banks in the UK (Barclays and HSBC among others were mentioned).
Why did the Serious Fraud Office not get involved?
Private Eye refer to them as the Serious Farce Office because of how useless they are
To be fair to the SFO, they really haven't recovered since Blair cut their balls off into the BAE arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
Sent a signal to them not to investigate things that might be difficult/awkward/embarrassing.
Wait...are you saying sometimes arms deals are a bit shady?
Jonathan Aitken was a former arms dealer, so I don't know how you can say that arms deals are a bit shady
I think that you have identified that we need to be clear and outspoken in our defence of universal human rights as defined. It has taken generations of struggle to get these post-enlightenment values agreed across the continent. The fact that there is another group of countries who hold to older barbaric practices is no reason to shrink back from defending our values.
Human rights as defined in Europe and protected by the Strasbourg court are superior to fossilised 8th century practices, and we should not be intimidated away from them.
So you would presumably agree that we need to be clear and outspoken in our defence of the universal right to a paid holiday? What about article 8 ECHR?
1.Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2.There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others
It is difficult to understand how anyone can defend this convoluted charter for judicial supremacy as a universal value, or why anyone would want a bunch of second rate judges in Strasbourg defending it for them. Would the text be improved if "morals" were omitted from paragraph 2, or if "religion" was substituted for "morals"? These are matters on which reasonable people may disagree, not universal human rights which cannot be changed.
I would be happy to have continuing debate on interpretation. That is what judges and case law is for.
It is essential that a government has a brake on how it can treat its people. In the US they have a carefully devised split of powers so havd internal brakes. We do not have that and a House of Commons could (and does) overturn ancient rights fairly easily and lightly (double jeopardy for example). Without a Constitution that cannot be easily overturned we need the protection of the courts.
What else would stop a future government amending a British Bill of Rights to suit its own nefarious aims?
Labour's constant preference for dividing society into different groups is highly divisive and belies their claim to be a One Nation party. I don't know why anyone who subscribes to racial equality thinks it is a good idea to emphasise difference on racial grounds. Sadly, this sort of thinking is endemic in public life. The BBC hosted a debate just for racially Asian people. Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate? It seems like racism only counts if it benefits white people. The black leader of Goldsmiths Student Union tweeted "kill all white men" and the police did nothing.
She is their diversity officer.
It should be obvious, I hope, that statements have different implications in different contexts. As with everyone who has defended something as a joke between friends.
Thus a statement made by an ethnic minority is made in a different context to one made by a white person, and should be treated differently. Its implications could be far more or far less serious.
What a complete ******G ***T.
So much for Lady Justice being blind. Apply that logic, and there is no law. Only context. Decided by whom?
I think that you have identified that we need to be clear and outspoken in our defence of universal human rights as defined. It has taken generations of struggle to get these post-enlightenment values agreed across the continent. The fact that there is another group of countries who hold to older barbaric practices is no reason to shrink back from defending our values.
Human rights as defined in Europe and protected by the Strasbourg court are superior to fossilised 8th century practices, and we should not be intimidated away from them.
So you would presumably agree that we need to be clear and outspoken in our defence of the universal right to a paid holiday? What about article 8 ECHR?
1.Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2.There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others
It is difficult to understand how anyone can defend this convoluted charter for judicial supremacy as a universal value, or why anyone would want a bunch of second rate judges in Strasbourg defending it for them. Would the text be improved if "morals" were omitted from paragraph 2, or if "religion" was substituted for "morals"? These are matters on which reasonable people may disagree, not universal human rights which cannot be changed.
I would be happy to have continuing debate on interpretation. That is what judges and case law is for.
It is essential that a government has a brake on how it can treat its people. In the US they have a carefully devised split of powers so havd internal brakes. We do not have that and a House of Commons could (and does) overturn ancient rights fairly easily and lightly (double jeopardy for example). Without a Constitution that cannot be easily overturned we need the protection of the courts.
What else would stop a future government amending a British Bill of Rights to suit its own nefarious aims?
Isnt that an argument to maintain the ECHR, not the HRA? Can you hand on heart, with all honesty say that we as individuals today are freer than we were in 2000 when the HRA was put into law?
Labour's constant preference for dividing society into different groups is highly divisive and belies their claim to be a One Nation party. I don't know why anyone who subscribes to racial equality thinks it is a good idea to emphasise difference on racial grounds. Sadly, this sort of thinking is endemic in public life. The BBC hosted a debate just for racially Asian people. Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate? It seems like racism only counts if it benefits white people. The black leader of Goldsmiths Student Union tweeted "kill all white men" and the police did nothing.
She is their diversity officer.
It should be obvious, I hope, that statements have different implications in different contexts. As with everyone who has defended something as a joke between friends.
Thus a statement made by an ethnic minority is made in a different context to one made by a white person, and should be treated differently. Its implications could be far more or far less serious.
What a complete ******G ***T.
So much for Lady Justice being blind. Apply that logic, and there is no law. Only context. Decided by whom?
Do we assume from that graphic that folks who voted Conservative mostly have jobs, whereas the rest sit in their underwear in their parents house surfing the net?
Labour's constant preference for dividing society into different groups is highly divisive and belies their claim to be a One Nation party. I don't know why anyone who subscribes to racial equality thinks it is a good idea to emphasise difference on racial grounds. Sadly, this sort of thinking is endemic in public life. The BBC hosted a debate just for racially Asian people. Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate? It seems like racism only counts if it benefits white people. The black leader of Goldsmiths Student Union tweeted "kill all white men" and the police did nothing.
She is their diversity officer.
It should be obvious, I hope, that statements have different implications in different contexts. As with everyone who has defended something as a joke between friends.
Thus a statement made by an ethnic minority is made in a different context to one made by a white person, and should be treated differently. Its implications could be far more or far less serious.
What a complete ******G ***T.
So much for Lady Justice being blind. Apply that logic, and there is no law. Only context. Decided by whom?
Which is why some people end up with a 'free pass', and then you end up with certain groups getting special treatment, you know to make up for all the adversity they suffer.
Do we assume from that graphic that folks who voted Conservative mostly have jobs, whereas the rest sit in their underwear in their parents house surfing the net?
I'll have you know that I voted Conservative and surf the internet while supposedly doing my job.
Its one thing to pull stunts like this as a maverick MP or small group of MP's... But if its a collective group of 56 following the whips orders, there is a real danger that they end up looking like feeble performing seals rather than independent and feisty individuals.
An interesting post but perhaps underrates Salmond's extraordinary achievements in groups of a mere 3,4 and 6 MPs in previous days at Westminster.
His protest against the poll tax which delayed the 1988 Budget generated huge publicity and was followed in Scotland by the SNP victory in the Govan by election. The tactics later were more sophisticated. Sillars moved a by election writ in 1989 to delay the Budget -totally within the rules and forcing Kinnock to co-operate with the Tories to save the Budget. Salmond exploited the lack of Committee chair powers to advertise the Tory majority of English MP on Scottish Comiittees - an early example of SVSL. Everything was well done and well advertised and catalpulted the SNP at four MPs to be the major opposition instead of Labour with 50!
Salmond called Labour the "feeble fifty". I think the SNP will prove to be the "fiesty 56"
Do we assume from that graphic that folks who voted Conservative mostly have jobs, whereas the rest sit in their underwear in their parents house surfing the net?
I'll have you know that I voted Conservative and surf the internet while supposedly doing my job.
The clincher - are you wearing more than just underwear?
I would be happy to have continuing debate on interpretation. That is what judges and case law is for.
It is essential that a government has a brake on how it can treat its people. In the US they have a carefully devised split of powers so havd internal brakes. We do not have that and a House of Commons could (and does) overturn ancient rights fairly easily and lightly (double jeopardy for example). Without a Constitution that cannot be easily overturned we need the protection of the courts.
What else would stop a future government amending a British Bill of Rights to suit its own nefarious aims?
There is nothing to stop any government with a majority in Parliament from amending or repealing the Human Rights Act 1998. The European Convention is an international treaty. It is not self-executing and does not alter domestic law unless incorporated by statute (JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v DTI [1990] 2 AC 418 (HL); R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex party Brind [1991] 1 AC 696 (HL)). For the majority of the time since the UK ratified the ECHR, the Convention was not incorporated into domestic law. For a considerable part of it, there was no right of individual petition to the Strasbourg Court. In any event, the 1998 Act itself contemplates Parliament's ability to legislate contrary to the Convention (see sections 3, 4, and 19(1)(b), for example).
You claim you are "happy to have continuing debate on interpretation. That is what judges and case law is for." With respect, that is precisely the problem. There are many decisions which the Convention demands be taken by judges which are inapt for resolution by the judicial process. If Parliament votes to prohibit assisted suicide or hunting with dogs, that is a political matter for Parliament. Likewise, if Parliament decides that some murderers may never be released from prison. It should be noted that the Convention offered absolutely no protection against the abrogation of double jeopardy. It should also be noted that the judges tend to be very pro-executive whenever "national security" or "international relations" are mentioned, and have continued to be since the 1998 Act came into force.
In any event, let us suppose a genuinely totalitarian government (as opposed to the petty authoritarians currently in power) were elected. They decided to engage in quite outrageous actions, such as executing the first born without trial. Does anyone really believe that nine old men sitting in Parliament Square and invoking the European Convention would stop them? The proposition need only be stated to see how absurd it is. The vanguard of liberty in our constitution has always been Parliament.
The most powerful person in the world is black and the most powerful person in Europe is a woman. The lesson from this is that you can not judge people based on the group they are part of, but only as individuals. I find it strange that this point needs to be made, given that most would understand it as common sense. The idea that your pronouncements do more damage than someone of a different race or gender is nonsense. 'White people deserve to die' said by a leader of a black gang surrounding a white teen is just as damaging as 'black people deserve to die' said by a leader of a white gang surrounding a black teen.
You are not arguing for equality. You are arguing for racial prejudice, as if prejudice in one direction makes up for prejudice in the other.
Labour's constant preference for dividing society into different groups is highly divisive and belies their claim to be a One Nation party. I don't know why anyone who subscribes to racial equality thinks it is a good idea to emphasise difference on racial grounds. Sadly, this sort of thinking is endemic in public life. The BBC hosted a debate just for racially Asian people. Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate? It seems like racism only counts if it benefits white people. The black leader of Goldsmiths Student Union tweeted "kill all white men" and the police did nothing.
She is their diversity officer.
It should be obvious, I hope, that statements have different implications in different contexts. As with everyone who has defended something as a joke between friends.
Thus a statement made by an ethnic minority is made in a different context to one made by a white person, and should be treated differently. Its implications could be far more or far less serious.
What a complete ******G ***T.
So much for Lady Justice being blind. Apply that logic, and there is no law. Only context. Decided by whom?
Do we assume from that graphic that folks who voted Conservative mostly have jobs, whereas the rest sit in their underwear in their parents house surfing the net?
I'll have you know that I voted Conservative and surf the internet while supposedly doing my job.
The clincher - are you wearing more than just underwear?
That would depend on whether I'm working at home or not on the day in question.
It should be obvious, I hope, that statements have different implications in different contexts. As with everyone who has defended something as a joke between friends.
Thus a statement made by an ethnic minority is made in a different context to one made by a white person, and should be treated differently. Its implications could be far more or far less serious.
People should not be treated differently depending on the colour of their skin. Their words and their actions should not be treated differently either. Calling for one racial group to be killed, or banning one racial group from attending events, as that student union has done, is racism, and should be treated as such.
Yes, I'd rather she hadn't said it; yes, it is damaging.
But it does not call for the same response as if a man had called for death to all women. "Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate?" is not the right question.
Of course it calls for the same response. Either you believe in equal treatment, or you believe in racial/gender prejudice.
One statement is more damaging than the other.
Presumably you think it's important that the speaker was a diversity officer, and yet don't think it's important that the speaker is a woman, or if the speaker had been black?
Yes, that's correct. It is reasonable to judge people on the position they hold. It is unreasonable to judge people on their skin colour or gender. This should not be controversial.
Believing in equality means realising that the status quo is important, and the status quo is that white, cis, men like me hold all the cards; and my pronouncements can do more damage than other people's.
I would very much like a time to come about when that is not the status quo, and, as I say, any racist pronouncement would be better off not had.
Working class white men will not see it that way. Why? Because their lives are often hard because class is way more important than race or gender, etc.
But the Left lost some class-based battles and so decided to give up and retreat to identity politics.
That's why the left keeps on losing. Instead of working out why it lost and coming back to fight smarter, or dirtier, the way the right does, it surrendered and looked for quick fixes.
Do we assume from that graphic that folks who voted Conservative mostly have jobs, whereas the rest sit in their underwear in their parents house surfing the net?
I think what we learned from the election is that 'Alan' is a very slow learner.
Do we assume from that graphic that folks who voted Conservative mostly have jobs, whereas the rest sit in their underwear in their parents house surfing the net?
Cybernats
The separatist MPs applauded three times during the response by Angus Robertson to the Queen’s Speech, like student union Citizen Smiths, despite having been informed that clapping is not welcome in the Commons chamber. According to one of the new MPs, Natalie McGarry, ‘it is archaic to shout “Hear Hear” which comes from “hear him”. It is boorish, entitlement, exclusionary nonsense.’ I believe she was serious. This is the same ‘feminist’ who, during the election campaign, excused the frightening street pursuit of the then Labour MP Margaret Curran by Nationalist hoodlums, saying she was a ‘fair target for community justice”.
And it’s not just the elected members. The infamous cybernats continue to stalk the internet, hunting down any opinion that does not fit the party- and state-approved viewpoint. Last week, someone called Derek Bateman, who appears to sit in his bedroom in his underpants writing furious, misspelt, ungrammatical blogs, turned his pea-shooter on me.
@JEO 'White people deserve to die' said by a leader of a black gang surrounding a white teen is just as damaging as 'black people deserve to die' said by a leader of a white gang surrounding a black teen.
That may be, but the reactions are different - in the US at least. The latter case will get much publicity, the arrival of Al Sharpton, and comments from Obama.
The former will probably be virtually ignored.
Black petty criminal and drug dealer Michael Brown is shot in self-defense by a white cop because Brown (high on drugs) was trying to wrestle the cop's gun from him, inside the cop car. The world went absolutely nuts.
Two minority NYC cops (one Asian) were killed sitting in their car by a black man a few months later. The reaction - almost none.
The grievance industry is both big and biased.
There are black organizations ranging from the NAACP to the Congressional Black Caucus and even the Black McDonalds owner / operator group. That's all well and good.
Could you imagine the outcry if somebody set up a White Congressional Caucus?
With the latter, see how the government just ignored the ruling of incompatibility?
The 2005 Act (which introduced control orders for British and non-British citizens) is a great example of how the Human Rights Act 1998 worked to restrict liberty. By Part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Parliament gave the executive the power to detain foreign nationals suspected of terrorism for the purpose of removal from the UK, even if there was no realistic prospect of them being removed. This was undoubtedly an authoritarian measure, which Parliament ought to have rejected. The House of Lords, however, held this power violated the detainees' rights under article 14 of the Convention, since it applied only to foreigners, and not British nationals (A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 2 AC 68). As Lord Hoffmann presciently observed in his dissenting speech at p. 132, this suggested the legislation could be made compatible with human rights simply by extending the power of detention to British nationals. The government responded by introducing control orders in the 2005 Act. They have been with us in one form or another ever since.
Do we assume from that graphic that folks who voted Conservative mostly have jobs, whereas the rest sit in their underwear in their parents house surfing the net?
I'll have you know that I voted Conservative and surf the internet while supposedly doing my job.
The clincher - are you wearing more than just underwear?
That would depend on whether I'm working at home or not on the day in question.
I bet you go commando at home.
Even Batman wore his underwear outside his trousers to save on laundry bills.
One member of his Cabinet has warned that the promised “in/out” referendum in 2017 will not be “the end game” if voters choose to remain in a seriously flawed EU. A second referendum could be held as early as 2020, the minister said.
We were debating this on PB two years ago - I suggested that the Tory referendum wasn't going to be on a finished product as the EU doesn't decide anything that fast, and asked if there would then be another referendum when a Treaty finally happened, inevitably looking a bit or a lot different. Richard Nabavi said frankly that he didn't know, which was fair enough. But I've always thought it odd that more people haven't been asking the question.
Latest polls from Denmark are interestingly reminiscent of Britain. The centre-right Opposition is 3% ahead, but the PM (Helle Thorning Schmidt, Mr Kinnock jr's wife) leads the Opposition leader by 5 points in economic competence, by 40 points in ethical standards and on a number of other indicators, such as "best at representing the country abroad". The Danish press is chewing over whether it's possible for the Opposition to win against such a relatively popular PM. On the other hand, the centre-right have had the same sort of lead of 3-5 points for over a year, and Danish politics are much less marked by showmanship and personality politics.
If I've understood the reports correctly, the leader of the centre-right party will become PM even if the far-right party gets more votes than they do, (assuming their coalition wins the election). Maybe that's a tactic to keep centrist voters on board.
Yes, the far-right party is very like UKIP, critical of immigration without being openly racist, and quite populist, with economic policies that flirt with the anti-austerity left. They aren't seen as ready to lead a government; it's only relatively recently that they were seen as ready to accept in a coalition (as opposed to a confidence and supply arrangement).
The Danish PR system allows a wide range of choice (a dozen parties in all) in the two broad left/right blocs, and a fair amount of tolerance is needed. The centre-left includes a merger of Trotskyist and Communist (my former home) parties who would feel comfortable with Syriza, as well as a mild centrist party reminiscent of Roy Jenkins' SDP and a new outfit who are very anti-austerity. The centre-right has a strong liberal leadership plus a small conservative party and the far-right guys.
That said, everyone is very house-trained and discussions in Parliament proceed with a civilised restraint that would be unusually calm for a meeting of the PLP or the 1922 Committee. Everyone is more or less signed up to the basics of welfare state, highish taxes, Blairite public services and semi-detached EU membership. Borgen is a good represenation of how it works.
I would prefer to see their style of debate and discussion in this country but I suspect the confrontational layout of the HoC makes that difficult. Once we reach 40% women MPs there might be a change in tone. Just 69 more female MPs needed to reach that target.
One member of his Cabinet has warned that the promised “in/out” referendum in 2017 will not be “the end game” if voters choose to remain in a seriously flawed EU. A second referendum could be held as early as 2020, the minister said.
We were debating this on PB two years ago - I suggested that the Tory referendum wasn't going to be on a finished product as the EU doesn't decide anything that fast, and asked if there would then be another referendum when a Treaty finally happened, inevitably looking a bit or a lot different. Richard Nabavi said frankly that he didn't know, which was fair enough. But I've always thought it odd that more people haven't been asking the question.
A treaty which gives away powers would need a referendum. That's the law thanks to the Tories. I would suggest that a treaty which confirmed a previous referendum would not. So the story is a dopey one. We have a law about EU referendums already. We cannot sign new treaties in future without a referendum. Any further in or out referendum in x years would need a majority in parliament, something that the usual Tory backwoodsmen are plainly dead set against.
A treaty which gives away powers would need a referendum. That's the law thanks to the Tories. I would suggest that a treaty which confirmed a previous referendum would not. So the story is a dopey one. We have a law about EU referendums already. We cannot sign new treaties in future without a referendum. Any further in or out referendum in x years would need a majority in parliament, something that the usual Tory backwoodsmen are plainly dead set against.
A misrepresentation of the effect of the European Union Act 2011, which provided no protection at all when the government ceded criminal jurisdiction in the UK to the Commission and Court of Justice for the first time, without a resolution of the House of Commons, Act of Parliament or referendum (Wheeler v The Office of the Prime Minister [2015] 1 CMLR 46 (DC)).
Latest polls from Denmark are interestingly reminiscent of Britain. The centre-right Opposition is 3% ahead, but the PM (Helle Thorning Schmidt, Mr Kinnock jr's wife) leads the Opposition leader by 5 points in economic competence, by 40 points in ethical standards and on a number of other indicators, such as "best at representing the country abroad". The Danish press is chewing over whether it's possible for the Opposition to win against such a relatively popular PM. On the other hand, the centre-right have had the same sort of lead of 3-5 points for over a year, and Danish politics are much less marked by showmanship and personality politics.
If I've understood the reports correctly, the leader of the centre-right party will become PM even if the far-right party gets more votes than they do, (assuming their coalition wins the election). Maybe that's a tactic to keep centrist voters on board.
Yes, the far-right party is very like UKIP, critical of immigration without being openly racist, and quite populist, with economic policies that flirt with the anti-austerity left. They aren't seen as ready to lead a government; it's only relatively recently that they were seen as ready to accept in a coalition (as opposed to a confidence and supply arrangement).
The Danish PR system allows a wide range of choice (a dozen parties in all) in the two broad left/right blocs, and a fair amount of tolerance is needed. The centre-left includes a merger of Trotskyist and Communist (my former home) parties who would feel comfortable with Syriza, as well as a mild centrist party reminiscent of Roy Jenkins' SDP and a new outfit who are very anti-austerity. The centre-right has a strong liberal leadership plus a small conservative party and the far-right guys.
That said, everyone is very house-trained and discussions in Parliament proceed with a civilised restraint that would be unusually calm for a meeting of the PLP or the 1922 Committee. Everyone is more or less signed up to the basics of welfare state, highish taxes, Blairite public services and semi-detached EU membership. Borgen is a good represenation of how it works.
I would prefer to see their style of debate and discussion in this country but I suspect the confrontational layout of the HoC makes that difficult.
I like the confrontational layout myself, but given the apparently parlous state of the Palace of Westminster and potential need to decant to somewhere else for a few years, I wouldn't be surprised if the location they use at such a time has the more common hemicycle arrangement, as that's probably easier to arrange, with desks for all etc, than a perfect replica of what is there at present.
A treaty which gives away powers would need a referendum. That's the law thanks to the Tories. I would suggest that a treaty which confirmed a previous referendum would not. So the story is a dopey one. We have a law about EU referendums already. We cannot sign new treaties in future without a referendum. Any further in or out referendum in x years would need a majority in parliament, something that the usual Tory backwoodsmen are plainly dead set against.
A misrepresentation of the effect of the European Union Act 2011, which provided no protection at all when the government ceded criminal jurisdiction in the UK to the Commission and Court of Justice for the first time, without a resolution of the House of Commons, Act of Parliament or referendum (Wheeler v The Office of the Prime Minister [2015] 1 CMLR 46 (DC)).
I would love an EU country to have a court case where it is ruled that some aspect of ceding powers to the EU had been done in an unconstitutional manner, that country then informing the EU that such a ruling had been found, and further informing the EU that henceforth that country was repatriating those powers, end of story, no negotiation. Love to see the EU reaction.
Do we assume from that graphic that folks who voted Conservative mostly have jobs, whereas the rest sit in their underwear in their parents house surfing the net?
Do we assume from that graphic that folks who voted Conservative mostly have jobs, whereas the rest sit in their underwear in their parents house surfing the net?
Ack, I've written the morning thread on how "Out" can win.
I feel dirty, dirtier than a pig dog in muck
"Out" with FPTP and "In" with AV, surely? Or is this epic tome again going to be kept from us.....
Out = Leaving the EU
I'm tempted to headline the piece "The accidental withdrawal method"
That reminds me of a cartoon I once saw. It shows a man sitting alone among rows of chairs under a sign saying 'Premature Ejaculation Clinic'. He looks at his watch and wonders to himself - "Maybe I came too soon."
Ack, I've written the morning thread on how "Out" can win.
I feel dirty, dirtier than a pig dog in muck
"Out" with FPTP and "In" with AV, surely? Or is this epic tome again going to be kept from us.....
Out = Leaving the EU
I'm tempted to headline the piece "The accidental withdrawal method"
That reminds me of a cartoon I once saw. It shows a man sitting alone among rows of chairs under a sign saying 'Premature Ejaculation Clinic'. He looks at his watch and wonders to himself - "Maybe I came too soon."
There is no such thing as premature ejaculation, only perfect timing, if she can't maintain my pace, that's not my fault is it.
Do we assume from that graphic that folks who voted Conservative mostly have jobs, whereas the rest sit in their underwear in their parents house surfing the net?
This PB Tory may or may not be in his underwear.
Who else's are you in?
A gentlemen never tells...... (a smarmy way of saying 'my own'!)
I suggested that the Tory referendum wasn't going to be on a finished product as the EU doesn't decide anything that fast, and asked if there would then be another referendum when a Treaty finally happened
"Many of them must have been selected before this surge came about, possibly fighting what they thought were hopeless seats nobody else wanted to. How might that impact on both the way they see Westminster and how they respond to it?
If anyone has any information I'd be interested to hear it. "
Other than the great detail already posted here by Calum, it is worth pointing out that none of the SNP candidates were selected until after the Referendum (all or virtually all in 2015), and none before it became clear that there was an enormous surge to the SNP.
So all the SNP candidates thought they had a great chance of election, and the 3 who were defeated will have been genuinely disappointed.
Nobody was unexpectedly elected as there were no hopeless seats at the time they were selected or even applied for selection..
Not one SNP MP candidate was selected before the first Ashcroft Poll which indicated every seat in Scotland was up for grabs.
You hit the nail on the head Anne, was just thinking the same thing this week after watching the antics of the new SNP intake dancing away to the carefully choreographed routine from their Westminster leaders. A lot of voters must now be feeling vindicated on their voting choice, it may also make some of the more vociferous critics of the last Coalition between Conservatives and the Libdems realise just what a tough job it was to navigate a stable and successful Coalition that made it to full term.
You're right, the 50% of the Scottish vote that selected the SNP will be feeling very vindicated as they watch Labour acting like children (especially Dennis Skinner) and the Tories acting like buffoons on 37% of the national vote somehow making them a legitimate government (bizarre I know). Meanwhile the Liberals trying to act like they still matter and UKIP pretending they still exist.
Meanwhile the SNP have absolutely brilliant MPs working as a group and embarrassing the rest of the House.
"The worst case scenario for Scotland was always likely to be an SNP amendment to the Scotland Bill that asked for full fiscal autonomy and a majority Conservative government delivering it. Not only is the SNP lion not roaring but the mouse is barely squeaking
You hit the nail on the head Anne, was just thinking the same thing this week after watching the antics of the new SNP intake dancing away to the carefully choreographed routine from their Westminster leaders. A lot of voters must now be feeling vindicated on their voting choice, it may also make some of the more vociferous critics of the last Coalition between Conservatives and the Libdems realise just what a tough job it was to navigate a stable and successful Coalition that made it to full term.
Meanwhile the SNP have absolutely brilliant MPs working as a group and embarrassing the rest of the House.
I expect they'll vote for their manifesto commitment of FFA then? :|Innocent Face|:?
In Scotland, where SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has insisted “polls consistently show strong support for EU membership”, the yes vote was above average, but only slightly, at 57 per cent [vs 55% OA]. She is insisting on a “double lock” to the referendum, whereby the UK could not leave Europe if Scotland did not vote in favour of going.
"The worst case scenario for Scotland was always likely to be an SNP amendment to the Scotland Bill that asked for full fiscal autonomy and a majority Conservative government delivering it. Not only is the SNP lion not roaring but the mouse is barely squeaking
You hit the nail on the head Anne, was just thinking the same thing this week after watching the antics of the new SNP intake dancing away to the carefully choreographed routine from their Westminster leaders. A lot of voters must now be feeling vindicated on their voting choice, it may also make some of the more vociferous critics of the last Coalition between Conservatives and the Libdems realise just what a tough job it was to navigate a stable and successful Coalition that made it to full term.
Meanwhile the SNP have absolutely brilliant MPs working as a group and embarrassing the rest of the House.
I expect they'll vote for their manifesto commitment of FFA then? :|Innocent Face|:?
They don't need to. All the SNP have to do is wait. Either the Tories will beg the SNP to accept FFA and the SNP will only accept it in a fair Fiscal Framework or the Tories don't offer it and get destroyed in the Second Referendum. There is no win for Loyalists.
You hit the nail on the head Anne, was just thinking the same thing this week after watching the antics of the new SNP intake dancing away to the carefully choreographed routine from their Westminster leaders. A lot of voters must now be feeling vindicated on their voting choice, it may also make some of the more vociferous critics of the last Coalition between Conservatives and the Libdems realise just what a tough job it was to navigate a stable and successful Coalition that made it to full term.
Meanwhile the SNP have absolutely brilliant MPs working as a group and embarrassing the rest of the House.
I expect they'll vote for their manifesto commitment of FFA then? :|Innocent Face|:?
"The worst case scenario for Scotland was always likely to be an SNP amendment to the Scotland Bill that asked for full fiscal autonomy and a majority Conservative government delivering it. Not only is the SNP lion not roaring but the mouse is barely squeaking
Nice, the paper with 19000 circulation in Scotland speaks.
And gets ignored.
As always.
Fear not!
Swiney says 'of course' the SNP will push for FFA:
SNP MPs at Westminster could try to change the new Scotland Bill to make Holyrood responsible for raising all the money it spends.
Deputy First Minister John Swinney said "of course" his party could table amendments for full fiscal autonomy as the legislation makes its way through Westminster.
It's pretty clear it was not "Labour". From your link:
1) "The leader needs advice, and it has to come from someone with sufficient stature to ensure he'll listen to it."
2) Robinson said he had no idea whether the approach had been made with Miliband's knowledge or -- as he thought was more likely -- by "someone freelancing to try to be helpful".
You hit the nail on the head Anne, was just thinking the same thing this week after watching the antics of the new SNP intake dancing away to the carefully choreographed routine from their Westminster leaders. A lot of voters must now be feeling vindicated on their voting choice, it may also make some of the more vociferous critics of the last Coalition between Conservatives and the Libdems realise just what a tough job it was to navigate a stable and successful Coalition that made it to full term.
Meanwhile the SNP have absolutely brilliant MPs working as a group and embarrassing the rest of the House.
I expect they'll vote for their manifesto commitment of FFA then? :|Innocent Face|:?
"The worst case scenario for Scotland was always likely to be an SNP amendment to the Scotland Bill that asked for full fiscal autonomy and a majority Conservative government delivering it. Not only is the SNP lion not roaring but the mouse is barely squeaking
You hit the nail on the head Anne, was just thinking the same thing this week after watching the antics of the new SNP intake dancing away to the carefully choreographed routine from their Westminster leaders. A lot of voters must now be feeling vindicated on their voting choice, it may also make some of the more vociferous critics of the last Coalition between Conservatives and the Libdems realise just what a tough job it was to navigate a stable and successful Coalition that made it to full term.
Meanwhile the SNP have absolutely brilliant MPs working as a group and embarrassing the rest of the House.
I expect they'll vote for their manifesto commitment of FFA then? :|Innocent Face|:?
You hit the nail on the head Anne, was just thinking the same thing this week after watching the antics of the new SNP intake dancing away to the carefully choreographed routine from their Westminster leaders. A lot of voters must now be feeling vindicated on their voting choice, it may also make some of the more vociferous critics of the last Coalition between Conservatives and the Libdems realise just what a tough job it was to navigate a stable and successful Coalition that made it to full term.
Meanwhile the SNP have absolutely brilliant MPs working as a group and embarrassing the rest of the House.
I expect they'll vote for their manifesto commitment of FFA then? :|Innocent Face|:?
There is no win for Loyalists.
There never is in La-La SNP-land.
How did that work out for you last September?
That was Good For Yes.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
In so far as 'losing' was good for them......
Still not getting it. Everything you Loyalists did was good for Yes. Your comments tonight are good for Yes.
You hit the nail on the head Anne, was just thinking the same thing this week after watching the antics of the new SNP intake dancing away to the carefully choreographed routine from their Westminster leaders. A lot of voters must now be feeling vindicated on their voting choice, it may also make some of the more vociferous critics of the last Coalition between Conservatives and the Libdems realise just what a tough job it was to navigate a stable and successful Coalition that made it to full term.
Meanwhile the SNP have absolutely brilliant MPs working as a group and embarrassing the rest of the House.
I expect they'll vote for their manifesto commitment of FFA then? :|Innocent Face|:?
There is no win for Loyalists.
There never is in La-La SNP-land.
How did that work out for you last September?
That was Good For Yes.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
In so far as 'losing' was good for them......
Still not getting it. Everything you Loyalists did was good for Yes. Your comments tonight are good for Yes.
You are a Yes evangelist.
I know, I know, but to borrow an old Nationalist line 'we've heard it all before'......
I see 'Wings over Somerset Scotland' have still failed to comply with the law:
Wings Over Scotland have failed to deliver their campaign expenditure as required by paragraph 21 of schedule 4. The Commission has commenced its inquiries and is currently considering, in conjunction with the Crown Office, what, if any, action is appropriate in relation to this organisation’s failure to deliver a campaign expenditure return within the required timescale. The situation remains unchanged and considerations, with the Crown Office, continue.
Labour's constant preference for dividing society into different groups is highly divisive and belies their claim to be a One Nation party. I don't know why anyone who subscribes to racial equality thinks it is a good idea to emphasise difference on racial grounds. Sadly, this sort of thinking is endemic in public life. The BBC hosted a debate just for racially Asian people. Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate? It seems like racism only counts if it benefits white people. The black leader of Goldsmiths Student Union tweeted "kill all white men" and the police did nothing.
She is their diversity officer.
It should be obvious, I hope, that statements have different implications in different contexts. As with everyone who has defended something as a joke between friends.
Thus a statement made by an ethnic minority is made in a different context to one made by a white person, and should be treated differently. Its implications could be far more or far less serious.
"Kill all White males" doesn't sound particularly amusing.
Labour's constant preference for dividing society into different groups is highly divisive and belies their claim to be a One Nation party. I don't know why anyone who subscribes to racial equality thinks it is a good idea to emphasise difference on racial grounds. Sadly, this sort of thinking is endemic in public life. The BBC hosted a debate just for racially Asian people. Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate? It seems like racism only counts if it benefits white people. The black leader of Goldsmiths Student Union tweeted "kill all white men" and the police did nothing.
She is their diversity officer.
It should be obvious, I hope, that statements have different implications in different contexts. As with everyone who has
Thus a statement made by an ethnic minority is made in a different context to one made by a white person, and should be treated differently. Its implications could be far more or far less serious.
People should not be treated differently depending on the colour of their skin. Their words and their actions should not be treated differently either. Calling for one racial group to be killed, or banning one racial group from attending events, as that student union has done, is racism, and should be treated as such.
Yes, I'd rather she hadn't said it; yes, it is damaging.
But it does not call for the same response as if a man had called for death to all women. "Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate?" is not the right question.
Of course it calls for the same response. Either you believe in equal treatment, or you believe in racial/gender prejudice.
One statement is more damaging than the other.
Presumably you think it's important that the speaker was a diversity officer, and yet don't think it's important that the speaker is a woman, or if the speaker had been black?
Yes, that's correct. It is reasonable to judge people on the position they hold. It is unreasonable to judge people on their skin colour or gender. This should not be controversial.
Believing in equality means realising that the status quo is important, and the status quo is that white, cis, men like me hold all the cards; and my pronouncements can do more damage than other people's.
I would very much like a time to come about when that is not the status quo, and, as I say, any racist pronouncement would be better off not had.
The status quo is that well-off people hold most of the cards, and poor people don't, regardless of race and sex in either case.
George Eaton in the New Statesman thinks there's a terrible conspiracy at work to cheat Labour of the next election by basing the new constituencies on electorates rather than population.
Unfortunately for George, he doesn't seem to know that the Boundary Commission has always based its reviews on electorates rather than population.
Presumably he is thinking in terms of contrasting the existing practice with the alternative, which was supported by Labour, of using population, and which would therefore have been a viable alternative if Labour had won the election.
Surely when John Loony quit the Official Monster Raving Loonies to defect to the Conservatives the writing was on the wall for Labour...
Indeed it was. I got 192 votes in 2010, and Gavin Barwell won by 165 this time. It is entirely logical and reasonable to assume that every single one of those 192 voters voted Conservative this time, and would have voted for me again if I had stood.
Similarly, it was because of my votes going down from 408 in 2001 to 193 in 2005 that the Conservative Party gained Croydon Central from Labour in 2005.
Ha ha! Someone used the word "decimate". The Lib Dem seats were decimated 18 times. I sometimes think it would be fun to have a general election in a parallel universe where there are no opinion polls - not where opinion polls are banned, but where it never even occurs to anybody to conduct any. The realisation of what was happening, especially in Scotland, would be a fun/weird thing to behold.
If Labour actually adopts the rhetoric of its leadership candidates then it will be in favour of more spending cuts and reduced benefits.
This opens the door even further for SNP to attack Labour from the left.
Labour has to sacrifice Scotland (as Conservatives and Lib Dems have already done), if it is ever to make headway in England.
One day in the distant future the people of Scotland will come to accept that capitalism is the best way to run a country. Until then the Labour party has either to abandon Scotland or fight back in Scotland as socialists but abandon most of England.
Comments
Presumably you think it's important that the speaker was a diversity officer, and yet don't think it's important that the speaker is a woman, or if the speaker had been black?
The EU response would be to do the opposite to the referendum result, without even a second referendum. That was what happened in the Netherlands and France.
While I'm an "In", I think it's inevitable we will not put the issue to bed if the referendum is held on the current terms. The "Out" side has very legitimate grievances in terms of how slanted the current plans are:
- The status quo option oddly being "In", with the action "Out", contrary to the advice of the Electoral Commission on the most impartial option
- Cabinet members being whipped to argue for "In", thus depriving the "Out" side of many of their most senior figures
- Use of the Civil Service and taxpayer money to publicise propaganda for the "In" side of the debate, despite the much milder bias in the Scottish referendum being criticised by select committee
10 degrees, heavy cloud, 40 mph winds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/6695619
Has a Test match ever been stopped by high winds before?
Major League Soccer (MLS) is a dreadful product. As the Forbes article says, MLS Championship games get terrible audience numbers.
There is no money being a professional soccer player here, that's why US players go abroad. Soccer will only take off here when MLS can produce the David Beckham or (insert name here) equivalent of home grown talent, and many of them.
The World Cup gets pretty good ratings, but that's a quadrennial event that has mainly novelty value here.
A major sport means a professional league with a big TV contract, big names, good ratings, and big money. None of that applies to soccer at present. Merely because school kids play it doesn't make it a 'major sport'. But soccer certainly has mass youth participation.
Is it possible that soccer will grow to the size of (say) the NHL? Certainly it is. Whether it will or not, who knows.Even having the World Cup here in 1994 didn't make a blip.
I would very much like a time to come about when that is not the status quo, and, as I say, any racist pronouncement would be better off not had.
They are prepared to "assist international enquiries". Hardly sounds like they're sliding down the edge of the razor blade using their balls as brakes, does it?
I think that you have identified that we need to be clear and outspoken in our defence of universal human rights as defined. It has taken generations of struggle to get these post-enlightenment values agreed across the continent. The fact that there is another group of countries who hold to older barbaric practices is no reason to shrink back from defending our values.
Human rights as defined in Europe and protected by the Strasbourg court are superior to fossilised 8th century practices, and we should not be intimidated away from them.
@scotonsunday: Scotland on Sunday front page http://t.co/6aclqzwe1Z
Both statements are racist, one is more damaging to society than the other.
I would be happy to have continuing debate on interpretation. That is what judges and case law is for.
It is essential that a government has a brake on how it can treat its people. In the US they have a carefully devised split of powers so havd internal brakes. We do not have that and a House of Commons could (and does) overturn ancient rights fairly easily and lightly (double jeopardy for example). Without a Constitution that cannot be easily overturned we need the protection of the courts.
What else would stop a future government amending a British Bill of Rights to suit its own nefarious aims?
It is essential that a government has a brake on how it can treat its people. In the US they have a carefully devised split of powers so havd internal brakes. We do not have that and a House of Commons could (and does) overturn ancient rights fairly easily and lightly (double jeopardy for example). Without a Constitution that cannot be easily overturned we need the protection of the courts.
What else would stop a future government amending a British Bill of Rights to suit its own nefarious aims?
Isnt that an argument to maintain the ECHR, not the HRA? Can you hand on heart, with all honesty say that we as individuals today are freer than we were in 2000 when the HRA was put into law?
Any constitutional restriction worth its salt would have prevented this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Act_2005
With the latter, see how the government just ignored the ruling of incompatibility?
You claim you are "happy to have continuing debate on interpretation. That is what judges and case law is for." With respect, that is precisely the problem. There are many decisions which the Convention demands be taken by judges which are inapt for resolution by the judicial process. If Parliament votes to prohibit assisted suicide or hunting with dogs, that is a political matter for Parliament. Likewise, if Parliament decides that some murderers may never be released from prison. It should be noted that the Convention offered absolutely no protection against the abrogation of double jeopardy. It should also be noted that the judges tend to be very pro-executive whenever "national security" or "international relations" are mentioned, and have continued to be since the 1998 Act came into force.
In any event, let us suppose a genuinely totalitarian government (as opposed to the petty authoritarians currently in power) were elected. They decided to engage in quite outrageous actions, such as executing the first born without trial. Does anyone really believe that nine old men sitting in Parliament Square and invoking the European Convention would stop them? The proposition need only be stated to see how absurd it is. The vanguard of liberty in our constitution has always been Parliament.
The most powerful person in the world is black and the most powerful person in Europe is a woman. The lesson from this is that you can not judge people based on the group they are part of, but only as individuals. I find it strange that this point needs to be made, given that most would understand it as common sense. The idea that your pronouncements do more damage than someone of a different race or gender is nonsense. 'White people deserve to die' said by a leader of a black gang surrounding a white teen is just as damaging as 'black people deserve to die' said by a leader of a white gang surrounding a black teen.
You are not arguing for equality. You are arguing for racial prejudice, as if prejudice in one direction makes up for prejudice in the other.
But the Left lost some class-based battles and so decided to give up and retreat to identity politics.
That's why the left keeps on losing. Instead of working out why it lost and coming back to fight smarter, or dirtier, the way the right does, it surrendered and looked for quick fixes.
That may be, but the reactions are different - in the US at least. The latter case will get much publicity, the arrival of Al Sharpton, and comments from Obama.
The former will probably be virtually ignored.
Black petty criminal and drug dealer Michael Brown is shot in self-defense by a white cop because Brown (high on drugs) was trying to wrestle the cop's gun from him, inside the cop car. The world went absolutely nuts.
Two minority NYC cops (one Asian) were killed sitting in their car by a black man a few months later. The reaction - almost none.
The grievance industry is both big and biased.
There are black organizations ranging from the NAACP to the Congressional Black Caucus and even the Black McDonalds owner / operator group. That's all well and good.
Could you imagine the outcry if somebody set up a White Congressional Caucus?
In the US it is an uneven playing field.
Sad but true.
Even Batman wore his underwear outside his trousers to save on laundry bills.
Good night all
I feel dirty, dirtier than a pig dog in muck
Labour tried to recruit Nick Robinson to be Ed Miliband's spin doctor
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-05-30/labour-tried-to-recruit-nick-robinson-as-milibands-spin-doctor/
I'm tempted to headline the piece "The accidental withdrawal method"
Hm, if anything this would be a consensual withdrawal method
Meanwhile the SNP have absolutely brilliant MPs working as a group and embarrassing the rest of the House.
"The worst case scenario for Scotland was always likely to be an SNP amendment to the Scotland Bill that asked for full fiscal autonomy and a majority Conservative government delivering it. Not only is the SNP lion not roaring but the mouse is barely squeaking
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/snp-postpones-ffa-push-in-battle-for-smith-plus-1-3788372
In Scotland, where SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has insisted “polls consistently show strong support for EU membership”, the yes vote was above average, but only slightly, at 57 per cent [vs 55% OA]. She is insisting on a “double lock” to the referendum, whereby the UK could not leave Europe if Scotland did not vote in favour of going.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/581121/EU-European-Union-referendum-poll-Britons
And gets ignored.
As always.
How did that work out for you last September?
Swiney says 'of course' the SNP will push for FFA:
SNP MPs at Westminster could try to change the new Scotland Bill to make Holyrood responsible for raising all the money it spends.
Deputy First Minister John Swinney said "of course" his party could table amendments for full fiscal autonomy as the legislation makes its way through Westminster.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/1321785-snp-mps-could-propose-full-fiscal-autonomy-plan-in-more-powers-bill/
1) "The leader needs advice, and it has to come from someone with sufficient stature to ensure he'll listen to it."
2) Robinson said he had no idea whether the approach had been made with Miliband's knowledge or -- as he thought was more likely -- by "someone freelancing to try to be helpful".
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2015/01/27/nationals-circulation-slumps-below-20000-issues-publisher-predicts-general-election
In so far as 'losing' was good for them......
You are a Yes evangelist.
FFA Full Steam Ahead!
Wings Over Scotland have failed to deliver their campaign expenditure as required by paragraph 21 of schedule 4. The Commission has commenced its inquiries and is currently considering, in conjunction with the Crown Office, what, if any, action is appropriate in relation to this organisation’s failure to deliver a campaign expenditure return within the required timescale. The situation remains unchanged and considerations, with the Crown Office, continue.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/189958/Response-for-web-53-15.pdf
Similarly, it was because of my votes going down from 408 in 2001 to 193 in 2005 that the Conservative Party gained Croydon Central from Labour in 2005.
This opens the door even further for SNP to attack Labour from the left.
Labour has to sacrifice Scotland (as Conservatives and Lib Dems have already done), if it is ever to make headway in England.
One day in the distant future the people of Scotland will come to accept that capitalism is the best way to run a country. Until then the Labour party has either to abandon Scotland or fight back in Scotland as socialists but abandon most of England.