I read the summary of the race report yesterday and I can see why people have got issues with it but also think the report is broadly correct in its conclusions.
I think the issue is that the report talks about Britain as it is today, rather than the Britain that existed previously. Even as recently as 20 years ago this country was, IMO, fairly racist. I remember experiencing it first hand on many occasions when I was a kid and my parents have got some pretty awful stories. That was then and the report specifically deals with racism today and IMO racism today is a tiny problem. So the report doesn't match with my lived experience or the experiences of the majority of non-white people in this country. But it rightly says that the situation today isn't the same and our experiences are now, happily, consigned to the dustbin of history.
To put it into context from my personal perspective, the most racism I face today is from liberal lefty white people who won't hesitate to imply that I'm a race traitor for not buying into their bullshit narrative of grievances.
I suspect more lefty than liberal.
Talking of missed labels...
I recall when Polly Toynbee wrote a rather anguished column. She just discovered libertarianism, but was really upset to find that people using that fine sounding name were obsessed with individual liberty. She wanted to redefine it as accepting and welcoming all "good government" in the name of "collective liberty"....
Aunt Lydia's Freedom From instead of Freedom To.
The best response, was I think
FREEDOM = SLAVERY
She was, apparently unwittingly, using the exact argument of all authoritarian regimes that the only liberty is the liberty of the collective, decided upon by the state and enforced *on* the individual.
So the people who don’t like the report disagree with the people who do like the report. It’s “confrontational” to be told that someone disagrees with you I guess?
But not confrontational to sound off to the press?
The most important question about the vaccine passports hasn't been discussed.
What colour will they be?
Burgundy to troll the EU?
Maybe, I mean all the Brexiteers banged on about the blue but really black passport means we're sovereign again but they ignore the fact our passports have French writing on the front of them.
Did we lose a war or something?
(I know, I know, King Richard I used 'Dieu et mon droit' when defeating the French at the Battle of Gisors but what's the excuse for 'honi soit qui mal y pense'?)
Shame is apt for having French polluting our passports.
Is the French something to do with the Channel Islands?
Maybe we should also have Scots and Irish Gaelic, Welsh, Doric and Geordie too? And a couple of lines of Cockney Rhyming Slang to boot.
I think it has something to do with the English actually being French, vide William the B******d.
Speaking to Sky News this morning Gillian Keegan, minister for skills, said: "It doesn't glorify the slave trade. It is an independent report... the most important thing is to read the report, and not reports of the report."
Asked about the departure of Mr Kasumu, she told Times Radio: "I don't even know who he is."
The trend in the construction industry is towards the use of digital twins. That is a digital copy of a physical entity. It will be used in other areas and the most useful area will be to create a digital twin of a human being using up-to-date medical info. The advantages are that you can discard irrelevant out of date info with up to date info, and use the data you have to analyse trends, worsening conditions and conduct hypotheses. It will help you also get rid of the massive folders of paper records and allow data to be entered in real-time and used immediately. Good news and bad news. The data is available to anyone and any GP or consultant if you move house. The bad news is the data has to be protected in a massive way and not just accessible by giving your name and date of birth or NHS number. The Vaccine passport will then be part of it. Does the good outweigh the bad?
There is a brilliant Black Mirror (spoiler: they're all brilliant) which clones someone's brain and creates a microchip which for all the world "is" that person.
Very, very good to watch and, like every episode, deeply unnerving and disturbing.
The most important question about the vaccine passports hasn't been discussed.
What colour will they be?
I've got a little blue and white card with the dates of vaccination, plus batch number on it. Or at least I will have tomorrow, when the second one is added. I reckon that should be enough.
I haven't read the report, but "glorify slavery"? FFS! Were not most of the commissioners black? Kier Starmer still has a lot of work to do to get his nutters in line and stop putting out hyperbolic crap!
Adds Marsha de Cordova to the pile with Clive Lewis.
Every ridiculous critique of this report just loses Labour more and more votes with the tolerant majority white electorate. They're being absolutely played here.
The Labour left should accept Britain is a good place to live that can do more to improve the lives of ethnic minorites (and indeed everyone) yet instead they're engaging in hyperbole about slaveowners and the KKK. SKS must just despair.
Middle class white guy off twitter thinking he understands race better than Tony Sewell. Not a great look.
There are a fair few white middle class types on Twitter calling Tony Sewell an Uncle Tom. Nice to know how much more they know about being Black.
There were 10 main contributors to this report, 9 from ethnic backgrounds. If you dig into them it's not like they were card carrying Tories. It's depressing but expected that certain folk had already decided the outcome they wanted to hear and worked backwards from there. I think even if Shami Chakrabati had produced the report some would say it was too forgiving.
Adds Marsha de Cordova to the pile with Clive Lewis.
Every ridiculous critique of this report just loses Labour more and more votes with the tolerant majority white electorate. They're being absolutely played here.
The Labour left should accept Britain is a good place to live that can do more to improve the lives of ethnic minorites (and indeed everyone) yet instead they're engaging in hyperbole about slaveowners and the KKK. SKS must just despair.
Middle class white guy off twitter thinking he understands race better than Tony Sewell. Not a great look.
Thing is, and this applies on all manner of issues, is obviously we have to take account of views and opinions of people or groups who are particularly relevant to a specific issue - as a (lower)middle class white guy I near certainly have less insight or experience on issues of racism and racial inequalitiies - whilst also not simply delegating our view or opinion to nebulously defined group X on issue Y, since group X is not going to have a uniform view, perhaps can barely even be categorised as a single group X, and all sides will be able to find peopel or groups within X who take the view they do.
It was a situation just like this report I was thinking of when this came up on a non-race issue a few weeks ago when someone suggested letting X decide if Y was Z.
The most important question about the vaccine passports hasn't been discussed.
What colour will they be?
I've got a little blue and white card with the dates of vaccination, plus batch number on it. Or at least I will have tomorrow, when the second one is added. I reckon that should be enough.
Your xerox/HP scanner says yes please.
Point noted, especially as far as foreign travel is concerned. Should be OK enough for pub use, though.
The trend in the construction industry is towards the use of digital twins. That is a digital copy of a physical entity. It will be used in other areas and the most useful area will be to create a digital twin of a human being using up-to-date medical info. The advantages are that you can discard irrelevant out of date info with up to date info, and use the data you have to analyse trends, worsening conditions and conduct hypotheses. It will help you also get rid of the massive folders of paper records and allow data to be entered in real-time and used immediately. Good news and bad news. The data is available to anyone and any GP or consultant if you move house. The bad news is the data has to be protected in a massive way and not just accessible by giving your name and date of birth or NHS number. The Vaccine passport will then be part of it. Does the good outweigh the bad?
Can you elaborate on this 'digital twin' concept in the construction industry please? Is this different to a Revit model, for example?
Buildings are now designed as BIM (Building Information Models) which means that they include all relevant information about the components as well as the geometry. That is entered from its conception, right through its occupancy until it is pulled down. The information is used to assess its running cost and enable modification or repair or to gather readings from sensors to finetune its running costs. Digital Twins go beyond BIM because of its holistic approach. It covers everything and it allows occupiers to assess the cost of knocking a couple of walls down and building an extension, because the information needed is already there. Equate that to a human being. At the moment, in hospital you get our temperature taken 10 times a day, and it is written down by hand. If you drop dead somebody has to look at that data and analyse it manually. With a digital twin, the data will b set up to recognise a worsening trend and ring a couple of alarm bells. It's happening already. I have a pacemaker connected on line to the local hospital (size of an iPhone by me bed) They phone me if anything happens to my ticker - or to remind me to plug it back in. Goes well beyond Revit which can provide much of the data, but not the non-geometric construction type data.;
Adds Marsha de Cordova to the pile with Clive Lewis.
Every ridiculous critique of this report just loses Labour more and more votes with the tolerant majority white electorate. They're being absolutely played here.
The Labour left should accept Britain is a good place to live that can do more to improve the lives of ethnic minorites (and indeed everyone) yet instead they're engaging in hyperbole about slaveowners and the KKK. SKS must just despair.
Her definition of racist is if any institution results in any difference in outcome based on race, intentionally or not. By that definition the NHS will always be racist.
Wonder if this resignation will be dismissed in the same way other critiques of the report have been.,
You do wonder why these people are employed in the first place, just a waste of taxpayers money assuming they dont work pro bono. But equally now the report is done so is their work, so no point them sticking around really.
Clearly as the government doesn’t appear to have cared for any insight he may have had to offer, you do have to ask why they hired him.
Don’t really see what the point of this report was. The conclusion that was going to be made was obvious once people saw who was involved, and certainly not many peoples minds are going to be changed by the report. Nor is it going to kill off movements like BLM. It may well be an unpopular movement right now, but movements that challenge current thinking/status quo are rarely that popular at the start.
Wonder if this resignation will be dismissed in the same way other critiques of the report have been.,
Advisers resigning, particularly ones who had been intending to resign before apparently, is never as big a deal as the media thinks. Not even Cummings being shown the door was as big a deal as presented, given ultimately Boris had always been in charge. They can be very useful and influential, but advisers are still very abundant and replacable, even if the nature of this adviser's role and the timing is more pointed.
I read the summary of the race report yesterday and I can see why people have got issues with it but also think the report is broadly correct in its conclusions.
I think the issue is that the report talks about Britain as it is today, rather than the Britain that existed previously. Even as recently as 20 years ago this country was, IMO, fairly racist. I remember experiencing it first hand on many occasions when I was a kid and my parents have got some pretty awful stories. That was then and the report specifically deals with racism today and IMO racism today is a tiny problem. So the report doesn't match with my lived experience or the experiences of the majority of non-white people in this country. But it rightly says that the situation today isn't the same and our experiences are now, happily, consigned to the dustbin of history.
To put it into context from my personal perspective, the most racism I face today is from liberal lefty white people who won't hesitate to imply that I'm a race traitor for not buying into their bullshit narrative of grievances.
Some will just disagree with the conclusions no doubt (which admittedly is the sort of conclusion I'd prefer, but I have not read it so can't comment on its worthiness as a conclusion), but I wonder if part of it as well is the tendency in some spheres to dampen down on 'good' news, for fear it will cause complacency and a lack of further progress or even a regression. Which at least would be noble in aim and you can imagine how some people would use a 'done well' opinion as a reason to do no more, but it would still be incorrect as you need to be honest about a situation to tackle it. A noble lie, if that is what it was, would still be a lie.
Added to that if you treat situations as if all previous measures and actions have had no effect - a common issue with more extreme environmental campaigners for example - then it does rather make people beg the question why do anything.
One thing that seems to have improved markedly since the turn of the millenium specifically is diversity among MPs. I don't know if there was a push among the parties, or just natural progression through politics, but the face of politics has certainly been changing.
I read the summary of the race report yesterday and I can see why people have got issues with it but also think the report is broadly correct in its conclusions.
I think the issue is that the report talks about Britain as it is today, rather than the Britain that existed previously. Even as recently as 20 years ago this country was, IMO, fairly racist. I remember experiencing it first hand on many occasions when I was a kid and my parents have got some pretty awful stories. That was then and the report specifically deals with racism today and IMO racism today is a tiny problem. So the report doesn't match with my lived experience or the experiences of the majority of non-white people in this country. But it rightly says that the situation today isn't the same and our experiences are now, happily, consigned to the dustbin of history.
To put it into context from my personal perspective, the most racism I face today is from liberal lefty white people who won't hesitate to imply that I'm a race traitor for not buying into their bullshit narrative of grievances.
I suspect more lefty than liberal.
Not rarely, and I'm guilty of this myself, liberal is used by people as a synonym for 'good'. 'Progressive' is similar, but more obviously aligned to one side of the left-right spectrum, as plenty of Tories would also call themselves liberal, whether they actually are liberal or not.
Plenty of Tories would call themseles "liberal", Mr Kle. It is part of their strategy to cling onto power at all costs, especially by pretending to be something they are not.
Adds Marsha de Cordova to the pile with Clive Lewis.
Every ridiculous critique of this report just loses Labour more and more votes with the tolerant majority white electorate. They're being absolutely played here.
The Labour left should accept Britain is a good place to live that can do more to improve the lives of ethnic minorites (and indeed everyone) yet instead they're engaging in hyperbole about slaveowners and the KKK. SKS must just despair.
Her definition of racist is if any institution results in any difference in outcome based on race. By that definition the NHS will always be racist.
I'd like someone to ask her whether the Labour Party is "institutionally racist". Many Jews may think so. Is it also institutionally sexist? History suggests it was, and maybe also today.
How racist does an organisation have to be to be "institutionally" racist? Is there an accepted definition? When I worked for the Conservatives (before BXP did a reverse takeover) I was somewhat repulsed by the number of very probable racists. Did that make it "institutionally racist"? I am not sure
Middle class white guy off twitter thinking he understands race better than Tony Sewell. Not a great look.
Problem is, many black and mixed race people also disagree with Tony Sewell. I don’t get the impression from conversations with my family and friends, as well as my social media feeds that he has credibility within black communities in this country.
I haven't read the report, but "glorify slavery"? FFS! Were not most of the commissioners black? Kier Starmer still has a lot of work to do to get his nutters in line and stop putting out hyperbolic crap!
No no no - this is the way Labour win back the red wall.......
Middle class white guy off twitter thinking he understands race better than Tony Sewell. Not a great look.
There are a fair few white middle class types on Twitter calling Tony Sewell an Uncle Tom. Nice to know how much more they know about being Black.
There were 10 main contributors to this report, 9 from ethnic backgrounds. If you dig into them it's not like they were card carrying Tories. It's depressing but expected that certain folk had already decided the outcome they wanted to hear and worked backwards from there. I think even if Shami Chakrabati had produced the report some would say it was too forgiving.
Never in the history of mankind has a report been put together and the people chosen to slant the outcome in a desired direction. It's like you've only jsut discovered this!
Vaccine passports are illiberal and likely to fallfoul of other legislation. It's been poor judgement from the Governemnt to let this one run. Proof of vaccination for entry to certain countries isn't new though and will be accepted.
I am absolutely certain we shall need some evidence of vaccination to allow us to visit our family in Thailand.
Sure that will be a nice little earner for GP's , they will want £50 a head or suchlike to give you a sheet of paper.
Cynical, but sadly true. And, in Scotland, that's on top of their extra 4% and £500 bung. And many of them have hardly seen a patient for months.
Vaccine passports are illiberal and likely to fallfoul of other legislation. It's been poor judgement from the Governemnt to let this one run. Proof of vaccination for entry to certain countries isn't new though and will be accepted.
I am absolutely certain we shall need some evidence of vaccination to allow us to visit our family in Thailand.
Sure that will be a nice little earner for GP's , they will want £50 a head or suchlike to give you a sheet of paper.
Cynical, but sadly true. And, in Scotland, that's on top of their extra 4% and £500 bung. And many of them have hardly seen a patient for months.
Vaccine passports are illiberal and likely to fallfoul of other legislation. It's been poor judgement from the Governemnt to let this one run. Proof of vaccination for entry to certain countries isn't new though and will be accepted.
I am absolutely certain we shall need some evidence of vaccination to allow us to visit our family in Thailand.
Sure that will be a nice little earner for GP's , they will want £50 a head or suchlike to give you a sheet of paper.
Cynical, but sadly true. And, in Scotland, that's on top of their extra 4% and £500 bung. And many of them have hardly seen a patient for months.
I doubt whether any of the GPs in our surgery would have caught Covid. They all appear to have been self isolating since March last year.
"What’s happening, I think, is that North American journalism is in the grip of what the journalist Gavin Haynes calls a ‘purity spiral’. ‘A purity spiral occurs when a community becomes fixated on implementing a single value that has no upper limit, and no single agreed interpretation,’ he says. The value in this case is ‘anti-racism’, and left-wing journalists in Canada and the United States are locked in a competition to see who can demonstrate the most fanatical adherence to it. What better way to do this than to identify a sinner in their ranks and demand that he be expelled from the profession? The more threadbare the evidence of his guilt, the better it serves this purpose."
Adds Marsha de Cordova to the pile with Clive Lewis.
Every ridiculous critique of this report just loses Labour more and more votes with the tolerant majority white electorate. They're being absolutely played here.
The Labour left should accept Britain is a good place to live that can do more to improve the lives of ethnic minorites (and indeed everyone) yet instead they're engaging in hyperbole about slaveowners and the KKK. SKS must just despair.
Her definition of racist is if any institution results in any difference in outcome based on race. By that definition the NHS will always be racist.
I'd like someone to ask her whether the Labour Party is "institutionally racist". Many Jews may think so. Is it also institutionally sexist? History suggests it was, and maybe also today.
How racist does an organisation have to be to be "institutionally" racist? Is there an accepted definition? When I worked for the Conservatives (before BXP did a reverse takeover) I was somewhat repulsed by the number of very probable racists. Did that make it "institutionally racist"? I am not sure
I think on the anti-Semitism in the Labour party, yes i think that for a short period of time did fester through many aspects of the organisation with a tsunami of complaints. Defining it as institutional lets off those people who created the atmosphere. Outright hostility to people because of their jewishness. This was not a normal case of affairs and needed some serious changes in personnel and procedures to make sure such behaviour isnt tolerated.
The trend in the construction industry is towards the use of digital twins. That is a digital copy of a physical entity. It will be used in other areas and the most useful area will be to create a digital twin of a human being using up-to-date medical info. The advantages are that you can discard irrelevant out of date info with up to date info, and use the data you have to analyse trends, worsening conditions and conduct hypotheses. It will help you also get rid of the massive folders of paper records and allow data to be entered in real-time and used immediately. Good news and bad news. The data is available to anyone and any GP or consultant if you move house. The bad news is the data has to be protected in a massive way and not just accessible by giving your name and date of birth or NHS number. The Vaccine passport will then be part of it. Does the good outweigh the bad?
Can you elaborate on this 'digital twin' concept in the construction industry please? Is this different to a Revit model, for example?
Buildings are now designed as BIM (Building Information Models) which means that they include all relevant information about the components as well as the geometry. That is entered from its conception, right through its occupancy until it is pulled down. The information is used to assess its running cost and enable modification or repair or to gather readings from sensors to finetune its running costs. Digital Twins go beyond BIM because of its holistic approach. It covers everything and it allows occupiers to assess the cost of knocking a couple of walls down and building an extension, because the information needed is already there. Equate that to a human being. At the moment, in hospital you get our temperature taken 10 times a day, and it is written down by hand. If you drop dead somebody has to look at that data and analyse it manually. With a digital twin, the data will b set up to recognise a worsening trend and ring a couple of alarm bells. It's happening already. I have a pacemaker connected on line to the local hospital (size of an iPhone by me bed) They phone me if anything happens to my ticker - or to remind me to plug it back in. Goes well beyond Revit which can provide much of the data, but not the non-geometric construction type data.;
It's a fascinating field - being used in a wide range applications.
To people outside IT, the idea can seem obvious, or no different to the existing situation. The key is that the data is recorded in a way that gives *context* to that data. Which means it can be re-used, easily, far beyond the original use.
Middle class white guy off twitter thinking he understands race better than Tony Sewell. Not a great look.
Problem is, many black and mixed race people also disagree with Tony Sewell. I don’t get the impression from conversations with my family and friends, as well as my social media feeds that he has credibility within black communities in this country.
Which is why people cannot just trot out refrains about listening to the community or to group X as a substitute for making their own minds up. It must be done, it would be absurd to seek to form opinions without it, but such cannot arrive at a universal answer to prevent the difficult requirement of deciding how much to accept of any conclusions from different quarters.
I read the summary of the race report yesterday and I can see why people have got issues with it but also think the report is broadly correct in its conclusions.
I think the issue is that the report talks about Britain as it is today, rather than the Britain that existed previously. Even as recently as 20 years ago this country was, IMO, fairly racist. I remember experiencing it first hand on many occasions when I was a kid and my parents have got some pretty awful stories. That was then and the report specifically deals with racism today and IMO racism today is a tiny problem. So the report doesn't match with my lived experience or the experiences of the majority of non-white people in this country. But it rightly says that the situation today isn't the same and our experiences are now, happily, consigned to the dustbin of history.
To put it into context from my personal perspective, the most racism I face today is from liberal lefty white people who won't hesitate to imply that I'm a race traitor for not buying into their bullshit narrative of grievances.
Some will just disagree with the conclusions no doubt (which admittedly is the sort of conclusion I'd prefer, but I have not read it so can't comment on its worthiness as a conclusion), but I wonder if part of it as well is the tendency in some spheres to dampen down on 'good' news, for fear it will cause complacency and a lack of further progress or even a regression. Which at least would be noble in aim and you can imagine how some people would use a 'done well' opinion as a reason to do no more, but it would still be incorrect as you need to be honest about a situation to tackle it. A noble lie, if that is what it was, would still be a lie.
Added to that if you treat situations as if all previous measures and actions have had no effect - a common issue with more extreme environmental campaigners for example - then it does rather make people beg the question why do anything.
One thing that seems to have improved markedly since the turn of the millenium specifically is diversity among MPs. I don't know if there was a push among the parties, or just natural progression through politics, but the face of politics has certainly been changing.
I read the summary of the race report yesterday and I can see why people have got issues with it but also think the report is broadly correct in its conclusions.
I think the issue is that the report talks about Britain as it is today, rather than the Britain that existed previously. Even as recently as 20 years ago this country was, IMO, fairly racist. I remember experiencing it first hand on many occasions when I was a kid and my parents have got some pretty awful stories. That was then and the report specifically deals with racism today and IMO racism today is a tiny problem. So the report doesn't match with my lived experience or the experiences of the majority of non-white people in this country. But it rightly says that the situation today isn't the same and our experiences are now, happily, consigned to the dustbin of history.
To put it into context from my personal perspective, the most racism I face today is from liberal lefty white people who won't hesitate to imply that I'm a race traitor for not buying into their bullshit narrative of grievances.
I suspect more lefty than liberal.
Not rarely, and I'm guilty of this myself, liberal is used by people as a synonym for 'good'. 'Progressive' is similar, but more obviously aligned to one side of the left-right spectrum, as plenty of Tories would also call themselves liberal, whether they actually are liberal or not.
Plenty of Tories would call themseles "liberal", Mr Kle. It is part of their strategy to cling onto power at all costs, especially by pretending to be something they are not.
While I am definitely not a fan of the current government, and have no desire to defend our idiotic PM, it is perfectly possible to be a liberal conservative. I suggest you look at the definition of liberal and the history of the Conservative Party. It is easier to be a genuine liberal and be a conservative than it is to be a socialist and a liberal. As for the term "progressive", I always find that amusingly oxymoronic for those on the far left. Corbyn wanted to take us backward not forward!
Also, if the role of Labour and indeed the wider left was to abandon any position that may upset the majority of the electorate, a lot of changes in relation to race relations and LGBT rights etc likely wouldn’t have happened. LGBT rights weren’t always popular, gay marriage has only become something that is widely accepted relatively recently.
If you join centre left parties such as Labour, you are more likely both historically and today to be critical of the status quo and to have views outside the mainstream. If all Labour MPs and activists were to have entirely mainstream views and no views that weren’t a tiny bit radical, they’d likely be conservatives. As conservatives tend be the opposite of those on the left and more sceptical of radical change.
Middle class white guy off twitter thinking he understands race better than Tony Sewell. Not a great look.
Problem is, many black and mixed race people also disagree with Tony Sewell. I don’t get the impression from conversations with my family and friends, as well as my social media feeds that he has credibility within black communities in this country.
That's totally their right, but perhaps we should all (and I include myself) read the report before concluding.
Timpsons have a great record on getting people back on the straight.
I believe they also have an exemplary record in supporting their employees through lockdowns etc. John Timpson is definitely one of the good guys.
The family itself do a big push on fostering and adoption I believe. I've read parts of Timpson's 'Upside Down Management', he seems like an interesting and thoughtful man. Had to buy back the company after his uncle ousted his dad, then sold it, according to wiki.
Middle class white guy off twitter thinking he understands race better than Tony Sewell. Not a great look.
Problem is, many black and mixed race people also disagree with Tony Sewell. I don’t get the impression from conversations with my family and friends, as well as my social media feeds that he has credibility within black communities in this country.
You can convince yourself of things quite easily. Many white people have been convinced that none white people suffer a constant and daily torrent of racial abuse and discrimination. Its a great lie. A none white person in the uk might on occasion suffer abuse or discrimination based on their race. But they can be many years and decades with the frequency.
There might be someone, in some place who is in some dispute or has such a bad relationship with the area they live that this is regular. But it is that which is the oddity.
Middle class white guy off twitter thinking he understands race better than Tony Sewell. Not a great look.
Problem is, many black and mixed race people also disagree with Tony Sewell. I don’t get the impression from conversations with my family and friends, as well as my social media feeds that he has credibility within black communities in this country.
It's almost as if human beings are individuals and not monolithic identity blocs...
Middle class white guy off twitter thinking he understands race better than Tony Sewell. Not a great look.
Problem is, many black and mixed race people also disagree with Tony Sewell. I don’t get the impression from conversations with my family and friends, as well as my social media feeds that he has credibility within black communities in this country.
Of course, but could anyone produce a report that everyone agreed with? By result of this it suggests different experiences within races which is why I get so frustrated with blanket terms like 'the black community' as if they all have one homogenous culture and shared experience.
Middle class white guy off twitter thinking he understands race better than Tony Sewell. Not a great look.
Problem is, many black and mixed race people also disagree with Tony Sewell. I don’t get the impression from conversations with my family and friends, as well as my social media feeds that he has credibility within black communities in this country.
He still asks questions those black communities don't want to confront, even less answer. Like why within a group of kids in the same school with the same teachers, are kids of West African origin doing far, far better academically than kids of Afro-Caribbean origin?
I read the summary of the race report yesterday and I can see why people have got issues with it but also think the report is broadly correct in its conclusions.
I think the issue is that the report talks about Britain as it is today, rather than the Britain that existed previously. Even as recently as 20 years ago this country was, IMO, fairly racist. I remember experiencing it first hand on many occasions when I was a kid and my parents have got some pretty awful stories. That was then and the report specifically deals with racism today and IMO racism today is a tiny problem. So the report doesn't match with my lived experience or the experiences of the majority of non-white people in this country. But it rightly says that the situation today isn't the same and our experiences are now, happily, consigned to the dustbin of history.
To put it into context from my personal perspective, the most racism I face today is from liberal lefty white people who won't hesitate to imply that I'm a race traitor for not buying into their bullshit narrative of grievances.
I suspect more lefty than liberal.
Talking of missed labels...
I recall when Polly Toynbee wrote a rather anguished column. She just discovered libertarianism, but was really upset to find that people using that fine sounding name were obsessed with individual liberty. She wanted to redefine it as accepting and welcoming all "good government" in the name of "collective liberty"....
In all issues there are facts and there are interpretations and assumptions people bring in advance. It seems pretty clear on the issue of racism that there is no serious possibility of common ground on any of these. Every alleged fact is contested, and it is rare to find people in the public debate who wish to do much other than assert their interpretations and assumptions. Is a sense that the serious media could do much much better in covering this shared?
Compare with politics: There is plenty of knockabout, with politicians/journalists spouting a line and contesting nonsense, but there are also John Curtices and Peter Hennessys and the Institute of Government, IFS and the Resolution Foundation etc and a few robust and well briefed interviewers (though not enough). With race/racism/ethnicity this well informed and committed commentary seems to have gone missing. Why? And how would it be solved?
On topic. Speculation about vaccine passports reminds me of similar about “No Deal” Brexit - a debate over something which is clearly not going to happen. The notion of an app is especially ludicrous. I mean. C’mon.
As with “No Deal”, the government are happy to sponsor the debate because it works for them. If people think they’ll need the jab to access normality they are more likely to get the jab. There are also people who are nervous about safety coming out of the pandemic and this talk reassures them that Johnson is not in cavalier mode. That he’s taking things seriously. It sounds all prudent and competent and thoughtful. It looks good that he’s mulling these sorts of things. Boris cares. Gets a resounding “lol” from me but plenty out there don’t share my assessment of the PM.
But, no, vaxports won’t be happening and neither should they. For international travel, yes, but other than that, no way. The point of the vaccination rollout is to create sufficient population immunity to end the pandemic in the UK and consign Covid to the ranks of those diseases we live with the risk of catching because the risk is low. When we arrive at this point the pay off must be that normal life returns. Having to prove vaccination status in order to do a whole host of routine activities such as go down the pub is decidedly not normal life. This is not (for me) about fretting that “the state” will using a vax ID to track my movements, I find all that sentiment paranoid and irrational, but more that it would be a complete faff and a waste of time and money, delivering no tangible benefit, and indeed potentially doing harm by causing exclusion and division.
Good for them. It may not help them, and people may (indeed, on those numbers, do) disagree, but it shows them trying to lead and convince.
As Guy Verhofstadt once said: Most of the political leaders [in continental Europe] are simply following nationalist and populist rhetoric, and that is for me not a democracy. A democracy, in my opinion, is a political leader developing a vision and then trying to convince the public opinion to follow his vision, and not what is happening now
(People do tend to forget the 'trying to convince the public to follow' bit, which is important when not, well dictating)
Timpsons have a great record on getting people back on the straight.
I believe they also have an exemplary record in supporting their employees through lockdowns etc. John Timpson is definitely one of the good guys.
The family itself do a big push on fostering and adoption I believe. I've read parts of Timpson's 'Upside Down Management', he seems like an interesting and thoughtful man. Had to buy back the company after his uncle ousted his dad, then sold it, according to wiki.
Haven’t read the book but have read several interviews with him, and listened to that ultimate arbiter of character, Desert Island Discs.
Also pro Brexit I think; never let it be said that narrow prejudice prevents me from objective evaluation!
I'm disappointed not to see the Scottish Abolish the Scottish Parliament Party, Scottish Alba Party, Scottish All for Unity etc. Even Renew, Libertarian and Women's Equality remembered to do that.
On topic. Speculation about vaccine passports reminds me of similar about “No Deal” Brexit - a debate over something which is clearly not going to happen. The notion of an app is especially ludicrous. I mean. C’mon.
As with “No Deal”, the government are happy to sponsor the debate because it works for them. If people think they’ll need the jab to access normality they are more likely to get the jab. There are also people who are nervous about safety coming out of the pandemic and this talk reassures them that Johnson is not in cavalier mode. That he’s taking things seriously. It sounds all prudent and competent and thoughtful. It looks good that he’s mulling these sorts of things. Boris cares. Gets a resounding “lol” from me but plenty out there don’t share my assessment of the PM.
But, no, vaxports won’t be happening and neither should they. For international travel, yes, but other than that, no way. The point of the vaccination rollout is to create sufficient population immunity to end the pandemic in the UK and consign Covid to the ranks of those diseases we live with the risk of catching because the risk is low. When we arrive at this point the pay off must be that normal life returns. Having to prove vaccination status in order to do a whole host of routine activities such as go down the pub is decidedly not normal life. This is not (for me) about fretting that “the state” will using a vax ID to track my movements, I find all that sentiment paranoid and irrational, but more that it would be a complete faff and a waste of time and money, delivering no tangible benefit, and indeed potentially doing harm by causing exclusion and division.
So it’s a no from me.
You say "For international travel, yes" - do you differentiate between: a) the UK government insisting that UK citizens MUST have a vaccine passport in order to leave the country and b) UK citizens being able to carry adequate evidence of vaccination to show to the foreign authorities if required by that country?
I see a massive difference - I am in favour of b) but not a).
Is Scotland the only country in the world where the majority of mainstream political parties feel the need to include the name of the country in their name?
Middle class white guy off twitter thinking he understands race better than Tony Sewell. Not a great look.
Problem is, many black and mixed race people also disagree with Tony Sewell. I don’t get the impression from conversations with my family and friends, as well as my social media feeds that he has credibility within black communities in this country.
He still asks questions those black communities don't want to confront, even less answer. Like why within a group of kids in the same school with the same teachers, are kids of West African origin doing far, far better academically than kids of Afro-Caribbean origin?
Yes. The term "afro-Caribbean" hides a lot of inconvenient facts. My experience of west africans, is extremely conservative and traditional in terms of family and expectations with education considered vital.
The issue of first generation west africans coming over is replicated in the USA. Its the educated middle classes with get up and go who are migrating through official routes. Land in the USA and cant believe their luck quickly (to use a term) colonising middle and upper middle layers of management in public and private organisations reserved through quotas for afro-americans.
I don’t think all black people (or any community for that matter) are a monolithic block which all think the same. But I don’t think the term ‘black community’ implies that everyone thinks the same, either. Just as though I don’t think the term ‘white working class’ implies all white working class people think the same thing.
Middle class white guy off twitter thinking he understands race better than Tony Sewell. Not a great look.
Problem is, many black and mixed race people also disagree with Tony Sewell. I don’t get the impression from conversations with my family and friends, as well as my social media feeds that he has credibility within black communities in this country.
He still asks questions those black communities don't want to confront, even less answer. Like why within a group of kids in the same school with the same teachers, are kids of West African origin doing far, far better academically than kids of Afro-Caribbean origin?
I don’t believe that’s the reason. Akala discusses topics such as these, and he is not seen negatively by many people I know.
Is Scotland the only country in the world where the majority of mainstream political parties feel the need to include the name of the country in their name?
The electoral law was changed IIRC by Mr Blair's party to allow that even when it's not actually in their name - so far as I can see directly and intentionally to favour the Labour Party (SLAB not being a separate party under electoral law, accounting rules, etc.).
Edit: And Wales too has the name in its political parties' names, Cymru of course being the senior name. No idea if there is a similar legal fiddle there.
On topic. Speculation about vaccine passports reminds me of similar about “No Deal” Brexit - a debate over something which is clearly not going to happen. The notion of an app is especially ludicrous. I mean. C’mon.
As with “No Deal”, the government are happy to sponsor the debate because it works for them. If people think they’ll need the jab to access normality they are more likely to get the jab. There are also people who are nervous about safety coming out of the pandemic and this talk reassures them that Johnson is not in cavalier mode. That he’s taking things seriously. It sounds all prudent and competent and thoughtful. It looks good that he’s mulling these sorts of things. Boris cares. Gets a resounding “lol” from me but plenty out there don’t share my assessment of the PM.
But, no, vaxports won’t be happening and neither should they. For international travel, yes, but other than that, no way. The point of the vaccination rollout is to create sufficient population immunity to end the pandemic in the UK and consign Covid to the ranks of those diseases we live with the risk of catching because the risk is low. When we arrive at this point the pay off must be that normal life returns. Having to prove vaccination status in order to do a whole host of routine activities such as go down the pub is decidedly not normal life. This is not (for me) about fretting that “the state” will using a vax ID to track my movements, I find all that sentiment paranoid and irrational, but more that it would be a complete faff and a waste of time and money, delivering no tangible benefit, and indeed potentially doing harm by causing exclusion and division.
So it’s a no from me.
You say "For international travel, yes" - do you differentiate between: a) the UK government insisting that UK citizens MUST have a vaccine passport in order to leave the country and b) UK citizens being able to carry adequate evidence of vaccination to show to the foreign authorities if required by that country?
I see a massive difference - I am in favour of b) but not a).
Yes - (a) is not on at all. But their return is a different matter. Maybe need controls there.
On topic. Speculation about vaccine passports reminds me of similar about “No Deal” Brexit - a debate over something which is clearly not going to happen. The notion of an app is especially ludicrous. I mean. C’mon.
As with “No Deal”, the government are happy to sponsor the debate because it works for them. If people think they’ll need the jab to access normality they are more likely to get the jab. There are also people who are nervous about safety coming out of the pandemic and this talk reassures them that Johnson is not in cavalier mode. That he’s taking things seriously. It sounds all prudent and competent and thoughtful. It looks good that he’s mulling these sorts of things. Boris cares. Gets a resounding “lol” from me but plenty out there don’t share my assessment of the PM.
But, no, vaxports won’t be happening and neither should they. For international travel, yes, but other than that, no way. The point of the vaccination rollout is to create sufficient population immunity to end the pandemic in the UK and consign Covid to the ranks of those diseases we live with the risk of catching because the risk is low. When we arrive at this point the pay off must be that normal life returns. Having to prove vaccination status in order to do a whole host of routine activities such as go down the pub is decidedly not normal life. This is not (for me) about fretting that “the state” will using a vax ID to track my movements, I find all that sentiment paranoid and irrational, but more that it would be a complete faff and a waste of time and money, delivering no tangible benefit, and indeed potentially doing harm by causing exclusion and division.
So it’s a no from me.
You say "For international travel, yes" - do you differentiate between: a) the UK government insisting that UK citizens MUST have a vaccine passport in order to leave the country and b) UK citizens being able to carry adequate evidence of vaccination to show to the foreign authorities if required by that country?
I see a massive difference - I am in favour of b) but not a).
Well, kind of. Working through from first principles, it's indefensible that we put barriers in place to people LEAVING the country. But if they leave the country for two weeks, catch covid, then come back, then that's clearly bad for us. So I can see a scenario in which they can only come back into the country with a vaccine passport. Obviously ow other countries choose to treat them when they arrive is a matter for those countries.
Is Scotland the only country in the world where the majority of mainstream political parties feel the need to include the name of the country in their name?
I am 100% against vaccine passports until everyone has had the opportunity to be vaccinated. After that, then I'm relaxed.
It looks as if once everyone has been offered the jab, 90%+ of adults will have had it. Do we really need vaccine passports in that case?
Or do you think it will be a lot lower than 90%?
That is why I am relaxed, I think in reality - as you say - it won't be needed.
Until then, the idea you'll get wholesale compliance with the rules when people can jet off on holiday or whatever else whilst those of us that put our lives on hold for over a year, still can't, is for the birds. It will fall through the floor.
Is Scotland the only country in the world where the majority of mainstream political parties feel the need to include the name of the country in their name?
No. In North Korea 100% of the parties, all one of them, have Korea in their name.
Remarkably the same 100% record is held by all one parties in China, the Communist Party of China.
I read the summary of the race report yesterday and I can see why people have got issues with it but also think the report is broadly correct in its conclusions.
I think the issue is that the report talks about Britain as it is today, rather than the Britain that existed previously. Even as recently as 20 years ago this country was, IMO, fairly racist. I remember experiencing it first hand on many occasions when I was a kid and my parents have got some pretty awful stories. That was then and the report specifically deals with racism today and IMO racism today is a tiny problem. So the report doesn't match with my lived experience or the experiences of the majority of non-white people in this country. But it rightly says that the situation today isn't the same and our experiences are now, happily, consigned to the dustbin of history.
To put it into context from my personal perspective, the most racism I face today is from liberal lefty white people who won't hesitate to imply that I'm a race traitor for not buying into their bullshit narrative of grievances.
I suspect more lefty than liberal.
Talking of missed labels...
I recall when Polly Toynbee wrote a rather anguished column. She just discovered libertarianism, but was really upset to find that people using that fine sounding name were obsessed with individual liberty. She wanted to redefine it as accepting and welcoming all "good government" in the name of "collective liberty"....
In all issues there are facts and there are interpretations and assumptions people bring in advance. It seems pretty clear on the issue of racism that there is no serious possibility of common ground on any of these. Every alleged fact is contested, and it is rare to find people in the public debate who wish to do much other than assert their interpretations and assumptions. Is a sense that the serious media could do much much better in covering this shared?
Compare with politics: There is plenty of knockabout, with politicians/journalists spouting a line and contesting nonsense, but there are also John Curtices and Peter Hennessys and the Institute of Government, IFS and the Resolution Foundation etc and a few robust and well briefed interviewers (though not enough). With race/racism/ethnicity this well informed and committed commentary seems to have gone missing. Why? And how would it be solved?
It is notable, to me, that much of the debate sounds theologically fundamentalist. Opinion is based on reading of the "correct" parts of venerated texts. The other bits in said texts are ignored. The opinion is presented as Absolute Truth. Any questioning of the Truth is, of course, Heresy.
Divergence of reality from the Truth is evidence that the viewer of said divergence is a Heretic.
Is Scotland the only country in the world where the majority of mainstream political parties feel the need to include the name of the country in their name?
Kinda what happens when there’s an argument about whether you’re a real country or not, Catalonia isn’t dissimilar. SCon and SLab probably do it to distract from the fact that they’re not parties but sub branches.
That is a rather stupid reason to be against vaccine passports. Due to the nature of COVID the amount of time between "a few case" and "lots" doesn't really allow you to put new systems in place.
If domestic usage vaccine passports are a bad idea, then they would need to be a bad idea/useless at all future scenarios - including a resurgence. Which is an arguable position.
In the case of no domestic vaccine passports, what should be done about (a) immigration, (b) tourism into the UK? Insist on vaccination passports for entry?
By the way, does anyone doubt that South Korea will implement a domestic vaccine passport and will enforce it?
So the people who don’t like the report disagree with the people who do like the report. It’s “confrontational” to be told that someone disagrees with you I guess?
But not confrontational to sound off to the press?
The background of some of the people selected for the Commission pretty much predestined its daft conclusions. One member has views on foreign aid so extreme that Bill Gates reviewed her book as "promoting evil". Another is openly partisan in anti-Labour politics. A third talked about gay people as "tortured queens".
This editorial summarises the views of many of us, not only those who routinely expound on these issues.
It's simply a missed opportunity. It is clearly true that there are many causes of inequality, not only racism But it is laughable to dismiss it, since it alienates ordinary people who experience everyday hassle for being black - being routinely stopped to prove you own your car is a well-known example. It's one thing to put up with systematic unfairness without letting it dominate your life. It's something else for a Government-appointed body to tell you the problem doesn't exist.
Yes, it's fascinating how many people have such strong views on a report they haven't read.
The only acceptable report, in the eyes of some campaigners, would be one that brands modern Britain as an oppressive hellhole.
And, the idea that this report "glorifies slavery" is completely off the wall.
I agree but as I have said before, I don't understand how vaccine passports give more confidence.
If you have been vaccinated, you have say 70% protection against any COVID symptoms whatsoever and near enough 100% protection against severe disease. For all intents and purposes you are protected. In that circumstance, what benefit does a vaccine passport give you? Nothing. Any fears or anxieties are irrational.
Let's say you haven't been vaccinated by choice. A vaccine passport isn't going to protect you because (1) you don't want protecting and (2) you are probably happy to take risks in any case. That's personal choice.
Finally — people who can't get vaccinated for whatever reason. The hardest category. The problem is that there will always be people with compromised immune systems. I'm one of them. We cannot eliminate all risk and pubs and restaurants are always going to be dangerous for people with compromised immune systems. There's no rational reason why the whole population should be constrained for the benefit of a tiny amount of people. There will always be a risk, vaccine passport or no vaccine passport.
The fact is I fail to see any logical justification for vaccine passports.
With all due respect to those who support them, I truly believe it is a case of "that sounds good, let's have that" rather than having thought it through properly.
You make a fair case, but I'd argue that group 1 will be worried about long Covid (which sounds quite severe without necessarily putting you in hospital), group 2 will spread the infection and prolong the situation by mixing with the other groups and group 3 will, as you say, be excluded. The combined effect will, perversely, to extend the period until normal life returns for most people.
And, of course, it'll still be some time before everyone has been offered 2 doses and had the 3-week waiting period to take full effect, by which time we'll be heading into winter and fresh paranoia.
And the downside is trivial, not some Big Brother intrusion. I was given a vaccination card when I had my first shot, and I'm happy to show it to anyone who asks. What's the problem?
The problems are many.
Firstly what is being suggested is not just a piece of paper but an electronic tracing system. That very much is Big Brother.
Secondly it is something that will be expected to be policed by venues and pubs etc. They simply won't do that because it is impractical. You ae not talking about a few customers who look under 18 but every single customer having to be checked. Pubs certainly don't want it and its basic application is impractical.
Thirdly what do you do about the people who actually work in the venues? Are you going to insist on their vaccination? If not then the whole thing is pointless.
Any vaccine passport system designed to help venues reopen will have the exact opposite effect and cause many to shut down permanently.
Agreed. I am fully on board with the public health issues, but the vaccine passports - as trailed - have the above issues as well as: 1 - Equity issues: if they are brought in prior to everyone having the opportunity to be vaccinated, it excludes a considerable number of people without their choice and is divisive. 2 - Necessity issues: if they are brought in subsequent to everyone having the opportunity to be vaccinated, what is the need for them? Either we will have reached herd immunity, anyway (in which case they are redundant) or they will simply kick the can down the road until herd immunity is reached through infection of the remaining vaccine-skeptics. And this will lengthen the period in which that will take, and those who are remaining somewhat vulnerable will have longer and longer to be infected by the vaccine-skeptics in areas of life outside of "passport control" (eg in supermarkets, or at work - unless they are required for literally EVERY aspect of life)
It does feel like that comment from Roy Jenkins: every Home Secretary gets a proposal for ID cards [linked, these days, to a master database to follow all activity] put in their in-tray early on, with an ever changing rationale for them; the Home Secretary's task is to empty that into the bin.
Timpsons have a great record on getting people back on the straight.
I believe they also have an exemplary record in supporting their employees through lockdowns etc. John Timpson is definitely one of the good guys.
The family itself do a big push on fostering and adoption I believe. I've read parts of Timpson's 'Upside Down Management', he seems like an interesting and thoughtful man. Had to buy back the company after his uncle ousted his dad, then sold it, according to wiki.
Haven’t read the book but have read several interviews with him, and listened to that ultimate arbiter of character, Desert Island Discs.
Also pro Brexit I think; never let it be said that narrow prejudice prevents me from objective evaluation!
His son, Edward, is a Tory MP. In Cheshire, I think.
I don’t think all black people (or any community for that matter) are a monolithic block which all think the same. But I don’t think the term ‘black community’ implies that everyone thinks the same, either. Just as though I don’t think the term ‘white working class’ implies all white working class people think the same thing.
Exactly. Every human being - all umpteen billion of us - is unique. To talk about different ethnicities within society doesn't deny that at all, so long as you don't make stereotypical assumptions about individuals based on which ethnic group they belong to.
It's very revealing that most of the indignation and disagreement on the racism report is about definitions ("institutional racism"), rather than about the real issue, which is what should be done to improve people's lives and opportunities.
Got another leaflet from the LDs today for the locals, 3 already (2 in one go admittedly). Very disappointed that there was only a bar chart on one of them, and it is both directly relevant to the election taking place, and entirely correct in its proportions.
I read the summary of the race report yesterday and I can see why people have got issues with it but also think the report is broadly correct in its conclusions.
I think the issue is that the report talks about Britain as it is today, rather than the Britain that existed previously. Even as recently as 20 years ago this country was, IMO, fairly racist. I remember experiencing it first hand on many occasions when I was a kid and my parents have got some pretty awful stories. That was then and the report specifically deals with racism today and IMO racism today is a tiny problem. So the report doesn't match with my lived experience or the experiences of the majority of non-white people in this country. But it rightly says that the situation today isn't the same and our experiences are now, happily, consigned to the dustbin of history.
To put it into context from my personal perspective, the most racism I face today is from liberal lefty white people who won't hesitate to imply that I'm a race traitor for not buying into their bullshit narrative of grievances.
I suspect more lefty than liberal.
Talking of missed labels...
I recall when Polly Toynbee wrote a rather anguished column. She just discovered libertarianism, but was really upset to find that people using that fine sounding name were obsessed with individual liberty. She wanted to redefine it as accepting and welcoming all "good government" in the name of "collective liberty"....
In all issues there are facts and there are interpretations and assumptions people bring in advance. It seems pretty clear on the issue of racism that there is no serious possibility of common ground on any of these. Every alleged fact is contested, and it is rare to find people in the public debate who wish to do much other than assert their interpretations and assumptions. Is a sense that the serious media could do much much better in covering this shared?
Compare with politics: There is plenty of knockabout, with politicians/journalists spouting a line and contesting nonsense, but there are also John Curtices and Peter Hennessys and the Institute of Government, IFS and the Resolution Foundation etc and a few robust and well briefed interviewers (though not enough). With race/racism/ethnicity this well informed and committed commentary seems to have gone missing. Why? And how would it be solved?
It is notable, to me, that much of the debate sounds theologically fundamentalist. Opinion is based on reading of the "correct" parts of venerated texts. The other bits in said texts are ignored. The opinion is presented as Absolute Truth. Any questioning of the Truth is, of course, Heresy.
Divergence of reality from the Truth is evidence that the viewer of said divergence is a Heretic.
'Diversity is always intrinsically good, and must be promoted at every turn; except diversity of opinion, which is always bad and must be suppressed at all costs.'
Got another leaflet from the LDs today for the locals, 3 already (2 in one go admittedly). Very disappointed that there was only a bar chart on one of them, and it is both directly relevant to the election taking place, and entirely correct in its proportions.
About one in five people have symptoms of long Covid five weeks after an initial infection and one in seven after 12 weeks, an Office of National Statistics (ONS) survey suggests.
It estimates that 1.1 million people were affected in the UK in the four weeks from 6 February.
About 20% of people said ongoing symptoms limited their day-to-day activities a lot.
So the people who don’t like the report disagree with the people who do like the report. It’s “confrontational” to be told that someone disagrees with you I guess?
But not confrontational to sound off to the press?
The background of some of the people selected for the Commission pretty much predestined its daft conclusions. One member has views on foreign aid so extreme that Bill Gates reviewed her book as "promoting evil". Another is openly partisan in anti-Labour politics. A third talked about gay people as "tortured queens".
This editorial summarises the views of many of us, not only those who routinely expound on these issues.
It's simply a missed opportunity. It is clearly true that there are many causes of inequality, not only racism But it is laughable to dismiss it, since it alienates ordinary people who experience everyday hassle for being black - being routinely stopped to prove you own your car is a well-known example. It's one thing to put up with systematic unfairness without letting it dominate your life. It's something else for a Government-appointed body to tell you the problem doesn't exist.
Yes, it's fascinating how many people have such strong views on a report they haven't read.
The only acceptable report, in the eyes of some campaigners, would be one that brands modern Britain as an oppressive hellhole.
And, the idea that this report "glorifies slavery" is completely off the wall.
Complete switch off. The moment someone says that a black bloke from Brixton is glorifying slavery I think: 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'
Let's hear a boring and sober evaluation of what amounts to a single sentence dismissal with a potentially libellous statement.
And it isn't said to further debate, it is said to signal a side to support.
So the UK much more supportive of vaccines from France or Germany than France or Germany is supportive of vaccines from the UK.
I'm sure Kamski can explain the levels of xenophobia.
This stark difference in france and germany towards uk made vaccine compared to the rest of the world must be a consequence of the political leadership in those countries.
Interesting figures from December, but a lot less interesting when you see that a big majority of Germans replied "no difference" or "don't know" on perceptions of a vaccine developed in the UK. There was a widespread view in Germany last year that the UK government had made one bungle after another in its coronavirus response - no doubt partly due to Johnson being generally seen as a clown, as well as perceptions of various mistakes made.
Germans tend not to have a very high opinion of things manufactured in the UK in general - it's hard to think of a top British brand except maybe Mini (which is owned by BMW), but on that survey it still comes ahead of the US, Singapore, S. Korea etc.
If you look at France there is no real difference between how much more (net) positive people in France would be about a French-developed vaccine than a UK developed vaccine, compared to how much more positive people in the UK would be about a UK developed vaccine than a French one.
I don’t think all black people (or any community for that matter) are a monolithic block which all think the same. But I don’t think the term ‘black community’ implies that everyone thinks the same, either. Just as though I don’t think the term ‘white working class’ implies all white working class people think the same thing.
Exactly. Every human being - all umpteen billion of us - is unique. To talk about different ethnicities within society doesn't deny that at all, so long as you don't make stereotypical assumptions about individuals based on which ethnic group they belong to.
That is true, and should be simple, yet a monolithic position is kind of implied with the more basic attacks (not here) if the conclusions of some who may be within certain groups does not align with what many, or even the majority, of that group thinks. That is sort of the suggestion if a conclusion is said to be wrong, even if a person of Group X were to say they don't think it wrong, because it does not reflect wider group X.
Also, you shouldn't rely on stereotypical assumptions based on the group, but surely by the very nature of grouping there is intended to be recognition that many of that group share certain concerns or issues? That is, we are asked to assume certain stereotypes as a generality, so long as we do not assume it is universal within that group?
Comments
FREEDOM = SLAVERY
She was, apparently unwittingly, using the exact argument of all authoritarian regimes that the only liberty is the liberty of the collective, decided upon by the state and enforced *on* the individual.
Which was also, exactly what Orwell was against.
Asked about the departure of Mr Kasumu, she told Times Radio: "I don't even know who he is."
Very, very good to watch and, like every episode, deeply unnerving and disturbing.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3973198/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_57
Every ridiculous critique of this report just loses Labour more and more votes with the tolerant majority white electorate. They're being absolutely played here.
The Labour left should accept Britain is a good place to live that can do more to improve the lives of ethnic minorites (and indeed everyone) yet instead they're engaging in hyperbole about slaveowners and the KKK. SKS must just despair.
"Pfizer accuses Brussels of holding back Covid vaccine effort" {£}
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trial-pfizer-covid-vaccine-teenagers-results-5rrs9mmgx
It was a situation just like this report I was thinking of when this came up on a non-race issue a few weeks ago when someone suggested letting X decide if Y was Z.
Equate that to a human being. At the moment, in hospital you get our temperature taken 10 times a day, and it is written down by hand. If you drop dead somebody has to look at that data and analyse it manually. With a digital twin, the data will b set up to recognise a worsening trend and ring a couple of alarm bells. It's happening already. I have a pacemaker connected on line to the local hospital (size of an iPhone by me bed) They phone me if anything happens to my ticker - or to remind me to plug it back in. Goes well beyond Revit which can provide much of the data, but not the non-geometric construction type data.;
Don’t really see what the point of this report was. The conclusion that was going to be made was obvious once people saw who was involved, and certainly not many peoples minds are going to be changed by the report. Nor is it going to kill off movements like BLM. It may well be an unpopular movement right now, but movements that challenge current thinking/status quo are rarely that popular at the start.
How racist does an organisation have to be to be "institutionally" racist? Is there an accepted definition? When I worked for the Conservatives (before BXP did a reverse takeover) I was somewhat repulsed by the number of very probable racists. Did that make it "institutionally racist"? I am not sure
https://spectator.us/topic/journalism-madness-canada-purity-spiral/
This was not a normal case of affairs and needed some serious changes in personnel and procedures to make sure such behaviour isnt tolerated.
To people outside IT, the idea can seem obvious, or no different to the existing situation. The key is that the data is recorded in a way that gives *context* to that data. Which means it can be re-used, easily, far beyond the original use.
https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1377546644997177344
https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1377558834743480323
If you join centre left parties such as Labour, you are more likely both historically and today to be critical of the status quo and to have views outside the mainstream. If all Labour MPs and activists were to have entirely mainstream views and no views that weren’t a tiny bit radical, they’d likely be conservatives. As conservatives tend be the opposite of those on the left and more sceptical of radical change.
There might be someone, in some place who is in some dispute or has such a bad relationship with the area they live that this is regular. But it is that which is the oddity.
Edit to add: Which is good, because it is unnecessary, unworkable, unBritish and unwelcome
Or 'weather', as we used to call it.
So Starmer and Davey are on the wrong side not only of voters as a whole on this but even their own party's voters
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1377558150660943873?s=20
Compare with politics: There is plenty of knockabout, with politicians/journalists spouting a line and contesting nonsense, but there are also John Curtices and Peter Hennessys and the Institute of Government, IFS and the Resolution Foundation etc and a few robust and well briefed interviewers (though not enough). With race/racism/ethnicity this well informed and committed commentary seems to have gone missing. Why? And how would it be solved?
lol
The choice is being portrayed as venues being shut vs vaccine passports, whereas it should be vaccines passports vs no vaccine passports.
As with “No Deal”, the government are happy to sponsor the debate because it works for them. If people think they’ll need the jab to access normality they are more likely to get the jab. There are also people who are nervous about safety coming out of the pandemic and this talk reassures them that Johnson is not in cavalier mode. That he’s taking things seriously. It sounds all prudent and competent and thoughtful. It looks good that he’s mulling these sorts of things. Boris cares. Gets a resounding “lol” from me but plenty out there don’t share my assessment of the PM.
But, no, vaxports won’t be happening and neither should they. For international travel, yes, but other than that, no way. The point of the vaccination rollout is to create sufficient population immunity to end the pandemic in the UK and consign Covid to the ranks of those diseases we live with the risk of catching because the risk is low. When we arrive at this point the pay off must be that normal life returns. Having to prove vaccination status in order to do a whole host of routine activities such as go down the pub is decidedly not normal life. This is not (for me) about fretting that “the state” will using a vax ID to track my movements, I find all that sentiment paranoid and irrational, but more that it would be a complete faff and a waste of time and money, delivering no tangible benefit, and indeed potentially doing harm by causing exclusion and division.
So it’s a no from me.
As Guy Verhofstadt once said:
Most of the political leaders [in continental Europe] are simply following nationalist and populist rhetoric, and that is for me not a democracy. A democracy, in my opinion, is a political leader developing a vision and then trying to convince the public opinion to follow his vision, and not what is happening now
(People do tend to forget the 'trying to convince the public to follow' bit, which is important when not, well dictating)
Also pro Brexit I think; never let it be said that narrow prejudice prevents me from objective evaluation!
I see a massive difference - I am in favour of b) but not a).
The issue of first generation west africans coming over is replicated in the USA. Its the educated middle classes with get up and go who are migrating through official routes. Land in the USA and cant believe their luck quickly (to use a term) colonising middle and upper middle layers of management in public and private organisations reserved through quotas for afro-americans.
I don’t think all black people (or any community for that matter) are a monolithic block which all think the same. But I don’t think the term ‘black community’ implies that everyone thinks the same, either. Just as though I don’t think the term ‘white working class’ implies all white working class people think the same thing.
Wackford Squeers says much the same thing in different words to justify cruelty.
Edit: And Wales too has the name in its political parties' names, Cymru of course being the senior name. No idea if there is a similar legal fiddle there.
Or do you think it will be a lot lower than 90%?
Working through from first principles, it's indefensible that we put barriers in place to people LEAVING the country. But if they leave the country for two weeks, catch covid, then come back, then that's clearly bad for us. So I can see a scenario in which they can only come back into the country with a vaccine passport.
Obviously ow other countries choose to treat them when they arrive is a matter for those countries.
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-regions/
Eastern
North West & Central
Scotland’s Railway
Southern
Wales & Western
Until then, the idea you'll get wholesale compliance with the rules when people can jet off on holiday or whatever else whilst those of us that put our lives on hold for over a year, still can't, is for the birds. It will fall through the floor.
Remarkably the same 100% record is held by all one parties in China, the Communist Party of China.
Could they by any chance be related?
Divergence of reality from the Truth is evidence that the viewer of said divergence is a Heretic.
If domestic usage vaccine passports are a bad idea, then they would need to be a bad idea/useless at all future scenarios - including a resurgence. Which is an arguable position.
In the case of no domestic vaccine passports, what should be done about (a) immigration, (b) tourism into the UK? Insist on vaccination passports for entry?
By the way, does anyone doubt that South Korea will implement a domestic vaccine passport and will enforce it?
http://www.hebrides-news.com/snp-councillor-defects-to-alba-party-31321.html
http://www.hebrides-news.com/labour-stalwart-stands-as-independent-31321.html
And, the idea that this report "glorifies slavery" is completely off the wall.
I am fully on board with the public health issues, but the vaccine passports - as trailed - have the above issues as well as:
1 - Equity issues: if they are brought in prior to everyone having the opportunity to be vaccinated, it excludes a considerable number of people without their choice and is divisive.
2 - Necessity issues: if they are brought in subsequent to everyone having the opportunity to be vaccinated, what is the need for them? Either we will have reached herd immunity, anyway (in which case they are redundant) or they will simply kick the can down the road until herd immunity is reached through infection of the remaining vaccine-skeptics. And this will lengthen the period in which that will take, and those who are remaining somewhat vulnerable will have longer and longer to be infected by the vaccine-skeptics in areas of life outside of "passport control" (eg in supermarkets, or at work - unless they are required for literally EVERY aspect of life)
It does feel like that comment from Roy Jenkins: every Home Secretary gets a proposal for ID cards [linked, these days, to a master database to follow all activity] put in their in-tray early on, with an ever changing rationale for them; the Home Secretary's task is to empty that into the bin.
The Sewell Convention 2021.
Eh????????
It estimates that 1.1 million people were affected in the UK in the four weeks from 6 February.
About 20% of people said ongoing symptoms limited their day-to-day activities a lot.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56601911
Let's hear a boring and sober evaluation of what amounts to a single sentence dismissal with a potentially libellous statement.
And it isn't said to further debate, it is said to signal a side to support.
Germans tend not to have a very high opinion of things manufactured in the UK in general - it's hard to think of a top British brand except maybe Mini (which is owned by BMW), but on that survey it still comes ahead of the US, Singapore, S. Korea etc.
If you look at France there is no real difference between how much more (net) positive people in France would be about a French-developed vaccine than a UK developed vaccine, compared to how much more positive people in the UK would be about a UK developed vaccine than a French one.
Otherwise she'd be just cherrypicking stats...
Also, you shouldn't rely on stereotypical assumptions based on the group, but surely by the very nature of grouping there is intended to be recognition that many of that group share certain concerns or issues? That is, we are asked to assume certain stereotypes as a generality, so long as we do not assume it is universal within that group?