Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.
Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
Answer: You can't be.
I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.
But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?
Just a thought.
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.
I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.
So there's a disconnect there.
No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.
Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.
I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
Firstly I'd like to see how you can do a scientific poll not a voodoo survey. Secondly multiple things can be true. Thirdly what you said was "very few".
If you can address those 3 issues then please go ahead with a proposal.
It will give an indication as to how concerned PB Cons are with racism compared to PB Labs. I'd love to poll the nation or "scientifically" do some brain scans, but alas it's not practical.
Do you want to go first?
No it wouldn't since the two options are not mutually exclusive. You've set up a false dichotomy.
BRC approved opinion polls are considered scientific.
Nonsense. Both questions are impeccable in that regard. You can answer (i) and (ii), or (i) and (i), or (ii) and (i), or (ii) and (ii).
It works perfectly.
C'mon, don't be timid. I'm not pulling another "Muscles" Johnson on you.
You can both be opposed to racism and to falsely "pulling the race card". They're not opposites.
You can both be opposed to racism and to eg consider Health, Education and Jobs to be the 3 most important issues.
Everybody WILL be opposed to both those things. This is why the question asks which is the bigger problem.
And if racism is not in your top 3 issues for the UK - as it isn't for most people - it of course (!) does not follow that you are not concerned by racism.
You're seeing things that aren't there.
1. Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
2. Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
I stake MY LIFE that we get more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs.
You're a PB Con so let's get rolling. Hit me.
What is the point of question 1?
Besides which 1 a cure/vaccine for Covid-19 2 a solution to climate change 3 a deal between the UK and the EU Would probably be higher on most people’s list.
It's to trap liars and virtue-signalers. The combination of questions is actually a killer psychologically.
Almost no-one seems to be asking the most pertinent question on the NHS/carer migrant surcharge: how would an exemption actually work? Looks an administrative nightmare to me.
Because people need time to prepare. So once you have the evidence that it's safe to open schools then it makes sense to let the schools know that so they can make preparations even before you're ready to release the science.
So if you worked in sales you would wait until you'd made a sale before you launched into the pitch? You could be waiting a while on the former if you never want to make the latter.
Fortunately as this is just mundane stuff like government advice on the nation's school children its fine for the execution to be botched and non-sensical.
The government doesn't work in sales. It doesn't have to pitch the opening of schools. It has to tell schools to prepare to open and is releasing the science before the opening date.
Because people need time to prepare. So once you have the evidence that it's safe to open schools then it makes sense to let the schools know that so they can make preparations even before you're ready to release the science.
So if you worked in sales you would wait until you'd made a sale before you launched into the pitch? You could be waiting a while on the former if you never want to make the latter.
Fortunately as this is just mundane stuff like government advice on the nation's school children its fine for the execution to be botched and non-sensical.
The government doesn't work in sales. It doesn't have to pitch the opening of schools. It has to tell schools to prepare to open and is releasing the science before the opening date.
The government absolutely works in sales. It has to pitch to the electorate that it isn't a bunch of absolutely useless fuckwits.
Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.
Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
Answer: You can't be.
I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.
But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?
Just a thought.
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.
I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.
So there's a disconnect there.
No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.
Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.
I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
Firstly I'd like to see how you can do a scientific poll not a voodoo survey. Secondly multiple things can be true. Thirdly what you said was "very few".
If you can address those 3 issues then please go ahead with a proposal.
It will give an indication as to how concerned PB Cons are with racism compared to PB Labs. I'd love to poll the nation or "scientifically" do some brain scans, but alas it's not practical.
Do you want to go first?
No it wouldn't since the two options are not mutually exclusive. You've set up a false dichotomy.
BRC approved opinion polls are considered scientific.
Nonsense. Both questions are impeccable in that regard. You can answer (i) and (ii), or (i) and (i), or (ii) and (i), or (ii) and (ii).
It works perfectly.
C'mon, don't be timid. I'm not pulling another "Muscles" Johnson on you.
You can both be opposed to racism and to falsely "pulling the race card". They're not opposites.
You can both be opposed to racism and to eg consider Health, Education and Jobs to be the 3 most important issues.
Everybody WILL be opposed to both those things. This is why the question asks which is the bigger problem.
And if racism is not in your top 3 issues for the UK - as it isn't for most people - it of course (!) does not follow that you are not concerned by racism.
You're seeing things that aren't there.
1. Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
2. Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
I stake MY LIFE that we get more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs.
You're a PB Con so let's get rolling. Hit me.
No they're stupid questions that have nothing to do with the original claim. The original claim was: If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
So the reasonable questions are
Question One: Is racism one of your very biggest concerns? (i) Yes (if) No
Question Two (only for those who answered Yes to question one): Do you strongly support a party? (i) Yes (ii) No
Question Three (only for those who answered Yes to question two): Which party.
My answers would be Yes, Yes, Tory.
Then you need to repeat that nationally and if nationally only very few of question three's respondents say Tory was the hypothesis correct.
My questions are anything but stupid (as if!) but there's nothing wrong with yours either. Or your answers. Very clear. It does beg an obvious question though -
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns, how can you possibly support the Tory Party?
Are we saying that - yet again - you are a total outlier?
I believe in treating people as individuals.
Treating people based on their race is wrong since their race isn't them individually.
The party of treating people as individuals is the Conservative Party.
QED I support the Conservative Party for the same reason I oppose racism.
Almost no-one seems to be asking the most pertinent question on the NHS/carer migrant surcharge: how would an exemption actually work? Looks an administrative nightmare to me.
Yes, just how heroic in the eyes of the tabloids do you have to be ?
Is a coroner good enough? What about vets, pharmacists, first aiders?
Though perhaps the points system could be used as a carrot as well as a stick (more points = smaller charge).
If you think about Margaret Thatcher, she never stepped out of the door without being immaculately dressed with that helmet of red hair.
Eh?
What are you 'eh'ing about? She dyed her hair red and styled it into a style that resembled a motorbike helmet - to me anyway.
There are loads of conflicting opinions on Thatch held by loads of people but I'd venture only one of them thinks she had red hair.
I think "Honey Blonde" was what it said on the bottle how it was described. She also wore a three quarters wig too. If you want a real (sic) red head, Barbara Castle's hair was a colour not found in nature.....
Oh. Well, to be fair, I am very colourblind. We had a family friend when I was little who described her hair as 'red like Elizabeth I' - he was making a point about temperament, and I suppose I've believed it ever since. I know she wasn't a natural redhead and it used to be blonde. Didn't know she wore a toupe!
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
Nicely put. Getting lefties to confront the limitless absurdities of that philosophy - the Guardian Doctrine, perhaps? - is great fun.
You need to get out more.
At any other time that would be true. But at the moment I can indulge my indoorsiness to the full
No, seriously. For you ze lockdown is over.
It is time for using the words "almost certainly" to become a capital offence.
Birdnet uses "almost certain" when it identifies birdsong even when you know it is absolutely bloody sure of its result. It never uses "definitely".
Which of course has no relevance to anything but anyway.
Or you could take me along when birding. My assessment of an identification would be "Nailed on."
My big step forward is apart from the obvious ones (blackbirds, robins, crows, jackdaws, pheasants, wood pigeons) I can now recognise a chaffinch and a whitethroat when hearing and not seeing them. Next up is yellowhammer.
Seems that a couple of weeks ago you couldn't move for chaffinches and now you can't move for whitethroats. Is this my imagination?
As a resident, the Chaffinch is an earlier breeder, so its territorial song is earlier than the migrant Whitethroat, a bird you will be hard pushed to hear before May. Chaffinch won't fire up again until next spring as they don't go for a second brood.
Because people need time to prepare. So once you have the evidence that it's safe to open schools then it makes sense to let the schools know that so they can make preparations even before you're ready to release the science.
So if you worked in sales you would wait until you'd made a sale before you launched into the pitch? You could be waiting a while on the former if you never want to make the latter.
Fortunately as this is just mundane stuff like government advice on the nation's school children its fine for the execution to be botched and non-sensical.
The government doesn't work in sales. It doesn't have to pitch the opening of schools. It has to tell schools to prepare to open and is releasing the science before the opening date.
The government absolutely works in sales. It has to pitch to the electorate that it isn't a bunch of absolutely useless fuckwits.
At elections sure. Right now it should be doing the right thing like getting schools reopened not worrying about elections.
Doh.. that is because it was intended to be fuzzy.. they didn't want everyone rushing back to work straight away as the system could not cope. hence the fuzzy message /...
Only 7% potential immunity in the most affected part of the only country in the world that was actively trying to develop herd immunity in the population.
The Covid-19 Sweden fanbois spike.
Start: Sweden is doing it differently from most comparable nations.
Upward curve: this could be interesting, it will at least demonstrate an alternative course of action.
It's looking good, and Sweden's economy may take a smaller hit.
Peak: best of all worlds, deaths under control, economy protected and herd immunity on its way!
Downward curve: well, you can't really compare Sweden to neighbouring countries on deaths. Still there's always the economy and herd immunity.
Finish: yes I know the death figures are horrendous, Sweden's economy looks like it's tanking like everyone else's and there's no evidence of general immunity BUT IT'S FAR TOO EARLY TO SAY HOW IT'S WORKING FOR SWEDEN.
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
I wonder how likely it is that somebody who has "endless fun" exposing false claims of racism is also a racist?
False claims of racism discredit the very concept of racism in the public mind, and so weeding them out is an incontrovertibly anti-racist act.
But if somebody is far more concerned with calling out the bollox than calling out the real thing, it is at the very least possible that they are either blind to the real thing or do not consider it of much importance.
We see the same thing with people who are incredibly exercised about men being falsely accused of sexual assault. It's possible that such people are also very hot on gender equality, but is it likely? No. Not really.
I've been calling bullshit on varying forms of racial equality guff since the the police managed achieve a 99% young black male arrest rate under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Which was supposed to be to do with Northern Irish terrorists. IIRC there was one (1) confirmed black member of the IRA*.
Also, Brendan Hughes was called "darkie" because of his swarthy complexion.
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
I wonder how likely it is that somebody who has "endless fun" exposing false claims of racism is also a racist?
My point is that if you consider a metric for racism in one part of life, that metric is also applicable elsewhere.
The Green Belt policy, provably, ensures that more recent migrants have more expensive, smaller, lower quality housing.
That is not the way to assess racism. It's not about hard and fast rules. You judge each case on its merits. Is this a matter of people being discriminated against (directly or indirectly) primarily or mainly due to race? You simply answer that question. There are claims of racism that are absurd. But there is also plenty of real racism that is subtle and insidious rather than coded into law a la South Africa pre liberation, or evidenced by white hoods and torches.
Possibly - but if we are to judge the police and public services by the Institutional Racism measure - why not immigration and housing.
Incidentally, I don't think that they went in for white hoods in South Africa under Apartheid. They were much more upfront about the racism than that.
Unless you are thinking about the subversion operations against the black community? Which were not especially convert, either.
The 'hoods' was a ref to the KKK in Dixie.
I am not getting your point. You saying you disagree with the police institutional racism finding? That if they are, lots of other things are? That life itself is? That "institutional" racism is conceptually a nonsense?
Strikes me you might be succumbing to a similar overthinking of the issue that so irritates when it comes from superwoke academia.
So when the Government position on the NHS surcharge inevitably changes, presumably PB Tories will do a complete U-turn and insist they supported it all along?
So when the Government position on the NHS surcharge inevitably changes, presumably PB Tories will do a complete U-turn and insist they supported it all along?
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
Nicely put. Getting lefties to confront the limitless absurdities of that philosophy - the Guardian Doctrine, perhaps? - is great fun.
You need to get out more.
At any other time that would be true. But at the moment I can indulge my indoorsiness to the full
No, seriously. For you ze lockdown is over.
It is time for using the words "almost certainly" to become a capital offence.
Birdnet uses "almost certain" when it identifies birdsong even when you know it is absolutely bloody sure of its result. It never uses "definitely".
Which of course has no relevance to anything but anyway.
Or you could take me along when birding. My assessment of an identification would be "Nailed on."
My big step forward is apart from the obvious ones (blackbirds, robins, crows, jackdaws, pheasants, wood pigeons) I can now recognise a chaffinch and a whitethroat when hearing and not seeing them. Next up is yellowhammer.
Seems that a couple of weeks ago you couldn't move for chaffinches and now you can't move for whitethroats. Is this my imagination?
As a resident, the Chaffinch is an earlier breeder, so its territorial song is earlier than the migrant Whitethroat, a bird you will be hard pushed to hear before May. Chaffinch won't fire up again until next spring as they don't go for a second brood.
That is the Unionist candidate for FM next year. Moronic decision.
There were only two candidates and as far as I recall, the other lady, whilst undoubtedly she has many fine qualities, was no more experienced, and as English as Mary Poppins to boot. Which shouldn't matter but unfortunately these days it does.
Do you think the general consensus about Leonard being a bit crap is influenced by his (actual rather than just sounding it) Englishness? I'd say Ballantyne being a bit crap was a much bigger obstacle to her ambitions than sounding English, which I suppose says something about the realism of SCons v. SLab.
I am afraid I don't know enough about him to make that judgement, he could well be crap, but I think just now, he's starting with a handicap either way. When he opens his gob and something out of James Heriott pops out, I think it needs to be something very effective that he's saying to thaw the ice. 'English person who knows best' isn't a good look in Scottish politics.
Almost no-one seems to be asking the most pertinent question on the NHS/carer migrant surcharge: how would an exemption actually work? Looks an administrative nightmare to me.
Shouldn't be an exception, it should bee a reimbursement. Allow NHS employers to agree to reimburse it as a condition of their contracts and provide NHSE funding to do so.
So when the Government position on the NHS surcharge inevitably changes, presumably PB Tories will do a complete U-turn and insist they supported it all along?
I can't quite work out how the government have got themselves in this situation in the first place, this could easily have been spun as a positive thing i.e. we respect the work being done by the NHS workers, therefore we will exempt them (or some sort of fudge, where the NHS pay it for them and the government give the NHS the money i.e. an accounting exercise).
Given the magic money forest being harvested every day to pay for this crisis, it isn't even a rounding error.
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
Nicely put. Getting lefties to confront the limitless absurdities of that philosophy - the Guardian Doctrine, perhaps? - is great fun.
You need to get out more.
At any other time that would be true. But at the moment I can indulge my indoorsiness to the full
No, seriously. For you ze lockdown is over.
It is time for using the words "almost certainly" to become a capital offence.
Birdnet uses "almost certain" when it identifies birdsong even when you know it is absolutely bloody sure of its result. It never uses "definitely".
Which of course has no relevance to anything but anyway.
Or you could take me along when birding. My assessment of an identification would be "Nailed on."
My big step forward is apart from the obvious ones (blackbirds, robins, crows, jackdaws, pheasants, wood pigeons) I can now recognise a chaffinch and a whitethroat when hearing and not seeing them. Next up is yellowhammer.
Seems that a couple of weeks ago you couldn't move for chaffinches and now you can't move for whitethroats. Is this my imagination?
As a resident, the Chaffinch is an earlier breeder, so its territorial song is earlier than the migrant Whitethroat, a bird you will be hard pushed to hear before May. Chaffinch won't fire up again until next spring as they don't go for a second brood.
Apparently the Yellowhammer's song sounds like 'a little bit of bread but no cheese' I'm of the post punk retro house generation so that doesnt help me at all.
So when the Government position on the NHS surcharge inevitably changes, presumably PB Tories will do a complete U-turn and insist they supported it all along?
No, I think you'll find that most of us are against the surcharge for NHS workers. Only a few people are in favour, and as you say, the minute the policy changes they will always have been against it.
Tbh, you see it all the time. I remember a lot of Labour people saying the free broadband was a masterstroke announcement until the exit poll and then it suddenly became a disaster policy that started the downfall of the Labour campaign.
Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.
Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
Answer: You can't be.
I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.
But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?
Just a thought.
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.
I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.
So there's a disconnect there.
No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.
Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.
I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
Firstly I'd like to see how you can do a scientific poll not a voodoo survey. Secondly multiple things can be true. Thirdly what you said was "very few".
If you can address those 3 issues then please go ahead with a proposal.
It will give an indication as to how concerned PB Cons are with racism compared to PB Labs. I'd love to poll the nation or "scientifically" do some brain scans, but alas it's not practical.
Do you want to go first?
No it wouldn't since the two options are not mutually exclusive. You've set up a false dichotomy.
BRC approved opinion polls are considered scientific.
Nonsense. Both questions are impeccable in that regard. You can answer (i) and (ii), or (i) and (i), or (ii) and (i), or (ii) and (ii).
It works perfectly.
C'mon, don't be timid. I'm not pulling another "Muscles" Johnson on you.
You can both be opposed to racism and to falsely "pulling the race card". They're not opposites.
You can both be opposed to racism and to eg consider Health, Education and Jobs to be the 3 most important issues.
Everybody WILL be opposed to both those things. This is why the question asks which is the bigger problem.
And if racism is not in your top 3 issues for the UK - as it isn't for most people - it of course (!) does not follow that you are not concerned by racism.
You're seeing things that aren't there.
1. Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
2. Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
I stake MY LIFE that we get more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs.
You're a PB Con so let's get rolling. Hit me.
No they're stupid questions that have nothing to do with the original claim. The original claim was: If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
So the reasonable questions are
Question One: Is racism one of your very biggest concerns? (i) Yes (if) No
Question Two (only for those who answered Yes to question one): Do you strongly support a party? (i) Yes (ii) No
Question Three (only for those who answered Yes to question two): Which party.
My answers would be Yes, Yes, Tory.
Then you need to repeat that nationally and if nationally only very few of question three's respondents say Tory was the hypothesis correct.
My questions are anything but stupid (as if!) but there's nothing wrong with yours either. Or your answers. Very clear. It does beg an obvious question though -
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns, how can you possibly support the Tory Party?
Are we saying that - yet again - you are a total outlier?
I believe in treating people as individuals.
Treating people based on their race is wrong since their race isn't them individually.
The party of treating people as individuals is the Conservative Party.
QED I support the Conservative Party for the same reason I oppose racism.
The central tenet of the Conservatives new immigration policy seems to be to look at two numbers. How much money will the prospective immigrant earn and how many of them will come. The latter isn't looking at the individual at all, and the formers seems to reduce the individual to its mere fiscal utility.
Your claim of wanting to treat the person as an individual seems a little dubious in this light.
Almost no-one seems to be asking the most pertinent question on the NHS/carer migrant surcharge: how would an exemption actually work? Looks an administrative nightmare to me.
A tiny example of the tendency to create a problem by starting something slightly complicated and then to cure its defects by complicating it still further. Then you end up with nightmares no-one understands like our tax system or immigration law.
That is the Unionist candidate for FM next year. Moronic decision.
There were only two candidates and as far as I recall, the other lady, whilst undoubtedly she has many fine qualities, was no more experienced, and as English as Mary Poppins to boot. Which shouldn't matter but unfortunately these days it does.
Do you think the general consensus about Leonard being a bit crap is influenced by his (actual rather than just sounding it) Englishness? I'd say Ballantyne being a bit crap was a much bigger obstacle to her ambitions than sounding English, which I suppose says something about the realism of SCons v. SLab.
I am afraid I don't know enough about him to make that judgement, he could well be crap, but I think just now, he's starting with a handicap either way. When he opens his gob and something out of James Heriott pops out, I think it needs to be something very effective that he's saying to thaw the ice. 'English person who knows best' isn't a good look in Scottish politics.
He has been in place for two and a half years! If he's not impinged on the judgment of someone who is I assume more than averagely interested in politics, that's a bit of a humungous fail.
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
Nicely put. Getting lefties to confront the limitless absurdities of that philosophy - the Guardian Doctrine, perhaps? - is great fun.
You need to get out more.
At any other time that would be true. But at the moment I can indulge my indoorsiness to the full
No, seriously. For you ze lockdown is over.
It is time for using the words "almost certainly" to become a capital offence.
Birdnet uses "almost certain" when it identifies birdsong even when you know it is absolutely bloody sure of its result. It never uses "definitely".
Which of course has no relevance to anything but anyway.
Or you could take me along when birding. My assessment of an identification would be "Nailed on."
My big step forward is apart from the obvious ones (blackbirds, robins, crows, jackdaws, pheasants, wood pigeons) I can now recognise a chaffinch and a whitethroat when hearing and not seeing them. Next up is yellowhammer.
Seems that a couple of weeks ago you couldn't move for chaffinches and now you can't move for whitethroats. Is this my imagination?
As a resident, the Chaffinch is an earlier breeder, so its territorial song is earlier than the migrant Whitethroat, a bird you will be hard pushed to hear before May. Chaffinch won't fire up again until next spring as they don't go for a second brood.
There's an app you can get that listens to the birdsong around you at a given time and matches the sound to birds.
Its grades from possible through probable and almost certain. Mostly you get robins and blackbirds but it has recorded a few others. Treecreeper, nuthatch, goldfinch, great spotted woodpecker, long tailed tit.
Because people need time to prepare. So once you have the evidence that it's safe to open schools then it makes sense to let the schools know that so they can make preparations even before you're ready to release the science.
So if you worked in sales you would wait until you'd made a sale before you launched into the pitch? You could be waiting a while on the former if you never want to make the latter.
Fortunately as this is just mundane stuff like government advice on the nation's school children its fine for the execution to be botched and non-sensical.
The government doesn't work in sales. It doesn't have to pitch the opening of schools. It has to tell schools to prepare to open and is releasing the science before the opening date.
The government absolutely works in sales. It has to pitch to the electorate that it isn't a bunch of absolutely useless fuckwits.
At elections sure. Right now it should be doing the right thing like getting schools reopened not worrying about elections.
Are you saying that nothing the government does matters apart from in the run-in to an election?
Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.
Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
Answer: You can't be.
I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.
But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?
Just a thought.
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.
I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.
So there's a disconnect there.
No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.
Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.
I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
Risky to put your life on Labour voters sharing the same world view as Labour activists...
So when the Government position on the NHS surcharge inevitably changes, presumably PB Tories will do a complete U-turn and insist they supported it all along?
Issues can have a practical and a political side. So something can be sensible and reasonable but politically problematic.
So I could understand people supporting a policy in principle, but also supporting dropping it if necessary (pick your battles...).
So when the Government position on the NHS surcharge inevitably changes, presumably PB Tories will do a complete U-turn and insist they supported it all along?
No, I think you'll find that most of us are against the surcharge for NHS workers. Only a few people are in favour, and as you say, the minute the policy changes they will always have been against it.
Tbh, you see it all the time. I remember a lot of Labour people saying the free broadband was a masterstroke announcement until the exit poll and then it suddenly became a disaster policy that started the downfall of the Labour campaign.
I think the principle of the Labour broadband policy to provide FTTH for all was good - but making it free was a bad idea.
I thought it would be a popular policy - I was clearly wrong on that.
Because people need time to prepare. So once you have the evidence that it's safe to open schools then it makes sense to let the schools know that so they can make preparations even before you're ready to release the science.
So if you worked in sales you would wait until you'd made a sale before you launched into the pitch? You could be waiting a while on the former if you never want to make the latter.
Fortunately as this is just mundane stuff like government advice on the nation's school children its fine for the execution to be botched and non-sensical.
The government doesn't work in sales. It doesn't have to pitch the opening of schools. It has to tell schools to prepare to open and is releasing the science before the opening date.
The government absolutely works in sales. It has to pitch to the electorate that it isn't a bunch of absolutely useless fuckwits.
At elections sure. Right now it should be doing the right thing like getting schools reopened not worrying about elections.
Are you saying that nothing the government does matters apart from in the run-in to an election?
No I'm saying the opposite. That a government that is constantly pandering to be politically popular will be a bad government and eventually lose because they were bad no matter how much they pander.
I'm saying the government should do the right thing now and be judged on it later.
That is the Unionist candidate for FM next year. Moronic decision.
There were only two candidates and as far as I recall, the other lady, whilst undoubtedly she has many fine qualities, was no more experienced, and as English as Mary Poppins to boot. Which shouldn't matter but unfortunately these days it does.
Do you think the general consensus about Leonard being a bit crap is influenced by his (actual rather than just sounding it) Englishness? I'd say Ballantyne being a bit crap was a much bigger obstacle to her ambitions than sounding English, which I suppose says something about the realism of SCons v. SLab.
I am afraid I don't know enough about him to make that judgement, he could well be crap, but I think just now, he's starting with a handicap either way. When he opens his gob and something out of James Heriott pops out, I think it needs to be something very effective that he's saying to thaw the ice. 'English person who knows best' isn't a good look in Scottish politics.
He has been in place for two and a half years!
Hahah - 'starting' was part of my handicap metaphor, as in athletics. I think in a hustings situation, or on the media, Leonard has more ground to cover to get to the same point as someone with a Scottish accent. It could be worse of course, he could speak with a posh English accent.
Being a sadcase i looked back at N Norfolk election history some more. From 1951 - 1966 inclusive it was a straight Lab-Con fight only and was highly marginal. Labour held it every time for 5 elections in a row including 4 with less than 1000 majority and with an average majority of just 594 votes!
Well i find this stuff interesting anyway...
Without the personal vote for Lamb, they could never hang on at last GE. Natural Conservative vote area. If Farron or Carmichael quit, the same will happen there. 2 seats in Scotland are only there because of Conservative voters voting tactically. The rest (7) are FBPE crackers areas. That is no base to build on.
Without Brake, Sutton Carshalton may also become interesting. The Tories won the seat in 2019 , but how likely are the LDs to win it back? Labour has potential to move forward there.
Not really. The most remarkable thing about the last decade of our politics is that we haven’t had a spell of deep government unpopularity.
Only 7% potential immunity in the most affected part of the only country in the world that was actively trying to develop herd immunity in the population.
So, as expected given the relative mortality rates, probably a rather smaller percentage of infections than in the UK, after all that.
Yet Anders Tegnell thinks that in the intervening three weeks the number of infections has tripled: Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, said the antibodies figure was “a bit lower than we’d thought”, but added that it reflected the situation three weeks ago and he believed that by now “a little more than 20%” of Stockholm’s population had probably contracted the virus.
I don't want to start a major thing here but can someone explain to me how the results of the postal tests are being tracked? Every day there's 20-30k being posted out but we don't see the numbers registered in "people tested".
Are these basically just useless tests that get ignored?
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
Nicely put. Getting lefties to confront the limitless absurdities of that philosophy - the Guardian Doctrine, perhaps? - is great fun.
You need to get out more.
At any other time that would be true. But at the moment I can indulge my indoorsiness to the full
No, seriously. For you ze lockdown is over.
It is time for using the words "almost certainly" to become a capital offence.
Birdnet uses "almost certain" when it identifies birdsong even when you know it is absolutely bloody sure of its result. It never uses "definitely".
Which of course has no relevance to anything but anyway.
Or you could take me along when birding. My assessment of an identification would be "Nailed on."
My big step forward is apart from the obvious ones (blackbirds, robins, crows, jackdaws, pheasants, wood pigeons) I can now recognise a chaffinch and a whitethroat when hearing and not seeing them. Next up is yellowhammer.
Seems that a couple of weeks ago you couldn't move for chaffinches and now you can't move for whitethroats. Is this my imagination?
As a resident, the Chaffinch is an earlier breeder, so its territorial song is earlier than the migrant Whitethroat, a bird you will be hard pushed to hear before May. Chaffinch won't fire up again until next spring as they don't go for a second brood.
There's an app you can get that listens to the birdsong around you at a given time and matches the sound to birds.
Its grades from possible through probable and almost certain. Mostly you get robins and blackbirds but it has recorded a few others. Treecreeper, nuthatch, goldfinch, great spotted woodpecker, long tailed tit.
Yep. Birdnet.
But as an ignoramus who cycles, much moreso during lockdown, and has decided to listen to and look at the birds only recently, I realise that @MarqueeMark's knowledge is invaluable.
Only 7% potential immunity in the most affected part of the only country in the world that was actively trying to develop herd immunity in the population.
So, as expected given the relative mortality rates, probably a rather smaller percentage of infections than in the UK, after all that.
Yet Anders Tegnell thinks that in the intervening three weeks the number of infections has tripled: Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, said the antibodies figure was “a bit lower than we’d thought”, but added that it reflected the situation three weeks ago and he believed that by now “a little more than 20%” of Stockholm’s population had probably contracted the virus.
In one of the reports on this study, he is quoted as saying according to their models, this study means it is actually 33% now....certainly a "brave" call.
-------------
The findings were roughly in line with models predicting a third of the Swedish capital’s population would have had the virus by now and where at least limited herd immunity could have set in, the Swedish Health Agency said on Wednesday.
“It is a little bit lower (than expected) but not remarkably lower, maybe one or a couple of percent,” Tegnell told a Stockholm news conference. “It squares pretty well with the models we have.”
Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.
Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
Answer: You can't be.
I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.
But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?
Just a thought.
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.
I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.
So there's a disconnect there.
No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.
Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.
I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
Firstly I'd like to see how you can do a scientific poll not a voodoo survey. Secondly multiple things can be true. Thirdly what you said was "very few".
If you can address those 3 issues then please go ahead with a proposal.
It will give an indication as to how concerned PB Cons are with racism compared to PB Labs. I'd love to poll the nation or "scientifically" do some brain scans, but alas it's not practical.
Do you want to go first?
No it wouldn't since the two options are not mutually exclusive. You've set up a false dichotomy.
BRC approved opinion polls are considered scientific.
Nonsense. Both questions are impeccable in that regard. You can answer (i) and (ii), or (i) and (i), or (ii) and (i), or (ii) and (ii).
It works perfectly.
C'mon, don't be timid. I'm not pulling another "Muscles" Johnson on you.
You can both be opposed to racism and to falsely "pulling the race card". They're not opposites.
You can both be opposed to racism and to eg consider Health, Education and Jobs to be the 3 most important issues.
Everybody WILL be opposed to both those things. This is why the question asks which is the bigger problem.
And if racism is not in your top 3 issues for the UK - as it isn't for most people - it of course (!) does not follow that you are not concerned by racism.
You're seeing things that aren't there.
1. Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
2. Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
I stake MY LIFE that we get more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs.
You're a PB Con so let's get rolling. Hit me.
No they're stupid questions that have nothing to do with the original claim. The original claim was: If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
So the reasonable questions are
Question One: Is racism one of your very biggest concerns? (i) Yes (if) No
Question Two (only for those who answered Yes to question one): Do you strongly support a party? (i) Yes (ii) No
Question Three (only for those who answered Yes to question two): Which party.
My answers would be Yes, Yes, Tory.
Then you need to repeat that nationally and if nationally only very few of question three's respondents say Tory was the hypothesis correct.
My questions are anything but stupid (as if!) but there's nothing wrong with yours either. Or your answers. Very clear. It does beg an obvious question though -
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns, how can you possibly support the Tory Party?
Are we saying that - yet again - you are a total outlier?
I believe in treating people as individuals.
Treating people based on their race is wrong since their race isn't them individually.
The party of treating people as individuals is the Conservative Party.
QED I support the Conservative Party for the same reason I oppose racism.
And yet most people for whom racism is a major major concern do not support the Conservative Party. It really is a conundrum.
Why don't you do my questions with a (i) (i)? It will kill me since I'm a (ii) (i).
Kill me literally because I said MY LIFE if there is not more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs. I'll have to top myself.
Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.
Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
Answer: You can't be.
I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.
But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?
Just a thought.
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.
I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.
So there's a disconnect there.
No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.
Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.
I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
Firstly I'd like to see how you can do a scientific poll not a voodoo survey. Secondly multiple things can be true. Thirdly what you said was "very few".
If you can address those 3 issues then please go ahead with a proposal.
It will give an indication as to how concerned PB Cons are with racism compared to PB Labs. I'd love to poll the nation or "scientifically" do some brain scans, but alas it's not practical.
Do you want to go first?
No it wouldn't since the two options are not mutually exclusive. You've set up a false dichotomy.
BRC approved opinion polls are considered scientific.
Nonsense. Both questions are impeccable in that regard. You can answer (i) and (ii), or (i) and (i), or (ii) and (i), or (ii) and (ii).
It works perfectly.
C'mon, don't be timid. I'm not pulling another "Muscles" Johnson on you.
You can both be opposed to racism and to falsely "pulling the race card". They're not opposites.
You can both be opposed to racism and to eg consider Health, Education and Jobs to be the 3 most important issues.
Everybody WILL be opposed to both those things. This is why the question asks which is the bigger problem.
And if racism is not in your top 3 issues for the UK - as it isn't for most people - it of course (!) does not follow that you are not concerned by racism.
You're seeing things that aren't there.
1. Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
2. Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
I stake MY LIFE that we get more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs.
You're a PB Con so let's get rolling. Hit me.
No they're stupid questions that have nothing to do with the original claim. The original claim was: If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
So the reasonable questions are
Question One: Is racism one of your very biggest concerns? (i) Yes (if) No
Question Two (only for those who answered Yes to question one): Do you strongly support a party? (i) Yes (ii) No
Question Three (only for those who answered Yes to question two): Which party.
My answers would be Yes, Yes, Tory.
Then you need to repeat that nationally and if nationally only very few of question three's respondents say Tory was the hypothesis correct.
My questions are anything but stupid (as if!) but there's nothing wrong with yours either. Or your answers. Very clear. It does beg an obvious question though -
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns, how can you possibly support the Tory Party?
Are we saying that - yet again - you are a total outlier?
I believe in treating people as individuals.
Treating people based on their race is wrong since their race isn't them individually.
The party of treating people as individuals is the Conservative Party.
QED I support the Conservative Party for the same reason I oppose racism.
And yet most people for whom racism is a major major concern do not support the Conservative Party. It really is a conundrum.
Why don't you do my questions with a (i) (i)? It will kill me since I'm a (ii) (i).
Kill me literally because I said MY LIFE if there is not more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs. I'll have to top myself.
Most people do not support the Conservative Party in general so its not a conundrum at all. Just under half do.
You've not demonstrated a percentage of people for whom racism is a major concern who support the Conservative Party.
I listened to that interview, I can't imagine what it was that was so outrageous that got it removed. He did discuss his thoughts on perhaps there are a significant number of people who have some sort of immunity to this, that is a controversial, but not Alex Jones out there and there is at least one study that is suggesting that exposure to previous coronavirus may give some protection.
What's small...is 3 from one house and 4 from another too much... is there a max from each household or it is a total of both, we need exact figures, otherwise everybody gets too confused.
I don't want to start a major thing here but can someone explain to me how the results of the postal tests are being tracked? Every day there's 20-30k being posted out but we don't see the numbers registered in "people tested".
They become people when they get returned :-) The testing stats are becoming a bit of a mess really, with the bucketload of ONS tests being non-persons also.
It'll be even worse when lots of antibody tests get thrown in there also, because positives there will break any time-series effects.
Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.
Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
Answer: You can't be.
I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.
But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?
Just a thought.
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.
I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.
So there's a disconnect there.
No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.
Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.
I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
Firstly I'd like to see how you can do a scientific poll not a voodoo survey. Secondly multiple things can be true. Thirdly what you said was "very few".
If you can address those 3 issues then please go ahead with a proposal.
It will give an indication as to how concerned PB Cons are with racism compared to PB Labs. I'd love to poll the nation or "scientifically" do some brain scans, but alas it's not practical.
Do you want to go first?
No it wouldn't since the two options are not mutually exclusive. You've set up a false dichotomy.
BRC approved opinion polls are considered scientific.
Nonsense. Both questions are impeccable in that regard. You can answer (i) and (ii), or (i) and (i), or (ii) and (i), or (ii) and (ii).
It works perfectly.
C'mon, don't be timid. I'm not pulling another "Muscles" Johnson on you.
You can both be opposed to racism and to falsely "pulling the race card". They're not opposites.
You can both be opposed to racism and to eg consider Health, Education and Jobs to be the 3 most important issues.
Everybody WILL be opposed to both those things. This is why the question asks which is the bigger problem.
And if racism is not in your top 3 issues for the UK - as it isn't for most people - it of course (!) does not follow that you are not concerned by racism.
You're seeing things that aren't there.
1. Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
2. Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
I stake MY LIFE that we get more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs.
You're a PB Con so let's get rolling. Hit me.
No they're stupid questions that have nothing to do with the original claim. The original claim was: If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
So the reasonable questions are
Question One: Is racism one of your very biggest concerns? (i) Yes (if) No
Question Two (only for those who answered Yes to question one): Do you strongly support a party? (i) Yes (ii) No
Question Three (only for those who answered Yes to question two): Which party.
My answers would be Yes, Yes, Tory.
Then you need to repeat that nationally and if nationally only very few of question three's respondents say Tory was the hypothesis correct.
My questions are anything but stupid (as if!) but there's nothing wrong with yours either. Or your answers. Very clear. It does beg an obvious question though -
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns, how can you possibly support the Tory Party?
Are we saying that - yet again - you are a total outlier?
I believe in treating people as individuals.
Treating people based on their race is wrong since their race isn't them individually.
The party of treating people as individuals is the Conservative Party.
QED I support the Conservative Party for the same reason I oppose racism.
The central tenet of the Conservatives new immigration policy seems to be to look at two numbers. How much money will the prospective immigrant earn and how many of them will come. The latter isn't looking at the individual at all, and the formers seems to reduce the individual to its mere fiscal utility.
Your claim of wanting to treat the person as an individual seems a little dubious in this light.
Where is how many of them in the new policy? The old policy that was dropped was the tens of thousands pledge - I am glad that old policy is gone.
The former absolutely is looking at the individual. The individuals fiscal position. Individual. Not a class, not a race, not a nation, but an individual. Nothing dubious in that.
"We spoke to Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford and head of the team that released a study in March which speculated that as much as 50% of the population may already have been infected and the true Infection Fatality Rate could be as low as 0.1%."
"We spoke to Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford and head of the team that released a study in March which speculated that as much as 50% of the population may already have been infected and the true Infection Fatality Rate could be as low as 0.1%."
I listened to that interview, I can't imagine what it was that was so outrageous that got it removed. He did discuss his thoughts on perhaps there are a significant number of people who have some sort of immunity to this, that is a controversial, but not Alex Jones out there and there is at least one study that is suggesting that exposure to previous coronavirus may give some protection.
Youtube is getting swamped with nutter stuff at present, and the removal routines are apparently automated and a bit dumb. Major channels a while back learned not to say the "C" word even in passing, because it was getting their content pulled.
I listened to that interview, I can't imagine what it was that was so outrageous that got it removed. He did discuss his thoughts on perhaps there are a significant number of people who have some sort of immunity to this, that is a controversial, but not Alex Jones out there and there is at least one study that is suggesting that exposure to previous coronavirus may give some protection.
Youtube is getting swamped with nutter stuff at present, and the removal routines are apparently automated and a bit dumb. Major channels a while back learned not to say the "C" word even in passing, because it was getting their content pulled.
The recent funniest story I have heard is one of the major podcast channels got slapped down for racist content. The problem was they never said anything racist, Youtube's automatic subtitling bot transcribed a word into the n word. The moderation bot then went woooo wooo wooo racist content, racist content, deploy the ban hammer.
That is the Unionist candidate for FM next year. Moronic decision.
There were only two candidates and as far as I recall, the other lady, whilst undoubtedly she has many fine qualities, was no more experienced, and as English as Mary Poppins to boot. Which shouldn't matter but unfortunately these days it does.
Do you think the general consensus about Leonard being a bit crap is influenced by his (actual rather than just sounding it) Englishness? I'd say Ballantyne being a bit crap was a much bigger obstacle to her ambitions than sounding English, which I suppose says something about the realism of SCons v. SLab.
I am afraid I don't know enough about him to make that judgement, he could well be crap, but I think just now, he's starting with a handicap either way. When he opens his gob and something out of James Heriott pops out, I think it needs to be something very effective that he's saying to thaw the ice. 'English person who knows best' isn't a good look in Scottish politics.
Not necessarily - there are/have been quite a few English MPs/MSPs in the SNP, some quite senior.
It was actually IIRC the LABOUR Party members who raised his accent as an issue when Mr Leonard had his [edit] party leadership electoral campaign against his opponent [deleted-my memory was wrong on that point].
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
I wonder how likely it is that somebody who has "endless fun" exposing false claims of racism is also a racist?
My point is that if you consider a metric for racism in one part of life, that metric is also applicable elsewhere.
The Green Belt policy, provably, ensures that more recent migrants have more expensive, smaller, lower quality housing.
That is not the way to assess racism. It's not about hard and fast rules. You judge each case on its merits. Is this a matter of people being discriminated against (directly or indirectly) primarily or mainly due to race? You simply answer that question. There are claims of racism that are absurd. But there is also plenty of real racism that is subtle and insidious rather than coded into law a la South Africa pre liberation, or evidenced by white hoods and torches.
So indirectly discriminating against people is still racism? Glad that's been cleared up as I was rounded upon for suggesting that earlier.
If something is (albeit indirectly) discriminating against people primarily or mainly due to their race, it is reasonable to call it racist. The EU example fails the italics for me. So is it an example of you playing the PC race card? No, I think not. I think there's a genuine misunderstanding here on your part.
If the GOP remove polling stations from primarily minority communities in order to suppress voting is that racist? Yes or no?
I would say it is. I suppose you could make a disingenuous argument that the motive is to stop black people voting because they vote Dem rather than because they're black but I'm not inclined to do that.
It would now be ill-advised of you to try to argue that this therefore means EU Free Movement is racist. So I'm advising you not to. Will you listen to me for once? I sense you will.
Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.
Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
Answer: You can't be.
I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.
But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?
Just a thought.
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.
I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.
So there's a disconnect there.
No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.
Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.
I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
Firstly I'd like to see how you can do a scientific poll not a voodoo survey. Secondly multiple things can be true. Thirdly what you said was "very few".
If you can address those 3 issues then please go ahead with a proposal.
It will give an indication as to how concerned PB Cons are with racism compared to PB Labs. I'd love to poll the nation or "scientifically" do some brain scans, but alas it's not practical.
Do you want to go first?
No it wouldn't since the two options are not mutually exclusive. You've set up a false dichotomy.
BRC approved opinion polls are considered scientific.
Nonsense. Both questions are impeccable in that regard. You can answer (i) and (ii), or (i) and (i), or (ii) and (i), or (ii) and (ii).
It works perfectly.
C'mon, don't be timid. I'm not pulling another "Muscles" Johnson on you.
You can both be opposed to racism and to falsely "pulling the race card". They're not opposites.
You can both be opposed to racism and to eg consider Health, Education and Jobs to be the 3 most important issues.
Everybody WILL be opposed to both those things. This is why the question asks which is the bigger problem.
And if racism is not in your top 3 issues for the UK - as it isn't for most people - it of course (!) does not follow that you are not concerned by racism.
You're seeing things that aren't there.
1. Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
2. Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
I stake MY LIFE that we get more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs.
You're a PB Con so let's get rolling. Hit me.
No they're stupid questions that have nothing to do with the original claim. The original claim was: If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
So the reasonable questions are
Question One: Is racism one of your very biggest concerns? (i) Yes (if) No
Question Two (only for those who answered Yes to question one): Do you strongly support a party? (i) Yes (ii) No
Question Three (only for those who answered Yes to question two): Which party.
My answers would be Yes, Yes, Tory.
Then you need to repeat that nationally and if nationally only very few of question three's respondents say Tory was the hypothesis correct.
My questions are anything but stupid (as if!) but there's nothing wrong with yours either. Or your answers. Very clear. It does beg an obvious question though -
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns, how can you possibly support the Tory Party?
Are we saying that - yet again - you are a total outlier?
I believe in treating people as individuals.
Treating people based on their race is wrong since their race isn't them individually.
The party of treating people as individuals is the Conservative Party.
QED I support the Conservative Party for the same reason I oppose racism.
And yet most people for whom racism is a major major concern do not support the Conservative Party. It really is a conundrum.
Why don't you do my questions with a (i) (i)? It will kill me since I'm a (ii) (i).
Kill me literally because I said MY LIFE if there is not more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs. I'll have to top myself.
Jeez. Just logged on after a few hours away and you two are at it again.
Kinabalu, if the left construct a narrative which many think is imagined or at least exaggerated - i.e. "racism is a major major concern" - then it`s hardy surprising that those that believe this narrative reside largely on the left.
Only 7% potential immunity in the most affected part of the only country in the world that was actively trying to develop herd immunity in the population.
The Covid-19 Sweden fanbois spike.
Start: Sweden is doing it differently from most comparable nations.
Upward curve: this could be interesting, it will at least demonstrate an alternative course of action.
It's looking good, and Sweden's economy may take a smaller hit.
Peak: best of all worlds, deaths under control, economy protected and herd immunity on its way!
Downward curve: well, you can't really compare Sweden to neighbouring countries on deaths. Still there's always the economy and herd immunity.
Finish: yes I know the death figures are horrendous, Sweden's economy looks like it's tanking like everyone else's and there's no evidence of general immunity BUT IT'S FAR TOO EARLY TO SAY HOW IT'S WORKING FOR SWEDEN.
Top post. I'm very interested how it works out for Sweden but theres been a very clear pattern.
I listened to that interview, I can't imagine what it was that was so outrageous that got it removed. He did discuss his thoughts on perhaps there are a significant number of people who have some sort of immunity to this, that is a controversial, but not Alex Jones out there and there is at least one study that is suggesting that exposure to previous coronavirus may give some protection.
Youtube is getting swamped with nutter stuff at present, and the removal routines are apparently automated and a bit dumb. Major channels a while back learned not to say the "C" word even in passing, because it was getting their content pulled.
The recent funniest story I have heard is one of the major podcast channels got slapped down for racist content. The problem was they never said anything racist, Youtube's automatic subtitling bot transcribed a word into the n word. The moderation bot then went woooo wooo wooo racist content, racist content, deploy the ban hammer.
The automatic subtitling is often pretty bad for anyone who doesn't talk with an American accent.
I listened to that interview, I can't imagine what it was that was so outrageous that got it removed. He did discuss his thoughts on perhaps there are a significant number of people who have some sort of immunity to this, that is a controversial, but not Alex Jones out there and there is at least one study that is suggesting that exposure to previous coronavirus may give some protection.
I listened too. These talks by dissenting experts threaten the view that the disease is really dangerous and that we must all cower indoors until the medical establishment, aided by the Gates Foundation, which part-funds WHO, offers us a vaccine.
Gates seems to have influence out of proportion to his knowledge. I'd rather trust a German professor of virology who makes similar points and actually studies viruses for a living
Only 7% potential immunity in the most affected part of the only country in the world that was actively trying to develop herd immunity in the population.
So, as expected given the relative mortality rates, probably a rather smaller percentage of infections than in the UK, after all that.
Yet Anders Tegnell thinks that in the intervening three weeks the number of infections has tripled: Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, said the antibodies figure was “a bit lower than we’d thought”, but added that it reflected the situation three weeks ago and he believed that by now “a little more than 20%” of Stockholm’s population had probably contracted the virus.
In one of the reports on this study, he is quoted as saying according to their models, this study means it is actually 33% now....certainly a "brave" call.
-------------
The findings were roughly in line with models predicting a third of the Swedish capital’s population would have had the virus by now and where at least limited herd immunity could have set in, the Swedish Health Agency said on Wednesday.
“It is a little bit lower (than expected) but not remarkably lower, maybe one or a couple of percent,” Tegnell told a Stockholm news conference. “It squares pretty well with the models we have.”
The study says that it reflects the proportion exposed to the virus earlier in April as it takes a few weeks for the antibodies to develop (and possibly some people do not develop certain types of antibodies). So yes, by now it could be around 20%.
So when the Government position on the NHS surcharge inevitably changes, presumably PB Tories will do a complete U-turn and insist they supported it all along?
Happens all the time what of it? Thats a political behaviour not a partisan behaviour seen only on one side.
Personally I've not even bothered looking at the issue, commenting on talk around instead. Insulates me from blowback
Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.
Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
Answer: You can't be.
I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.
But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?
Just a thought.
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.
I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.
So there's a disconnect there.
No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.
Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.
I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
Firstly I'd like to see how you can do a scientific poll not a voodoo survey. Secondly multiple things can be true. Thirdly what you said was "very few".
If you can address those 3 issues then please go ahead with a proposal.
It will give an indication as to how concerned PB Cons are with racism compared to PB Labs. I'd love to poll the nation or "scientifically" do some brain scans, but alas it's not practical.
Do you want to go first?
No it wouldn't since the two options are not mutually exclusive. You've set up a false dichotomy.
BRC approved opinion polls are considered scientific.
Nonsense. Both questions are impeccable in that regard. You can answer (i) and (ii), or (i) and (i), or (ii) and (i), or (ii) and (ii).
It works perfectly.
C'mon, don't be timid. I'm not pulling another "Muscles" Johnson on you.
You can both be opposed to racism and to falsely "pulling the race card". They're not opposites.
You can both be opposed to racism and to eg consider Health, Education and Jobs to be the 3 most important issues.
Everybody WILL be opposed to both those things. This is why the question asks which is the bigger problem.
And if racism is not in your top 3 issues for the UK - as it isn't for most people - it of course (!) does not follow that you are not concerned by racism.
You're seeing things that aren't there.
1. Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
2. Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
I stake MY LIFE that we get more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs.
You're a PB Con so let's get rolling. Hit me.
No they're stupid questions that have nothing to do with the original claim. The original claim was: If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
So the reasonable questions are
Question One: Is racism one of your very biggest concerns? (i) Yes (if) No
Question Two (only for those who answered Yes to question one): Do you strongly support a party? (i) Yes (ii) No
Question Three (only for those who answered Yes to question two): Which party.
My answers would be Yes, Yes, Tory.
Then you need to repeat that nationally and if nationally only very few of question three's respondents say Tory was the hypothesis correct.
My questions are anything but stupid (as if!) but there's nothing wrong with yours either. Or your answers. Very clear. It does beg an obvious question though -
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns, how can you possibly support the Tory Party?
Are we saying that - yet again - you are a total outlier?
I believe in treating people as individuals.
Treating people based on their race is wrong since their race isn't them individually.
The party of treating people as individuals is the Conservative Party.
QED I support the Conservative Party for the same reason I oppose racism.
The central tenet of the Conservatives new immigration policy seems to be to look at two numbers. How much money will the prospective immigrant earn and how many of them will come. The latter isn't looking at the individual at all, and the formers seems to reduce the individual to its mere fiscal utility.
Your claim of wanting to treat the person as an individual seems a little dubious in this light.
Where is how many of them in the new policy? The old policy that was dropped was the tens of thousands pledge - I am glad that old policy is gone.
The former absolutely is looking at the individual. The individuals fiscal position. Individual. Not a class, not a race, not a nation, but an individual. Nothing dubious in that.
100% bollocks. All immigration systems prioritise the home nationality. Ours now prioritises one (two if you count Ireland) nationality over all others. What has happened is that employers are incentivised to prioritise the interests of the people of this country as opposed to the people of the EEA. It also prioritises middle class foreigners over working class foreigners.
Under the new system people can only recruit someone who is not British (or Irish) if there is a shortage of British or Irish people to do the work. There is considered to be no shortage of low skilled workers. We now exclude automatically the whole world based on nationality and class, whereas previously we discriminated against the whole world minus the EEA. The new system is more discriminatory than less.
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
I wonder how likely it is that somebody who has "endless fun" exposing false claims of racism is also a racist?
False claims of racism discredit the very concept of racism in the public mind, and so weeding them out is an incontrovertibly anti-racist act.
But if somebody is far more concerned with calling out the bollox than calling out the real thing, it is at the very least possible that they are either blind to the real thing or do not consider it of much importance.
We see the same thing with people who are incredibly exercised about men being falsely accused of sexual assault. It's possible that such people are also very hot on gender equality, but is it likely? No. Not really.
That may well be true of some people, but that doesn't invalidate the importance of dismantling false claims. I'm afraid that many of the PC nostrums of recent times - from the Guardian's weekly tendency to declare X racist for the most spurious reasons to 'I Believe Her (No Matter What)' - have done nothing but damage public trust in the causes they purport to serve.
Ironically enough, treating all claims of discrimination indiscriminately devalues them all. Critical thinking is what's needed, not ingenuous credulity, because the public can see through the latter and tends to despise it.
Sure. Critical thinking beats simple credulity any day of the week. PC nostrums? I'll pass on the nostrums - sounds dodgy - but PC as a guide to language and behaviour, for all its occasional, sometimes comical, sometimes toxic overreach, is (for me) one of the very best aspects of the modern western world. The positives by far outweigh the negatives.
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
I wonder how likely it is that somebody who has "endless fun" exposing false claims of racism is also a racist?
False claims of racism discredit the very concept of racism in the public mind, and so weeding them out is an incontrovertibly anti-racist act.
But if somebody is far more concerned with calling out the bollox than calling out the real thing, it is at the very least possible that they are either blind to the real thing or do not consider it of much importance.
We see the same thing with people who are incredibly exercised about men being falsely accused of sexual assault. It's possible that such people are also very hot on gender equality, but is it likely? No. Not really.
That may well be true of some people, but that doesn't invalidate the importance of dismantling false claims. I'm afraid that many of the PC nostrums of recent times - from the Guardian's weekly tendency to declare X racist for the most spurious reasons to 'I Believe Her (No Matter What)' - have done nothing but damage public trust in the causes they purport to serve.
Ironically enough, treating all claims of discrimination indiscriminately devalues them all. Critical thinking is what's needed, not ingenuous credulity, because the public can see through the latter and tends to despise it.
Sure. Critical thinking beats simple credulity any day of the week. PC nostrums? I'll pass on the nostrums - sounds dodgy - but PC as a guide to language and behaviour, for all its occasional, sometimes comical, sometimes toxic overreach, is (for me) one of the very best aspects of the modern western world. The positives by far outweigh the negatives.
One problem with that approach is the "But Constable Savage has got top marks in every diversity exercise" excuse/deflection/escape from reality.
Being a sadcase i looked back at N Norfolk election history some more. From 1951 - 1966 inclusive it was a straight Lab-Con fight only and was highly marginal. Labour held it every time for 5 elections in a row including 4 with less than 1000 majority and with an average majority of just 594 votes!
Well i find this stuff interesting anyway...
Without the personal vote for Lamb, they could never hang on at last GE. Natural Conservative vote area. If Farron or Carmichael quit, the same will happen there. 2 seats in Scotland are only there because of Conservative voters voting tactically. The rest (7) are FBPE crackers areas. That is no base to build on.
Orkney is a natural Conservative area? I would have said the opposite.
Orkney is much more (potentially) Tory than Shetland. You can tell that by visiting them. In fact that they mounted a fairly strong challenge to Jim Wallace in one of the Scottish Parliament elections. Fallen back sharply since then as Unionists voted tactically for LibDems in the face of rising SNP challenge.
Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.
Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
Answer: You can't be.
I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.
But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?
Just a thought.
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.
I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.
So there's a disconnect there.
No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.
Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.
I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
Firstly I'd like to see how you can do a scientific poll not a voodoo survey. Secondly multiple things can be true. Thirdly what you said was "very few".
If you can address those 3 issues then please go ahead with a proposal.
It will give an indication as to how concerned PB Cons are with racism compared to PB Labs. I'd love to poll the nation or "scientifically" do some brain scans, but alas it's not practical.
Do you want to go first?
No it wouldn't since the two options are not mutually exclusive. You've set up a false dichotomy.
BRC approved opinion polls are considered scientific.
Nonsense. Both questions are impeccable in that regard. You can answer (i) and (ii), or (i) and (i), or (ii) and (i), or (ii) and (ii).
It works perfectly.
C'mon, don't be timid. I'm not pulling another "Muscles" Johnson on you.
You can both be opposed to racism and to falsely "pulling the race card". They're not opposites.
You can both be opposed to racism and to eg consider Health, Education and Jobs to be the 3 most important issues.
Everybody WILL be opposed to both those things. This is why the question asks which is the bigger problem.
And if racism is not in your top 3 issues for the UK - as it isn't for most people - it of course (!) does not follow that you are not concerned by racism.
You're seeing things that aren't there.
1. Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
2. Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
I stake MY LIFE that we get more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs.
You're a PB Con so let's get rolling. Hit me.
No they're stupid questions that have nothing to do with the original claim. The original claim was: If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
So the reasonable questions are
Question One: Is racism one of your very biggest concerns? (i) Yes (if) No
Question Two (only for those who answered Yes to question one): Do you strongly support a party? (i) Yes (ii) No
Question Three (only for those who answered Yes to question two): Which party.
My answers would be Yes, Yes, Tory.
Then you need to repeat that nationally and if nationally only very few of question three's respondents say Tory was the hypothesis correct.
My questions are anything but stupid (as if!) but there's nothing wrong with yours either. Or your answers. Very clear. It does beg an obvious question though -
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns, how can you possibly support the Tory Party?
Are we saying that - yet again - you are a total outlier?
I believe in treating people as individuals.
Treating people based on their race is wrong since their race isn't them individually.
The party of treating people as individuals is the Conservative Party.
QED I support the Conservative Party for the same reason I oppose racism.
And yet most people for whom racism is a major major concern do not support the Conservative Party. It really is a conundrum.
Why don't you do my questions with a (i) (i)? It will kill me since I'm a (ii) (i).
Kill me literally because I said MY LIFE if there is not more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs. I'll have to top myself.
Jeez. Just logged on after a few hours away and you two are at it again.
Kinabalu, if the left construct a narrative which many think is imagined or at least exaggerated - i.e. "racism is a major major concern" - then it`s hardy surprising that those that believe this narrative reside largely on the left.
It's all got out of hand. You know how it is sometimes.
Anyway, you have put your finger on it. Many people do indeed consider the incidence of racism in the UK to be wildly exaggerated by the left. So pretty much by definition most of the people who think the issue is a "major major concern" will be on the left. It's a bit of an A = B, therefore B = A.
Think that's put an end to the whole thing. And what have we learnt? Perhaps not a great deal.
"We spoke to Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford and head of the team that released a study in March which speculated that as much as 50% of the population may already have been infected and the true Infection Fatality Rate could be as low as 0.1%."
Only 7% potential immunity in the most affected part of the only country in the world that was actively trying to develop herd immunity in the population.
The Covid-19 Sweden fanbois spike.
Start: Sweden is doing it differently from most comparable nations.
Upward curve: this could be interesting, it will at least demonstrate an alternative course of action.
It's looking good, and Sweden's economy may take a smaller hit.
Peak: best of all worlds, deaths under control, economy protected and herd immunity on its way!
Downward curve: well, you can't really compare Sweden to neighbouring countries on deaths. Still there's always the economy and herd immunity.
Finish: yes I know the death figures are horrendous, Sweden's economy looks like it's tanking like everyone else's and there's no evidence of general immunity BUT IT'S FAR TOO EARLY TO SAY HOW IT'S WORKING FOR SWEDEN.
Top post. I'm very interested how it works out for Sweden but theres been a very clear pattern.
I am surprised that the Sweden rampers aren't getting their head turned by Bolsanaro and Brazil. The grim reaper is gathering quite a herd there.
It has come to a pretty pass when the favela gangs are the ones enforcing social distancing measures.
"We spoke to Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford and head of the team that released a study in March which speculated that as much as 50% of the population may already have been infected and the true Infection Fatality Rate could be as low as 0.1%."
On the topic of COVID19, the home tests for my wife and I have arrived and I've booked collection back for them which will be tomorrow. I'm curious to see the turnaround time then to get the results.
Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.
Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
Answer: You can't be.
I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.
But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?
Just a thought.
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.
I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.
So there's a disconnect there.
No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.
Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.
I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
Firstly I'd like to see how you can do a scientific poll not a voodoo survey. Secondly multiple things can be true. Thirdly what you said was "very few".
If you can address those 3 issues then please go ahead with a proposal.
It will give an indication as to how concerned PB Cons are with racism compared to PB Labs. I'd love to poll the nation or "scientifically" do some brain scans, but alas it's not practical.
Do you want to go first?
No it wouldn't since the two options are not mutually exclusive. You've set up a false dichotomy.
BRC approved opinion polls are considered scientific.
Nonsense. Both questions are impeccable in that regard. You can answer (i) and (ii), or (i) and (i), or (ii) and (i), or (ii) and (ii).
It works perfectly.
C'mon, don't be timid. I'm not pulling another "Muscles" Johnson on you.
You can both be opposed to racism and to falsely "pulling the race card". They're not opposites.
You can both be opposed to racism and to eg consider Health, Education and Jobs to be the 3 most important issues.
Everybody WILL be opposed to both those things. This is why the question asks which is the bigger problem.
And if racism is not in your top 3 issues for the UK - as it isn't for most people - it of course (!) does not follow that you are not concerned by racism.
You're seeing things that aren't there.
1. Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
2. Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
I stake MY LIFE that we get more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs.
You're a PB Con so let's get rolling. Hit me.
No they're stupid questions that have nothing to do with the original claim. The original claim was: If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
So the reasonable questions are
Question One: Is racism one of your very biggest concerns? (i) Yes (if) No
Question Two (only for those who answered Yes to question one): Do you strongly support a party? (i) Yes (ii) No
Question Three (only for those who answered Yes to question two): Which party.
My answers would be Yes, Yes, Tory.
Then you need to repeat that nationally and if nationally only very few of question three's respondents say Tory was the hypothesis correct.
My questions are anything but stupid (as if!) but there's nothing wrong with yours either. Or your answers. Very clear. It does beg an obvious question though -
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns, how can you possibly support the Tory Party?
Are we saying that - yet again - you are a total outlier?
I believe in treating people as individuals.
Treating people based on their race is wrong since their race isn't them individually.
The party of treating people as individuals is the Conservative Party.
QED I support the Conservative Party for the same reason I oppose racism.
And yet most people for whom racism is a major major concern do not support the Conservative Party. It really is a conundrum.
Why don't you do my questions with a (i) (i)? It will kill me since I'm a (ii) (i).
Kill me literally because I said MY LIFE if there is not more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs. I'll have to top myself.
Most people do not support the Conservative Party in general so its not a conundrum at all. Just under half do.
You've not demonstrated a percentage of people for whom racism is a major concern who support the Conservative Party.
A significant section of the Conservative Party showed itself to be very sympathetic to Powellism - compulsory repatriation etc.There were MPs openly sympathetic to the Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia - and some were distinctly reluctant to condemn Apartheid in South Africa. Quite a few Tory activists were happy to wear 'Hang Nelson Mandela' T shirts. Very little racism there ,of course.
The Scottish process stages splits the English risk level 3 into two. I think this distinction confusing and unnecessary. The other stages/risk levels appropriate. In general I think the Scottish policy is articulated in a more coherent way than the English equivalent. Readers are treated as a adults.
You can drive 5 miles to play golf in Scotland . But not 6.
Daft.
Aiming to keep secondary infections to the local area. Even though infection rates should be low, there will be some. Makes sense and not daft at all.
To Harry everything in Scotland and to do with Scotland is BAD, reality or sense does not come in to it.
That is the Unionist candidate for FM next year. Moronic decision.
There were only two candidates and as far as I recall, the other lady, whilst undoubtedly she has many fine qualities, was no more experienced, and as English as Mary Poppins to boot. Which shouldn't matter but unfortunately these days it does.
Do you think the general consensus about Leonard being a bit crap is influenced by his (actual rather than just sounding it) Englishness? I'd say Ballantyne being a bit crap was a much bigger obstacle to her ambitions than sounding English, which I suppose says something about the realism of SCons v. SLab.
I am afraid I don't know enough about him to make that judgement, he could well be crap, but I think just now, he's starting with a handicap either way. When he opens his gob and something out of James Heriott pops out, I think it needs to be something very effective that he's saying to thaw the ice. 'English person who knows best' isn't a good look in Scottish politics.
He has been in place for two and a half years! If he's not impinged on the judgment of someone who is I assume more than averagely interested in politics, that's a bit of a humungous fail.
he is totally invisible, Carcrash is absolute garbage but at least you see his big red bawface on telly/papers etc
Comments
But you've busted me now.
Treating people based on their race is wrong since their race isn't them individually.
The party of treating people as individuals is the Conservative Party.
QED I support the Conservative Party for the same reason I oppose racism.
Meanwhile Nigel Farage ar7sing about in a boat gets more views than the lot of them.
Is a coroner good enough? What about vets, pharmacists, first aiders?
Though perhaps the points system could be used as a carrot as well as a stick (more points = smaller charge).
Start: Sweden is doing it differently from most comparable nations.
Upward curve: this could be interesting, it will at least demonstrate an alternative course of action.
It's looking good, and Sweden's economy may take a smaller hit.
Peak: best of all worlds, deaths under control, economy protected and herd immunity on its way!
Downward curve: well, you can't really compare Sweden to neighbouring countries on deaths. Still there's always the economy and herd immunity.
Finish: yes I know the death figures are horrendous, Sweden's economy looks like it's tanking like everyone else's and there's no evidence of general immunity BUT IT'S FAR TOO EARLY TO SAY HOW IT'S WORKING FOR SWEDEN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Hughes
I am not getting your point. You saying you disagree with the police institutional racism finding? That if they are, lots of other things are? That life itself is? That "institutional" racism is conceptually a nonsense?
Strikes me you might be succumbing to a similar overthinking of the issue that so irritates when it comes from superwoke academia.
Given the magic money forest being harvested every day to pay for this crisis, it isn't even a rounding error.
Tbh, you see it all the time. I remember a lot of Labour people saying the free broadband was a masterstroke announcement until the exit poll and then it suddenly became a disaster policy that started the downfall of the Labour campaign.
Your claim of wanting to treat the person as an individual seems a little dubious in this light.
Its grades from possible through probable and almost certain. Mostly you get robins and blackbirds but it has recorded a few others. Treecreeper, nuthatch, goldfinch, great spotted woodpecker, long tailed tit.
So I could understand people supporting a policy in principle, but also supporting dropping it if necessary (pick your battles...).
I thought it would be a popular policy - I was clearly wrong on that.
I'm saying the government should do the right thing now and be judged on it later.
Yet Anders Tegnell thinks that in the intervening three weeks the number of infections has tripled:
Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, said the antibodies figure was “a bit lower than we’d thought”, but added that it reflected the situation three weeks ago and he believed that by now “a little more than 20%” of Stockholm’s population had probably contracted the virus.
It's worth comparing this bizarre stuff with what he was quoted on 28 April as saying:
We think that up to 25% of people in Stockholm have been exposed to coronavirus and are possibly immune. ... We could reach herd immunity in Stockholm within a matter of weeks.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/04/28/coronavirus-covid-19-sweden-anders-tegnell-herd-immunity/3031536001/
Are these basically just useless tests that get ignored?
But as an ignoramus who cycles, much moreso during lockdown, and has decided to listen to and look at the birds only recently, I realise that @MarqueeMark's knowledge is invaluable.
-------------
The findings were roughly in line with models predicting a third of the Swedish capital’s population would have had the virus by now and where at least limited herd immunity could have set in, the Swedish Health Agency said on Wednesday.
“It is a little bit lower (than expected) but not remarkably lower, maybe one or a couple of percent,” Tegnell told a Stockholm news conference. “It squares pretty well with the models we have.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sweden-strategy/swedish-antibody-study-shows-long-road-to-immunity-as-covid-19-toll-mounts-idUSKBN22W2YC
Why don't you do my questions with a (i) (i)? It will kill me since I'm a (ii) (i).
Kill me literally because I said MY LIFE if there is not more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs. I'll have to top myself.
You've not demonstrated a percentage of people for whom racism is a major concern who support the Conservative Party.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8343973/Nicola-Sturgeon-says-Scots-lockdown-loosen-week.html
What's small...is 3 from one house and 4 from another too much... is there a max from each household or it is a total of both, we need exact figures, otherwise everybody gets too confused.
It'll be even worse when lots of antibody tests get thrown in there also, because positives there will break any time-series effects.
The former absolutely is looking at the individual. The individuals fiscal position. Individual. Not a class, not a race, not a nation, but an individual. Nothing dubious in that.
Swinson unexpectedly losing her seat.
Not unexpected by me.
Out of her depth lightweight with delusions of grandeur
Good riddance hope we've seen the last of her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKh6kJ-RSMI
https://twitter.com/BethanyAllenEbr/status/1263469429435883521
It was actually IIRC the LABOUR Party members who raised his accent as an issue when Mr Leonard had his [edit] party leadership electoral campaign against his opponent [deleted-my memory was wrong on that point].
It would now be ill-advised of you to try to argue that this therefore means EU Free Movement is racist. So I'm advising you not to. Will you listen to me for once? I sense you will.
Kinabalu, if the left construct a narrative which many think is imagined or at least exaggerated - i.e. "racism is a major major concern" - then it`s hardy surprising that those that believe this narrative reside largely on the left.
Gates seems to have influence out of proportion to his knowledge. I'd rather trust a German professor of virology who makes similar points and actually studies viruses for a living
https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/
Medical censorship is already widespread on the internet.
Personally I've not even bothered looking at the issue, commenting on talk around instead. Insulates me from blowback
https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1263477230258343937?s=20
https://twitter.com/GenMhayden/status/1263482507837739009?s=20
Under the new system people can only recruit someone who is not British (or Irish) if there is a shortage of British or Irish people to do the work. There is considered to be no shortage of low skilled workers. We now exclude automatically the whole world based on nationality and class, whereas previously we discriminated against the whole world minus the EEA. The new system is more discriminatory than less.
https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1263491232803753985
Starmer sets Tory policy now.
Anyway, you have put your finger on it. Many people do indeed consider the incidence of racism in the UK to be wildly exaggerated by the left. So pretty much by definition most of the people who think the issue is a "major major concern" will be on the left. It's a bit of an A = B, therefore B = A.
Think that's put an end to the whole thing. And what have we learnt? Perhaps not a great deal.
I agree.
Risk segmentation is clearly the way forward.
It has come to a pretty pass when the favela gangs are the ones enforcing social distancing measures.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/21/health/tea-mental-health-benefits-wellness/index.html