Why I am amongst those sceptical about Tory chances in Hartlepool – politicalbetting.com

System

Why I am amongst those sceptical about Tory chances in Hartlepool – politicalbetting.com

At the end of last week I drove through the Hartlepool constituency on the way back home from my holiday in North Northumberland in the hope of seeing something that I could snap to illustrate the by-election. Alas nothing was obvious on the A19 but maybe I was concentrating on the traffic!

Read the full story here

londonpubman

Correct

Big_G_NorthWales

I am not convinced Hartlepool will turn blue

kinabalu

For me the odds are about right. The Cons are clear favourites for the seat but it's no certainty.

HYUFD

All down to the large BXP vote in 2019 in Hartlepool, if that goes Tory, even if the Labour vote is slightly up, then the seat will go Tory

NickPalmer

I heard various gloomy rumours from the Labour side some weeks back but nothing recently. Mandelson's prediction that Labour "may narrowly hold" points slightly the other way - he is pretty frank these days. Genuinely dunno, but if I had to guess I think I'd make the Tories narrow favourites.

The difficulty in canvassing is making it very hard to get a clear feeling. We are leafleting our target seats to death in my patch but apart from the odd thumbs up or no-thanks, there's no much feedback. In seat terms in my patch, I doubt if much will change, though Labour will pick up votes on last time simply because we're properly organised this time and last time I gather the local party was in disarray.

ping

HYUFD said:

All down to the large BXP vote in 2019 in Hartlepool, if that goes Tory, even if the Labour vote is slightly up, then the seat will go Tory

I wouldn’t be surprised if the 2019 bxp vote mostly stays at home.

dixiedean

Hope you had a great break!
Not at all in agreement with the header though.

Philip_Thompson

Completely agreed with Mike.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!

But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.

Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'

When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by
threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious
bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with
each word uttered.

Critical race theorists have reinvented
racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.

How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?

Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?

I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?

I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".

Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨

More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.

This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.

For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.

And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.

Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.

I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?

The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.

Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.

Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.

Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.

Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.

Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -

"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."

A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.

You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.

I see you. 👀

Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?

Racists.

Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.

The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.

This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.

C'mon.

No its not.

People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.

Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.

People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.

I suggested that as a white man in England you weren't particularly conscious of your skin colour because it was the default.

You said no it has nothing to do with that. It's because you're not a racist!

That's on the record, I'm afraid. The sentiment and it's clear and absurd inference is "on you".

As I say, you need to think before you say stuff. If you don't you end up in this sort of mess. It's not the first time, let's face it.

Completely disagreed with Kinabalu. Sorry but logic and text doesn't work that way. If you are racist then you think about colour.

If you're not, you might or might not depending upon your experiences.

Its not all one or the other, you can't pigeon hole everyone the way you're trying to do. Your inference is wrong and you made it.

Fishing

I agree with Mike. By-elections are strange and unpredictable. And if this were a real election I wouldn't want to predict an outcome on the basis of a single poll weeks before with a small sample. However, good luck to those that do...

kinabalu

NickPalmer said:

I heard various gloomy rumours from the Labour side some weeks back but nothing recently. Mandelson's prediction that Labour "may narrowly hold" points slightly the other way - he is pretty frank these days. Genuinely dunno, but if I had to guess I think I'd make the Tories narrow favourites.

The difficulty in canvassing is making it very hard to get a clear feeling. We are leafleting our target seats to death in my patch but apart from the odd thumbs up or no-thanks, there's no much feedback. In seat terms in my patch, I doubt if much will change, though Labour will pick up votes on last time simply because we're properly organised this time and last time I gather the local party was in disarray.

The CH4 news vox pop a few days ago looked bleak. Lots of people who didn't vote Con at the GE saying they probably would this time.

Philip_Thompson

FPT

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!

But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.

Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'

When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by
threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious
bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with
each word uttered.

Critical race theorists have reinvented
racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.

How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?

Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?

I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?

I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".

Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨

More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.

This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.

For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.

And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.

Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.

I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?

The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.

Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.

Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.

Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.

Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.

Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -

"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."

A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.

You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.

I see you. 👀

Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?

Racists.

Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.

The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.

This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.

C'mon.

No its not.

People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.

Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.

People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.

I suggested that as a white man in England you weren't particularly conscious of your skin colour because it was the default.

You said no it has nothing to do with that. It's because you're not a racist!

That's on the record, I'm afraid. The sentiment and it's clear and absurdinference is "on you".

As I say, you need to think before you say stuff. If you don't you end up in this sort of mess. It's not the first time, let's face it.

And you really need to get off your high horse. Most people these days hardly even think of skin colour it is just you and your ilk that try and make it a thing. Anyone in this day and age that considers skin colour important is a bigot. You therefore are a bigot

So every anti-racist campaigner in 2021 is a bigot, racism being a thing of the past.

Thanks for your contribution.

Racism is largely a thing of the past, yes. There is still some racism today, but nowhere near as bad as it used to be. We need to get rid of what is left.

No not all anti-racist campaigners are bigots, only some of them. If you judge people by the colour of your skin then yes you are a bigot, most anti-racism campaigners don't do that - because its racism.

dixiedean

dixiedean said:

Hope you had a great break!
Not at all in agreement with the header though.

Which is not to say a Labour win can be discounted.
More that I'd place it around the 70/30 Mark. The PM has a huge percentage of the Leave vote sewn up. This is a very Leave seat. And one of the few where the Borough is coterminous with the constituency, so we know exactly the proportion rather than extrapolating.
So the value is with the Tories imho.

kinabalu

Philip_Thompson said:

Completely agreed with Mike.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!

But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.

Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'

When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by
threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious
bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with
each word uttered.

Critical race theorists have reinvented
racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.

How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?

Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?

I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?

I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".

Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨

More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.

This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.

For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.

And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.

Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.

I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?

The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.

Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.

Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.

Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.

Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.

Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -

"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."

A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.

You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.

I see you. 👀

Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?

Racists.

Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.

The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.

This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.

C'mon.

No its not.

People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.

Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.

People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.

I suggested that as a white man in England you weren't particularly conscious of your skin colour because it was the default.

You said no it has nothing to do with that. It's because you're not a racist!

That's on the record, I'm afraid. The sentiment and it's clear and absurd inference is "on you".

As I say, you need to think before you say stuff. If you don't you end up in this sort of mess. It's not the first time, let's face it.

Completely disagreed with Kinabalu. Sorry but logic and text doesn't work that way. If you are racist then you think about colour.

If you're not, you might or might not depending upon your experiences.

Its not all one or the other, you can't pigeon hole everyone the way you're trying to do. Your inference is wrong and you made it.

You chose crass, vacuous virtue signaling over serious engagement with the point. No amount of post hoc contortions can undo that. You should keep off this topic. You try too hard to come over as "not a racist bone in your body". It feels off. It's phony. Get back to flags and free markets and making England great again. At least there's authenticity there.

Philip_Thompson

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Completely agreed with Mike.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!

But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.

Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'

When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by
threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious
bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with
each word uttered.

Critical race theorists have reinvented
racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.

How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?

Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?

I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?

I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".

Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨

More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.

This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.

For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.

And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.

Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.

I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?

The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.

Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.

Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.

Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.

Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.

Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -

"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."

A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.

You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.

I see you. 👀

Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?

Racists.

Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.

The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.

This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.

C'mon.

No its not.

People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.

Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.

People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.

I suggested that as a white man in England you weren't particularly conscious of your skin colour because it was the default.

You said no it has nothing to do with that. It's because you're not a racist!

That's on the record, I'm afraid. The sentiment and it's clear and absurd inference is "on you".

As I say, you need to think before you say stuff. If you don't you end up in this sort of mess. It's not the first time, let's face it.

Completely disagreed with Kinabalu. Sorry but logic and text doesn't work that way. If you are racist then you think about colour.

If you're not, you might or might not depending upon your experiences.

Its not all one or the other, you can't pigeon hole everyone the way you're trying to do. Your inference is wrong and you made it.

You chose crass, vacuous virtue signaling over serious engagement with the point. No amount of post hoc contortions can undo that. You should keep off this topic. You try too hard to come over as "not a racist bone in your body". It feels off. It's phony. Get back to flags and free markets and making England great again. At least there's authenticity there.

Maybe you should stop being judgemental.

I don't try hard to come over as not racist, the reason I come off that way is simply that I'm not. Same as most people nowadays, especially most young people.

Racism is a thing of the past. Its an alien concept to like homophobia that should be left in the past.

Your attempts to try and flush everyone out as a secret racist is what is really off and phony. Maybe you should pay more attention to the man in the mirror and stop judging others.

bigjohnowls

Let the bodies pile high will be a factor. Labour were on course to lose before that imo

kinabalu

dixiedean said:

dixiedean said:

Hope you had a great break!
Not at all in agreement with the header though.

Which is not to say a Labour win can be discounted.
More that I'd place it around the 70/30 Mark. The PM has a huge percentage of the Leave vote sewn up. This is a very Leave seat. And one of the few where the Borough is coterminous with the constituency, so we know exactly the proportion rather than extrapolating.
So the value is with the Tories imho.

Yes I'm with you on this one. Labour holding the seat would be one against the head and quite a positive for Starmer.

Chameleon

bigjohnowls said:

Let the bodies pile high will be a factor. Labour were on course to lose before that imo

That's clearly resonated with you, but I've not seen it anywhere else.

ping

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/apr/26/ex-post-office-head-apologises-to-workers-after-convictions-quashed

Paula Vennells Apologises.

She does have some decency.

I’d still like to see her and others prosecuted for, appropriately, theft and false accounting against the subpostmasters.

kinabalu

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Completely agreed with Mike.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!

But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.

Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'

When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by
threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious
bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with
each word uttered.

Critical race theorists have reinvented
racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.

How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?

Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?

I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?

I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".

Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨

More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.

This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.

For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.

And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.

Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.

I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?

The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.

Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.

Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.

Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.

Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.

Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -

"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."

A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.

You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.

I see you. 👀

Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?

Racists.

Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.

The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.

This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.

C'mon.

No its not.

People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.

Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.

People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.

I suggested that as a white man in England you weren't particularly conscious of your skin colour because it was the default.

You said no it has nothing to do with that. It's because you're not a racist!

That's on the record, I'm afraid. The sentiment and it's clear and absurd inference is "on you".

As I say, you need to think before you say stuff. If you don't you end up in this sort of mess. It's not the first time, let's face it.

Completely disagreed with Kinabalu. Sorry but logic and text doesn't work that way. If you are racist then you think about colour.

If you're not, you might or might not depending upon your experiences.

Its not all one or the other, you can't pigeon hole everyone the way you're trying to do. Your inference is wrong and you made it.

You chose crass, vacuous virtue signaling over serious engagement with the point. No amount of post hoc contortions can undo that. You should keep off this topic. You try too hard to come over as "not a racist bone in your body". It feels off. It's phony. Get back to flags and free markets and making England great again. At least there's authenticity there.

Maybe you should stop being judgemental.

I don't try hard to come over as not racist, the reason I come off that way is simply that I'm not. Same as most people nowadays, especially most young people.

Racism is a thing of the past. Its an alien concept to like homophobia that should be left in the past.

Your attempts to try and flush everyone out as a secret racist is what is really off and phony. Maybe you should pay more attention to the man in the mirror and stop judging others.

I wasn't looking for a tumble. Just triggered by a comment ranking as one of your very worst. I ignore most stupidity I come across. That's how I stay fresh and in good humour.

bigjohnowls

Chameleon said:

bigjohnowls said:

Let the bodies pile high will be a factor. Labour were on course to lose before that imo

That's clearly resonated with you, but I've not seen it anywhere else.

Buy tomorrows Daily Mail

Philip_Thompson

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Completely agreed with Mike.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!

But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.

Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'

When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by
threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious
bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with
each word uttered.

Critical race theorists have reinvented
racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.

How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?

Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?

I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?

I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".

Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨

More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.

This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.

For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.

And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.

Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.

I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?

The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.

Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.

Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.

Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.

Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.

Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -

"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."

A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.

You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.

I see you. 👀

Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?

Racists.

Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.

The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.

This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.

C'mon.

No its not.

People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.

Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.

People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.

I suggested that as a white man in England you weren't particularly conscious of your skin colour because it was the default.

You said no it has nothing to do with that. It's because you're not a racist!

That's on the record, I'm afraid. The sentiment and it's clear and absurd inference is "on you".

As I say, you need to think before you say stuff. If you don't you end up in this sort of mess. It's not the first time, let's face it.

Completely disagreed with Kinabalu. Sorry but logic and text doesn't work that way. If you are racist then you think about colour.

If you're not, you might or might not depending upon your experiences.

Its not all one or the other, you can't pigeon hole everyone the way you're trying to do. Your inference is wrong and you made it.

You chose crass, vacuous virtue signaling over serious engagement with the point. No amount of post hoc contortions can undo that. You should keep off this topic. You try too hard to come over as "not a racist bone in your body". It feels off. It's phony. Get back to flags and free markets and making England great again. At least there's authenticity there.

Maybe you should stop being judgemental.

I don't try hard to come over as not racist, the reason I come off that way is simply that I'm not. Same as most people nowadays, especially most young people.

Racism is a thing of the past. Its an alien concept to like homophobia that should be left in the past.

Your attempts to try and flush everyone out as a secret racist is what is really off and phony. Maybe you should pay more attention to the man in the mirror and stop judging others.

I wasn't looking for a tumble. Just triggered by a comment ranking as one of your very worst. I ignore most stupidity I come across. That's how I stay fresh and in good humour.

What I said was just plain matter of fact. Your replies are some of your worst and have been rightly called out by a few people.

You're coming across as quite bigoted. Maybe look in the mirror before you make any more accusations.

MarqueeMark

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Completely agreed with Mike.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!

But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.

Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'

When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by
threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious
bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with
each word uttered.

Critical race theorists have reinvented
racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.

How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?

Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?

I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?

I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".

Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨

More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.

This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.

For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.

And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.

Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.

I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?

The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.

Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.

Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.

Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.

Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.

Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -

"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."

A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.

You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.

I see you. 👀

Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?

Racists.

Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.

The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.

This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.

C'mon.

No its not.

People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.

Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.

People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.

I suggested that as a white man in England you weren't particularly conscious of your skin colour because it was the default.

You said no it has nothing to do with that. It's because you're not a racist!

That's on the record, I'm afraid. The sentiment and it's clear and absurd inference is "on you".

As I say, you need to think before you say stuff. If you don't you end up in this sort of mess. It's not the first time, let's face it.

Completely disagreed with Kinabalu. Sorry but logic and text doesn't work that way. If you are racist then you think about colour.

If you're not, you might or might not depending upon your experiences.

Its not all one or the other, you can't pigeon hole everyone the way you're trying to do. Your inference is wrong and you made it.

You chose crass, vacuous virtue signaling over serious engagement with the point. No amount of post hoc contortions can undo that. You should keep off this topic. You try too hard to come over as "not a racist bone in your body". It feels off. It's phony. Get back to flags and free markets and making England great again. At least there's authenticity there.

Maybe you should stop being judgemental.

I don't try hard to come over as not racist, the reason I come off that way is simply that I'm not. Same as most people nowadays, especially most young people.

Racism is a thing of the past. Its an alien concept to like homophobia that should be left in the past.

Your attempts to try and flush everyone out as a secret racist is what is really off and phony. Maybe you should pay more attention to the man in the mirror and stop judging others.

I wasn't looking for a tumble. Just triggered by a comment ranking as one of your very worst. I ignore most stupidity I come across. That's how I stay fresh and in good humour.

What I said was just plain matter of fact. Your replies are some of your worst and have been rightly called out by a few people.

You're coming across as quite bigoted. Maybe look in the mirror before you make any more accusations.

Kinabalu is the most judgmental on this board. He judges everybody, about everything, usually through the prism of his own weird views of the world of racism.

MarqueeMark

"Tories have only managed to field 11 for the 33 council seats at stake which suggests fewer activists on the ground."

Or it suggests Mike doesn't have the full picture on how the Tories interact with local "independents"....

SeaShantyIrish2

MarqueeMark said:

"Tories have only managed to field 11 for the 33 council seats at stake which suggests fewer activists on the ground."

Or it suggests Mike doesn't have the full picture on how the Tories interact with local "independents"....

Can you, or anyone else, provide "the full picuture" of Independent - Tory interaction on the ground at this election, specifically in Hartlepool?

There may be something to what you say. Or maybe not.

Andy_JS

"You won't need a Covid passport to visit the pub: Boris Johnson shelves plans to bring in controversial 'certification scheme'

Boris Johnson has shifted focus of Covid passport scheme away from hospitality
Officials ordered to concentrate on devising system to enable foreign travel
Follows backlash from Tory MPs and hospitality industry about Covid passports"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9510199/Boris-Johnson-shelves-plans-bring-controversial-Covid-passport-certification-scheme.html

williamglenn

Rapid action from the EU on India. A meeting will take place on the 8th of May.

SeaShantyIrish2

Politico.com - U.S. pledges medical aid for India to combat surge
America also intends to pay for an expansion of manufacturing capability for the vaccine manufacturer in India.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/25/us-pledges-medical-aid-for-india-to-combat-surge-484584

swing_voter

Given a torrid week of headlines for the govt... Mercer's govt of liars, Cummings broadside, the Downing Street decorations and now allegations Johnson gave a green light to Man Utd's super league bid... I am amazed Labour need to fight Hartlepool to the wire..... I have put my money on the Red team so am hopeful of a modest profit next week,

FrancisUrquhart

COVID-19 cases in India this week:

18 April: 275,063 (record)
19 April: 257,003
20 April: 294,365 (record)
21 April: 315,735 (record)
22 April: 332,518 (record)
23 April: 345,281 (record)
24 April: 348,979 (record)
25 April: 354,653 (record)

FrancisUrquhart

Just over 63 per cent of black Britons aged 50 and over have had the vaccine compared to 93.8 per cent among white Britons, according to latest figures.

https://inews.co.uk/news/health/nhs-chiefs-urge-black-britons-to-come-forward-for-covid-jab-in-last-big-push-to-boost-uptake-971593?ito=twitter_share_article-top

MarqueeMark

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MarqueeMark said:

"Tories have only managed to field 11 for the 33 council seats at stake which suggests fewer activists on the ground."

Or it suggests Mike doesn't have the full picture on how the Tories interact with local "independents"....

Can you, or anyone else, provide "the full picuture" of Independent - Tory interaction on the ground at this election, specifically in Hartlepool?

There may be something to what you say. Or maybe not.

For starters:

"In May 2019, following multiple defections from Labour to Socialist Labour at Hartlepool Borough Council, Independent Union forged a coalition with the Conservatives and the Veterans and People's Party, forming the largest grouping with 11 councillors, 6 shy of control. At the Annual General Meeting of the council, leader of the coalition, Cllr Shane Moore, was elected the Leader of the Council, with his Deputy, Cllr Mike Young being voted deputy leader.

In September 2019, all IU councillors, as well as the one Veterans and People's Party councillor, who made up the coalition at Hartlepool Borough Council defected to the Brexit Party, renaming their already existing coalition with the three Conservative councillors to the "Brexit and Conservative Coalition". Despite this, the IU was still registered with the Electoral Commission with Shane Moore listed as its current leader. The party leader has been Shane Moore since 2019.

In early 2020, several of the councillors concerned returned to their parties, including the Independent Union and Veterans and People's Party."

Andy_JS

"About half a million more people in England are being invited to book their Covid-19 jab from Monday, as the vaccine rollout opens to 44-year-olds. Two-thirds of the previous age group - 45 to 49-year-olds - have received their first dose. The NHS said it would set out when 40 to 43-year-olds would be able to book appointments "in the coming days", as supply allows."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56880376

FrancisUrquhart

williamglenn said:

Rapid action from the EU on India. A meeting will take place on the 8th of May.

Also, tut tut, failed to use the word unity....

TimT

FrancisUrquhart said:

williamglenn said:

Rapid action from the EU on India. A meeting will take place on the 8th of May.

Also, tut tut, failed to use the word unity....

May 8. Clearly no rush.

FrancisUrquhart

TimT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

williamglenn said:

Rapid action from the EU on India. A meeting will take place on the 8th of May.

Also, tut tut, failed to use the word unity....

May 8. Clearly no rush.

They are busy until then trying to get a 5 cent discount on a batch of vaccines.

TimT

FrancisUrquhart said:

TimT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

williamglenn said:

Rapid action from the EU on India. A meeting will take place on the 8th of May.

Also, tut tut, failed to use the word unity....

May 8. Clearly no rush.

They are busy until then trying to get a 5 cent discount on a batch of vaccines.

Practicing the 27 nation baton-pass to ensure victory sprinting to the end of the marathon

DecrepiterJohnL

London Mayor: Brian Rose is second-favourite with some bookmakers. Are all the wealthy Tories chipping in for Boris's wallpaper instead of backing Shaun Bailey to make it look like he has more of a chance?

For instance, Bet365: 1/100 Sadiq; 12/1 Rose; 20/1 Bailey.

CarlottaVance

williamglenn said:

Rapid action from the EU on India. A meeting will take place on the 8th of May.

Meanwhile nasty racist little Britain....has already despatched equipment:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56880377

More than 600 pieces of medical equipment are being sent to India as the country faces a record surge of coronavirus cases, the UK government has said.

The assistance package includes 495 oxygen concentrators - which extract oxygen from the air to give to patients - as well as ventilators....

The first shipment of equipment will leave the UK on Sunday and is due to arrive in the Indian capital, New Delhi, in the early hours of Tuesday morning.

In total, the UK will send nine airline containers of supplies this week, including 495 oxygen concentrators, 120 non-invasive ventilators and 20 manual ventilators.

Scott_xP

...

swing_voter

MarqueeMark said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MarqueeMark said:

"Tories have only managed to field 11 for the 33 council seats at stake which suggests fewer activists on the ground."

Or it suggests Mike doesn't have the full picture on how the Tories interact with local "independents"....

Can you, or anyone else, provide "the full picuture" of Independent - Tory interaction on the ground at this election, specifically in Hartlepool?

There may be something to what you say. Or maybe not.

For starters:

"In May 2019, following multiple defections from Labour to Socialist Labour at Hartlepool Borough Council, Independent Union forged a coalition with the Conservatives and the Veterans and People's Party, forming the largest grouping with 11 councillors, 6 shy of control. At the Annual General Meeting of the council, leader of the coalition, Cllr Shane Moore, was elected the Leader of the Council, with his Deputy, Cllr Mike Young being voted deputy leader.

In September 2019, all IU councillors, as well as the one Veterans and People's Party councillor, who made up the coalition at Hartlepool Borough Council defected to the Brexit Party, renaming their already existing coalition with the three Conservative councillors to the "Brexit and Conservative Coalition". Despite this, the IU was still registered with the Electoral Commission with Shane Moore listed as its current leader. The party leader has been Shane Moore since 2019.

In early 2020, several of the councillors concerned returned to their parties, including the Independent Union and Veterans and People's Party."

Interesting story...... sounds like a sizeable protest/other parties vote - where will they end up is anyone's guess, I wonder if it will come down to the weather on the day?

DecrepiterJohnL

Scott_xP said:

...

We've mentioned this before but there is still the great Cummings divide between cartoonists who depict him with or without glasses.

rcs1000

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Completely agreed with Mike.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!

But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.

Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'

When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by
threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious
bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with
each word uttered.

Critical race theorists have reinvented
racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.

How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?

Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?

I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?

I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".

Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨

More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.

This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.

For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.

And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.

Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.

I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?

The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.

Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.

Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.

Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.

Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.

Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -

"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."

A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.

You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.

I see you. 👀

Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?

Racists.

Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.

The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.

This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.

C'mon.

No its not.

People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.

Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.

People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.

I suggested that as a white man in England you weren't particularly conscious of your skin colour because it was the default.

You said no it has nothing to do with that. It's because you're not a racist!

That's on the record, I'm afraid. The sentiment and it's clear and absurd inference is "on you".

As I say, you need to think before you say stuff. If you don't you end up in this sort of mess. It's not the first time, let's face it.

Completely disagreed with Kinabalu. Sorry but logic and text doesn't work that way. If you are racist then you think about colour.

If you're not, you might or might not depending upon your experiences.

Its not all one or the other, you can't pigeon hole everyone the way you're trying to do. Your inference is wrong and you made it.

You chose crass, vacuous virtue signaling over serious engagement with the point. No amount of post hoc contortions can undo that. You should keep off this topic. You try too hard to come over as "not a racist bone in your body". It feels off. It's phony. Get back to flags and free markets and making England great again. At least there's authenticity there.

Maybe you should stop being judgemental.

I don't try hard to come over as not racist, the reason I come off that way is simply that I'm not. Same as most people nowadays, especially most young people.

Racism is a thing of the past. Its an alien concept to like homophobia that should be left in the past.

Your attempts to try and flush everyone out as a secret racist is what is really off and phony. Maybe you should pay more attention to the man in the mirror and stop judging others.

I wish we could simply say that "racism is a thing of the past".

Racism still exists. Not as much as it used to, and the UK can be proud of what it's achieved in the last fifty years.

But when Tommy Robinson creates a fake video of him being hit by an African migrant and that gets a million views and tens of thousands of likes, that tells you there's some definitely racism. I could give you a hundred more examples - many of which don't involve white people at all - that tell us that we need to be on guard.

It is also worth remembering that the UK is not the US. There is far more systemic racism, particularly in the Deep South, in the US than in the UK. And there is a legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and voter suppression that the UK simply doesn't have.

The problem is that Critical Race theory does nothing to overturn the real racism that exists, it serves only as an enormous distraction and something that (sadly) puts a large number of normal people on the same side as Tommy Robinson.

Foxy

TimT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

williamglenn said:

Rapid action from the EU on India. A meeting will take place on the 8th of May.

Also, tut tut, failed to use the word unity....

May 8. Clearly no rush.

Already underway:

"Upon request for assistance by #India, we have activated the #EU Civil Protection Mechanism.

The 🇪🇺 will do its utmost to mobilise assistance to support people of 🇮🇳.

Our #ERCC is already coordinating EU MS that are ready to provide urgently needed #oxygen & medicine rapidly."

https://twitter.com/JanezLenarcic/status/1386270858688270336?s=19

Germany is apparently sending 23 oxygen generating plants.

https://twitter.com/SwarajyaMag/status/1385466997660479490?s=19

Pulpstar

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Politico.com - U.S. pledges medical aid for India to combat surge
America also intends to pay for an expansion of manufacturing capability for the vaccine manufacturer in India.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/25/us-pledges-medical-aid-for-india-to-combat-surge-484584

What on earth is the USA doing with it's AZ stock. Should donate it to India tbh

Foxy

Looks like SLAB quite good prospect for second party in Scotland:

Scottish parliament voting intention(s):

Constituency:
SNP: 50% (+1)
LAB: 21% (+1)
CON: 21% (-)
LDEM: 7% (-2)

List:
SNP: 35% (-3)
LAB: 22% (+1)
CON: 20% (+1)
GRN: 10% (-1)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
ALBA: 3% (-)

via @Survation, 20-22 Apr
Chgs. w/ 30 Mar

More data:
https://t.co/sEKbDLbuT5 https://t.co/crpLb8nzlN

CarlottaVance

Several see Gove's hand in the Mail story:

Michael Gove deciding to step things up a gear, it seems. Will be interesting to see just how much "Yeah, we know he's a liar and a shitty human" is baked in to Boris Johnson's numbers. I fear the answer is a lot.

https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1386547963258880001?s=20

Scott_xP

Not saying the Johnson/Cummings intrigue is escalating but now hearing all Goveologists lvl 2 and above have had weekend leave cancelled, told to report to nearest base.
https://twitter.com/james_blue_cat/status/1385859032007778306

Cocky_cockney

We can bat back and forth posts 'The tories will win' vs 'No Labour will' and the only way we're going to find out is to see the results.

Mike, David Herdson and others may be right. I initially couldn't quite believe the odds that the tories would win Hartlepool which hasn't been on their radar and which didn't fall in 2019 (albeit because of a big UKIP vote). The aforementioned make good arguments for why Labour are value. After all, as Mike pointed out, only twice in 50 years have sitting Governments won by-elections from an opposition party and one of those doesn't really count.

However and it's a BIG however, anyone thinking that the Brexit vote was just about Brexit fundamentally and I mean fundamentally misunderstands it. It was NOT just about Brexit. It was a revolt. A seismic shift. A once-in-a-generation shift which won't just go away like that. I've lived in one of these Brexit seats during the latter half of the 2010's and I can tell you that Brexit was just an emblem of something far more fundamental. It was about disenfranchisement, disconnection with metropolitan middle class politicians from London in general and Westminster in particular. It was a hard nosed feeling that the EU left behind British workers, that the gravy train had gone straight through their station without stopping. All that was left was the wind whistling on a deserted platform, blowing dead leaves into desolate piles. There was dereliction in these ghost towns. The people felt as hollow as their boarded up shops.

Theresa May, Sir Keir Starmer and even Jeremy Corbyn - middle class Londoners all - totally failed to connect with this. But posh Boris knew better. By luck or nous he spoke to their feelings and won their support. Challenge his sincerity all you like, hell I know I do, but he still 'got it.'

These new tory red wall voters won't go in a flash. They haven't forgotten Brexit. They haven't forgotten what Starmer stood for: right up to his eyes in the attempt to remain in the EU. It will take another 20 years before these voters switch back. This is what happens: it's the same as when Maggie won over aspirational working class voters in 1979 onwards. Oh and, by the way, Maggie defeated the totally discredited Michael Foot but I don't think that means she wasn't a phenomenally successful politician. Neil Kinnock, whom she defeated in 1987 and 1992, wasn't exactly flavour of the month with the British tabloids either.

Into this melee, Sir Keir Starmer has parachuted an arch Remainer candidate, a man who explicitly wished to revoke the 2016 vote and undo Brexit and who lost a red wall seat in 2019.

These are the counter arguments as to why Labour will lose the Hartlepool by-election.

We will see!

rcs1000

Pulpstar said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Politico.com - U.S. pledges medical aid for India to combat surge
America also intends to pay for an expansion of manufacturing capability for the vaccine manufacturer in India.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/25/us-pledges-medical-aid-for-india-to-combat-surge-484584

What on earth is the USA doing with it's AZ stock. Should donate it to India tbh

Emergent Biosciences is sitting on 150 MILLION doses of AZ and J&J that are currently unusable because their Baltimore factory has not been approved by the FDA.

Casino_Royale

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Completely agreed with Mike.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!

But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.

Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'

When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by
threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious
bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with
each word uttered.

Critical race theorists have reinvented
racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.

How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?

Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?

I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?

I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".

Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨

More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.

This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.

For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.

And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.

Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.

I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?

The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.

Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.

Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.

Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.

Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.

Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -

"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."

A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.

You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.

I see you. 👀

Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?

Racists.

Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.

The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.

This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.

C'mon.

No its not.

People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.

Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.

People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.

I suggested that as a white man in England you weren't particularly conscious of your skin colour because it was the default.

You said no it has nothing to do with that. It's because you're not a racist!

That's on the record, I'm afraid. The sentiment and it's clear and absurd inference is "on you".

As I say, you need to think before you say stuff. If you don't you end up in this sort of mess. It's not the first time, let's face it.

Completely disagreed with Kinabalu. Sorry but logic and text doesn't work that way. If you are racist then you think about colour.

If you're not, you might or might not depending upon your experiences.

Its not all one or the other, you can't pigeon hole everyone the way you're trying to do. Your inference is wrong and you made it.

You chose crass, vacuous virtue signaling over serious engagement with the point. No amount of post hoc contortions can undo that. You should keep off this topic. You try too hard to come over as "not a racist bone in your body". It feels off. It's phony. Get back to flags and free markets and making England great again. At least there's authenticity there.

Maybe you should stop being judgemental.

I don't try hard to come over as not racist, the reason I come off that way is simply that I'm not. Same as most people nowadays, especially most young people.

Racism is a thing of the past. Its an alien concept to like homophobia that should be left in the past.

Your attempts to try and flush everyone out as a secret racist is what is really off and phony. Maybe you should pay more attention to the man in the mirror and stop judging others.

I wish we could simply say that "racism is a thing of the past".

Racism still exists. Not as much as it used to, and the UK can be proud of what it's achieved in the last fifty years.

But when Tommy Robinson creates a fake video of him being hit by an African migrant and that gets a million views and tens of thousands of likes, that tells you there's some definitely racism. I could give you a hundred more examples - many of which don't involve white people at all - that tell us that we need to be on guard.

It is also worth remembering that the UK is not the US. There is far more systemic racism, particularly in the Deep South, in the US than in the UK. And there is a legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and voter suppression that the UK simply doesn't have.

The problem is that Critical Race theory does nothing to overturn the real racism that exists, it serves only as an enormous distraction and something that (sadly) puts a large number of normal people on the same side as Tommy Robinson.

From the conservations I've had it's the everyday things that matter. It's rare but the trouble is that if one child says to a black child at primary school: "I don't want to play with you because you've got a black mummy" then this is deeply upsetting for the child, and the parent when she relays it, and stays with them. Similarly, being in a group of five or six colleagues and being the only one being challenged for a ticket at the barriers on the underground. Seeing a security guard come over and hover near them in a shop. Seeing someone cross the street when they notice them. Being stared at by one or two people in a pub, often noticing the "nudge" when they come in. Getting stared at by someone when their kid is being noisy in a bank queue. Getting pulled over more frequently for driving a car. Putting a CV in for a job and suspecting it didn't even make the longlist (not the shortlist, the longlist) just because they had an unusual name.

All these anecdotes have much in common. They are relatively rare but they still do happen - possible a handful of times a month - and that's frequent enough to feel endemic and, when they do they are all the most upsetting for their rarity, because they remind people how some still truly see them. All they want is to be treated exactly the same as everyone else. Not to have statues pulled down, our society racialised, excoriated and divided and shit.

That's where effort needs to be focussing: in changing those last bastions of poor everyday attitudes and behaviour, not in middle-class people incessantly preaching to each other about white fragility and white privilege, policing each others language and starting a culture war against British history.

I think it's the sheer facile nature of that and it's banality, together with its utter narcissism, self-indulgence and faux intellectualism, that gets me.

Casino_Royale

On topic, I'm running my assessment of chances in Hartlepool on my own "personal MRP" rather than the opinion poll, which I suspect has a whopping margin of error in it. I think the demographics and the zeitgeist are that places like Hartlepool are still moving away from Labour.

The thing that worries me most about my bet is the Tory candidates, who by most accounts is decidedly average and many are baffled as to why she was selected (probably knew someone).

If the Tories win it will be in spite of the candidate not because of them.

Pulpstar

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Politico.com - U.S. pledges medical aid for India to combat surge
America also intends to pay for an expansion of manufacturing capability for the vaccine manufacturer in India.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/25/us-pledges-medical-aid-for-india-to-combat-surge-484584

What on earth is the USA doing with it's AZ stock. Should donate it to India tbh

Emergent Biosciences is sitting on 150 MILLION doses of AZ and J&J that are currently unusable because their Baltimore factory has not been approved by the FDA.

I don't think the USA needs it is the point.
The USA is uniquely (Aside from Israel which is small) supply limited with Moderna and Pfizer doing all the lifting. The FDA shouldn't have to OK something that won't be used in India, all that needs checking is the batch quality; India (Or Mexico if the USA wants to keep it in continent) could send their own experts to do this.
Doubtless I'm preaching to the choir on this one, just so sad that such a life saving vaccine is doing nothing in Maryland.
150 million doses would actually go a long way in India due to their population pyramid being triangularish too

Cocky_cockney

Maybe but she's better than Dr Paul Williams who is a massive liability in such a Brexit seat. His 'hospital hypocrisy' issue hasn't exactly helped his cause either.

Scott_xP

Angry Tories blast Carrie Symonds as 'far too powerful' as feud continues https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14762034/carrie-symonds-far-too-powerful/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=sunpoliticstwitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1619404404

Sandpit

Looks too close to call in Hartlepool. Lots of local factors at the last election and at this one could see it go either way. Interesting to see supporters of both main contenders trying to manage the narrative by painting their opponent as the clear favourite.

DecrepiterJohnL

CarlottaVance said:

Several see Gove's hand in the Mail story:

Michael Gove deciding to step things up a gear, it seems. Will be interesting to see just how much "Yeah, we know he's a liar and a shitty human" is baked in to Boris Johnson's numbers. I fear the answer is a lot.

https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1386547963258880001?s=20

It could be Gove but is that just people seeing the Mail and putting 2 + 2 together because his missus works there?

@IanB2 mentioned on the last thread a group around Francis Maude (serial plotter from the New Labour years) and Dominic Cummings named a mate of Carrie's.

It's just like Line of Duty.

Foxy

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Completely agreed with Mike.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!

But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.

Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'

When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by
threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious
bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with
each word uttered.

Critical race theorists have reinvented
racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.

How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?

Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?

I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?

I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".

Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨

More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.

This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.

For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.

And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.

Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.

I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?

The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.

Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.

Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.

Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.

Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.

Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -

"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."

A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.

You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.

I see you. 👀

Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?

Racists.

Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.

The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.

This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.

C'mon.

No its not.

People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.

Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.

People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.

I suggested that as a white man in England you weren't particularly conscious of your skin colour because it was the default.

You said no it has nothing to do with that. It's because you're not a racist!

That's on the record, I'm afraid. The sentiment and it's clear and absurd inference is "on you".

As I say, you need to think before you say stuff. If you don't you end up in this sort of mess. It's not the first time, let's face it.

Completely disagreed with Kinabalu. Sorry but logic and text doesn't work that way. If you are racist then you think about colour.

If you're not, you might or might not depending upon your experiences.

Its not all one or the other, you can't pigeon hole everyone the way you're trying to do. Your inference is wrong and you made it.

You chose crass, vacuous virtue signaling over serious engagement with the point. No amount of post hoc contortions can undo that. You should keep off this topic. You try too hard to come over as "not a racist bone in your body". It feels off. It's phony. Get back to flags and free markets and making England great again. At least there's authenticity there.

Maybe you should stop being judgemental.

I don't try hard to come over as not racist, the reason I come off that way is simply that I'm not. Same as most people nowadays, especially most young people.

Racism is a thing of the past. Its an alien concept to like homophobia that should be left in the past.

Your attempts to try and flush everyone out as a secret racist is what is really off and phony. Maybe you should pay more attention to the man in the mirror and stop judging others.

I wish we could simply say that "racism is a thing of the past".

Racism still exists. Not as much as it used to, and the UK can be proud of what it's achieved in the last fifty years.

But when Tommy Robinson creates a fake video of him being hit by an African migrant and that gets a million views and tens of thousands of likes, that tells you there's some definitely racism. I could give you a hundred more examples - many of which don't involve white people at all - that tell us that we need to be on guard.

It is also worth remembering that the UK is not the US. There is far more systemic racism, particularly in the Deep South, in the US than in the UK. And there is a legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and voter suppression that the UK simply doesn't have.

The problem is that Critical Race theory does nothing to overturn the real racism that exists, it serves only as an enormous distraction and something that (sadly) puts a large number of normal people on the same side as Tommy Robinson.

From the conservations I've had it's the everyday things that matter. It's rare but the trouble is that if one child says to a black child at primary school: "I don't want to play with you because you've got a black mummy" then this is deeply upsetting for the child, and the parent when she relays it, and stays with them. Similarly, being in a group of five or six colleagues and being the only one being challenged for a ticket at the barriers on the underground. Seeing a security guard come over and hover near them in a shop. Seeing someone cross the street when they notice them. Being stared at by one or two people in a pub, often noticing the "nudge" when they come in. Getting stared at by someone when their kid is being noisy in a bank queue. Getting pulled over more frequently for driving a car. Putting a CV in for a job and suspecting it didn't even make the longlist (not the shortlist, the longlist) just because they had an unusual name.

All these anecdotes have much in common. They are relatively rare but they still do happen - possible a handful of times a month - and that's frequent enough to feel endemic and, when they do they are all the most upsetting for their rarity, because they remind people how some still truly see them. All they want is to be treated exactly the same as everyone else. Not to have statues pulled down, our society racialised, excoriated and divided and shit.

That's where effort needs to be focussing: in changing those last bastions of poor everyday attitudes and behaviour, not in middle-class people incessantly preaching to each other about white fragility and white privilege, policing each others language and starting a culture war against British history.

I think it's the sheer facile nature of that and it's banality, together with its utter narcissism, self-indulgence and faux intellectualism, that gets me.

I agree, and that sort of anti-racism, calling out unacceptable attitudes and institutional racism is clearly more important than any statue.

It doesn't prevent having a more rounded view of British history though. I was glad to see last week's plan to try to reverse the racism of the CWGC in the past, for example. That is not erasing our history, it is uncovering it.

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1385134339130892289?s=19

Sandpit

Who on Earth in No.10 had the idea last week to finger Dominic Cummings as being the source of leaks to the press? They were riding high in popularity after the football saga, and have totally shot themselves in the foot over the weekend.

DecrepiterJohnL

Sandpit said:

Looks too close to call in Hartlepool. Lots of local factors at the last election and at this one could see it go either way. Interesting to see supporters of both main contenders trying to manage the narrative by painting their opponent as the clear favourite.

The betting is 1/2 Conservative, 6/4 Labour so if you think it is too close to call... although that represents, in probability terms, two thirds Tory and 40 per cent Labour (owing to the bookmakers' margin) so we'd be betting on the difference between 50/50 (or "too close to call") and 60/40 which from this distance, given the uncertainty is tempting but not compelling.

rcs1000

Sandpit said:

Looks too close to call in Hartlepool. Lots of local factors at the last election and at this one could see it go either way. Interesting to see supporters of both main contenders trying to manage the narrative by painting their opponent as the clear favourite.

Agreed. My gut is that the Conservatives should be small favourites, because Brexit and Covid vaccines, but it could go either way.

IanB2

ping said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/apr/26/ex-post-office-head-apologises-to-workers-after-convictions-quashed

Paula Vennells Apologises.

She does have some decency.

I’d still like to see her and others prosecuted for, appropriately, theft and false accounting against the subpostmasters.

It is hard to see this as decency when she has been so reticent until now. And she still hangs onto well paid positions at Dunelm and Morrisons. I rather suspect she is starting to realise that the calls for her to be prosecuted and stripped of her honour, coming from MPs and members of the Lords, might actually come to something.

ydoethur

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Looks too close to call in Hartlepool. Lots of local factors at the last election and at this one could see it go either way. Interesting to see supporters of both main contenders trying to manage the narrative by painting their opponent as the clear favourite.

Agreed. My gut is that the Conservatives should be small favourites, because Brexit and Covid vaccines, but it could go either way.

You can get vaccines for Brexit?

Scott_xP

Morrison’s confirms Paula Vennells, ex-Post Office boss, is stepping down as a non-executive director with immediate effect
https://twitter.com/DharshiniDavid/status/1386561237526491136

DavidL

Foxy said:

Looks like SLAB quite good prospect for second party in Scotland:

Scottish parliament voting intention(s):

Constituency:
SNP: 50% (+1)
LAB: 21% (+1)
CON: 21% (-)
LDEM: 7% (-2)

List:
SNP: 35% (-3)
LAB: 22% (+1)
CON: 20% (+1)
GRN: 10% (-1)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
ALBA: 3% (-)

via @Survation, 20-22 Apr
Chgs. w/ 30 Mar

More data:
https://t.co/sEKbDLbuT5 https://t.co/crpLb8nzlN

50:49 for a second referendum in the constituency vote, 48:52 in the list vote. Incredibly tight.

Some of the border seats are apparently not counting until Sunday. Many others, including my own in South Angus, on Saturday. Finding out the make up of the new Scottish Parliament is going to be a long, drawn out affair. Some American practices we really don't want to import.

Scott_xP

ydoethur said:

You can get vaccines for Brexit?

If you're a Tory donor...

ydoethur

IanB2 said:

ping said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/apr/26/ex-post-office-head-apologises-to-workers-after-convictions-quashed

Paula Vennells Apologises.

She does have some decency.

I’d still like to see her and others prosecuted for, appropriately, theft and false accounting against the subpostmasters.

It is hard to see this as decency when she has been so reticent until now. And she still hangs onto well paid positions at Dunelm and Morrisons. I rather suspect she is starting to realise that the calls for her to be prosecuted and stripped of her honour, coming from MPs and members of the Lords, might actually come to something.

I thought she’d quit from Dunelm?

ETA - https://news.sky.com/story/ex-post-office-chief-vennells-quits-morrisons-and-dunelm-boards-12287211

Not that I disagree with your main point, incidentally.

Casino_Royale

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Completely agreed with Mike.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!

But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.

Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'

When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by
threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious
bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with
each word uttered.

Critical race theorists have reinvented
racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.

How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?

Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?

I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?

I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".

Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨

More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.

This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.

For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.

And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.

Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.

I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?

The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.

Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.

Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.

Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.

Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.

Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -

"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."

A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.

You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.

I see you. 👀

Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?

Racists.

Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.

The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.

This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.

C'mon.

No its not.

People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.

Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.

People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.

I suggested that as a white man in England you weren't particularly conscious of your skin colour because it was the default.

You said no it has nothing to do with that. It's because you're not a racist!

That's on the record, I'm afraid. The sentiment and it's clear and absurd inference is "on you".

As I say, you need to think before you say stuff. If you don't you end up in this sort of mess. It's not the first time, let's face it.

Completely disagreed with Kinabalu. Sorry but logic and text doesn't work that way. If you are racist then you think about colour.

If you're not, you might or might not depending upon your experiences.

Its not all one or the other, you can't pigeon hole everyone the way you're trying to do. Your inference is wrong and you made it.

You chose crass, vacuous virtue signaling over serious engagement with the point. No amount of post hoc contortions can undo that. You should keep off this topic. You try too hard to come over as "not a racist bone in your body". It feels off. It's phony. Get back to flags and free markets and making England great again. At least there's authenticity there.

Maybe you should stop being judgemental.

I don't try hard to come over as not racist, the reason I come off that way is simply that I'm not. Same as most people nowadays, especially most young people.

Racism is a thing of the past. Its an alien concept to like homophobia that should be left in the past.

Your attempts to try and flush everyone out as a secret racist is what is really off and phony. Maybe you should pay more attention to the man in the mirror and stop judging others.

I wish we could simply say that "racism is a thing of the past".

Racism still exists. Not as much as it used to, and the UK can be proud of what it's achieved in the last fifty years.

But when Tommy Robinson creates a fake video of him being hit by an African migrant and that gets a million views and tens of thousands of likes, that tells you there's some definitely racism. I could give you a hundred more examples - many of which don't involve white people at all - that tell us that we need to be on guard.

It is also worth remembering that the UK is not the US. There is far more systemic racism, particularly in the Deep South, in the US than in the UK. And there is a legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and voter suppression that the UK simply doesn't have.

The problem is that Critical Race theory does nothing to overturn the real racism that exists, it serves only as an enormous distraction and something that (sadly) puts a large number of normal people on the same side as Tommy Robinson.

From the conservations I've had it's the everyday things that matter. It's rare but the trouble is that if one child says to a black child at primary school: "I don't want to play with you because you've got a black mummy" then this is deeply upsetting for the child, and the parent when she relays it, and stays with them. Similarly, being in a group of five or six colleagues and being the only one being challenged for a ticket at the barriers on the underground. Seeing a security guard come over and hover near them in a shop. Seeing someone cross the street when they notice them. Being stared at by one or two people in a pub, often noticing the "nudge" when they come in. Getting stared at by someone when their kid is being noisy in a bank queue. Getting pulled over more frequently for driving a car. Putting a CV in for a job and suspecting it didn't even make the longlist (not the shortlist, the longlist) just because they had an unusual name.

All these anecdotes have much in common. They are relatively rare but they still do happen - possible a handful of times a month - and that's frequent enough to feel endemic and, when they do they are all the most upsetting for their rarity, because they remind people how some still truly see them. All they want is to be treated exactly the same as everyone else. Not to have statues pulled down, our society racialised, excoriated and divided and shit.

That's where effort needs to be focussing: in changing those last bastions of poor everyday attitudes and behaviour, not in middle-class people incessantly preaching to each other about white fragility and white privilege, policing each others language and starting a culture war against British history.

I think it's the sheer facile nature of that and it's banality, together with its utter narcissism, self-indulgence and faux intellectualism, that gets me.

I agree, and that sort of anti-racism, calling out unacceptable attitudes and institutional racism is clearly more important than any statue.

It doesn't prevent having a more rounded view of British history though. I was glad to see last week's plan to try to reverse the racism of the CWGC in the past, for example. That is not erasing our history, it is uncovering it.

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1385134339130892289?s=19

Unfortunately, though, that's not what Anti-Racism (big A big R) now is. It's now an ideology that aims to turn racism on its head, except with white people the target instead, and is wrapped up with other ideologies like "equity", which basically means treating some ethnic groups differently to others.

That's not me. I just see it as finishing a journey and ensuring that every Briton enjoys this country on the same terms I do. I don't see our country or nation as damned nor believe white people are responsible for its most grevious ills.

I agree with the CWGC ensuring they have correctly commemorated everyone, of course.

OldKingCole

Scott_xP said:

Morrison’s confirms Paula Vennells, ex-Post Office boss, is stepping down as a non-executive director with immediate effect
https://twitter.com/DharshiniDavid/status/1386561237526491136

She's left Dunelm, too and has stopped acting as a priest.

IanB2

Andy_JS said:

"About half a million more people in England are being invited to book their Covid-19 jab from Monday, as the vaccine rollout opens to 44-year-olds. Two-thirds of the previous age group - 45 to 49-year-olds - have received their first dose. The NHS said it would set out when 40 to 43-year-olds would be able to book appointments "in the coming days", as supply allows."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56880376

This morning the open invitation on the NHS booking website has been dropped from age 45+ to 44+

Pulpstar

Interesting that Cummings has gone from public enemy number 1 to the fountain of original truth.

OldKingCole

Pulpstar said:

Interesting that Cummings has gone from public enemy number 1 to the fountain of original truth.

Very true. Mind, picking a fight with him, if they is what our PM, or someone close to him, has done strikes me as a Very Bad Idea.

IanB2

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Politico.com - U.S. pledges medical aid for India to combat surge
America also intends to pay for an expansion of manufacturing capability for the vaccine manufacturer in India.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/25/us-pledges-medical-aid-for-india-to-combat-surge-484584

What on earth is the USA doing with it's AZ stock. Should donate it to India tbh

Emergent Biosciences is sitting on 150 MILLION doses of AZ and J&J that are currently unusable because their Baltimore factory has not been approved by the FDA.

Wasn’t it a factory in Baltimore that wrecked a whole batch of J&J by supplying a contaminated ingredient?

ydoethur

Pulpstar said:

Interesting that Cummings has gone from public enemy number 1 to the fountain of original truth.

Speaking purely for myself, watching Cummings and Johnson whack each other is very like watching a wasp land on a stinging nettle.

Somebody’s going to get stung. You don’t care who, and would like it to be both. But it will be very funny.

Have a good morning.

IanB2

IanB2 said:

ping said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/apr/26/ex-post-office-head-apologises-to-workers-after-convictions-quashed

Paula Vennells Apologises.

She does have some decency.

I’d still like to see her and others prosecuted for, appropriately, theft and false accounting against the subpostmasters.

It is hard to see this as decency when she has been so reticent until now. And she still hangs onto well paid positions at Dunelm and Morrisons. I rather suspect she is starting to realise that the calls for her to be prosecuted and stripped of her honour, coming from MPs and members of the Lords, might actually come to something.

Breaking BBC: she is resigning from the Morrisons and Dunelm positions

DavidL

On Hartlepool Mike is clearly right that Lord Ashcroft's constituency polls before the 2015 election proved a seriously good way to lose money and the one poll available for this constituency should be looked at in this light.

Looking at more fundamental factors the Brexit vote suggests that Labour was pretty lucky to win this seat against split opposition in 2019 and may be vulnerable in 2021. OTOH historical trends make bye election wins for a government that is not as far ahead in the National polls as it was on election day 2019 very rare beasts indeed.

I genuinely don't know how to call this. The information quality is as poor as the respective candidates and you can make plausible arguments either way. That does suggest the odds against party, Labour, is the value but it doesn't give much of a clue about who is going to win.

Alistair

Pulpstar said:

Interesting that Cummings has gone from public enemy number 1 to the fountain of original truth.

I'm waiting for someone to pop up saying it was Cummings briefing the political press that trying to get 60% of the population infected by Autumn was the only sensible thing to do and anything else was idiocy before the massive volte face.

rcs1000

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Politico.com - U.S. pledges medical aid for India to combat surge
America also intends to pay for an expansion of manufacturing capability for the vaccine manufacturer in India.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/25/us-pledges-medical-aid-for-india-to-combat-surge-484584

What on earth is the USA doing with it's AZ stock. Should donate it to India tbh

Emergent Biosciences is sitting on 150 MILLION doses of AZ and J&J that are currently unusable because their Baltimore factory has not been approved by the FDA.

Wasn’t it a factory in Baltimore that wrecked a whole batch of J&J by supplying a contaminated ingredient?

Same factory. Same pharma company.

DavidL

OldKingCole said:

Pulpstar said:

Interesting that Cummings has gone from public enemy number 1 to the fountain of original truth.

Very true. Mind, picking a fight with him, if they is what our PM, or someone close to him, has done strikes me as a Very Bad Idea.

I have been trying to work out why on earth Boris would do this and why he would involve himself in briefing the press. All I can come up with is that the Princess Nut Nuts label still stings and is very deeply and personally resented.

Foxy

Pulpstar said:

Interesting that Cummings has gone from public enemy number 1 to the fountain of original truth.

No, Cummings has always been a scumbag, and one who has history revising his past.

Though it was Johnson who put him at the centre of his team knowing this, a classic example of how Johnson uses people, then ditches them. It is no wonder there are no known long term Johnson loyalists, not even in his own family.

OldKingCole

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

Pulpstar said:

Interesting that Cummings has gone from public enemy number 1 to the fountain of original truth.

Very true. Mind, picking a fight with him, if they is what our PM, or someone close to him, has done strikes me as a Very Bad Idea.

I have been trying to work out why on earth Boris would do this and why he would involve himself in briefing the press. All I can come up with is that the Princess Nut Nuts label still stings and is very deeply and personally resented.

'Hell hath no fury' and all that, you mean?

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. L, aye. Wonder if the princess is still angry at the ex-grand vizier.

Philip_Thompson

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Completely agreed with Mike.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!

But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.

Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'

When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by
threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious
bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with
each word uttered.

Critical race theorists have reinvented
racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.

How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?

Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?

I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?

I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".

Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨

More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.

This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.

For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.

And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.

Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.

I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?

The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.

Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.

Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.

Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.

Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.

Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -

"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."

A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.

You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.

I see you. 👀

Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?

Racists.

Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.

The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.

This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.

C'mon.

No its not.

People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.

Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.

People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.

I suggested that as a white man in England you weren't particularly conscious of your skin colour because it was the default.

You said no it has nothing to do with that. It's because you're not a racist!

That's on the record, I'm afraid. The sentiment and it's clear and absurd inference is "on you".

As I say, you need to think before you say stuff. If you don't you end up in this sort of mess. It's not the first time, let's face it.

Completely disagreed with Kinabalu. Sorry but logic and text doesn't work that way. If you are racist then you think about colour.

If you're not, you might or might not depending upon your experiences.

Its not all one or the other, you can't pigeon hole everyone the way you're trying to do. Your inference is wrong and you made it.

You chose crass, vacuous virtue signaling over serious engagement with the point. No amount of post hoc contortions can undo that. You should keep off this topic. You try too hard to come over as "not a racist bone in your body". It feels off. It's phony. Get back to flags and free markets and making England great again. At least there's authenticity there.

Maybe you should stop being judgemental.

I don't try hard to come over as not racist, the reason I come off that way is simply that I'm not. Same as most people nowadays, especially most young people.

Racism is a thing of the past. Its an alien concept to like homophobia that should be left in the past.

Your attempts to try and flush everyone out as a secret racist is what is really off and phony. Maybe you should pay more attention to the man in the mirror and stop judging others.

I wish we could simply say that "racism is a thing of the past".

Racism still exists. Not as much as it used to, and the UK can be proud of what it's achieved in the last fifty years.

But when Tommy Robinson creates a fake video of him being hit by an African migrant and that gets a million views and tens of thousands of likes, that tells you there's some definitely racism. I could give you a hundred more examples - many of which don't involve white people at all - that tell us that we need to be on guard.

It is also worth remembering that the UK is not the US. There is far more systemic racism, particularly in the Deep South, in the US than in the UK. And there is a legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and voter suppression that the UK simply doesn't have.

The problem is that Critical Race theory does nothing to overturn the real racism that exists, it serves only as an enormous distraction and something that (sadly) puts a large number of normal people on the same side as Tommy Robinson.

Oh 100% agreed with all this. There's a reason I said most people.

Tommy Robinson, his scumbag followers and anyone like them are in the minority that the majority of non racist people abhor. In the past such views would have been shared by many more people. Just because most people aren't racist doesn't mean we shouldn't try and deal with those that are.

As for the USA I 100% agree that the USA is not the UK. When the typical number of black people killed by American cops measures hundreds per annum, versus around zero in the UK, the two are worlds apart.

Finally I would note that racism is being and has been largely defeated in the UK by being anti racist. Things like the Macpherson Report etc have dealt with it. Not going on about critical race theory etc.

CarlottaVance

The prime minister would rather die in a ditch than use language like 'bodies piled high'.

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1386569571205844992?s=20

OldKingCole

Foxy said:

Pulpstar said:

Interesting that Cummings has gone from public enemy number 1 to the fountain of original truth.

No, Cummings has always been a scumbag, and one who has history revising his past.

Though it was Johnson who put him at the centre of his team knowing this, a classic example of how Johnson uses people, then ditches them. It is no wonder there are no known long term Johnson loyalists, not even in his own family.

His ex wives (etc) are quiet though. Financial/legal reasons?

DavidL

Foxy said:

Pulpstar said:

Interesting that Cummings has gone from public enemy number 1 to the fountain of original truth.

No, Cummings has always been a scumbag, and one who has history revising his past.

Though it was Johnson who put him at the centre of his team knowing this, a classic example of how Johnson uses people, then ditches them. It is no wonder there are no known long term Johnson loyalists, not even in his own family.

Cummings is a genuinely brilliant campaigner with a real skill at crystalising the arguments into punchy soundbites that reasonate. He is also an interesting analyst and far more informed on the use of data and technology to improve governance than most in Westminster. But he is also very much a loose cannon better fitted to the short term campaign than the long haul of government. It is not surprising that he did not last long in government, indeed he predicted this himself albeit in grandiose terms. His self obsession is evident and he seemed indifferent to the damage he did to his employer about the "eye test" nonsense.

So a potentially dangerous opponent who can land a haymaker of a soundbite. A completely unnecessary fight. A distraction. Silly, very silly.

CorrectHorseBattery

If that comment by BoJo is true he should resign, that's utterly disgraceful.

CarlottaVance

Han Dodges:

The problem Boris now has. There are one of two explanations:

a) The "Let the bodies pile high" quote is a complete fabrication. In which case he appointed a serial fantasist as his most senior advisor.

b) The quote is true.

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1386569232444448768?s=20

CorrectHorseBattery

Pulpstar said:

Interesting that Cummings has gone from public enemy number 1 to the fountain of original truth.

I am loathed to believe him but if he's got audio recordings then who am I to argue? And BoJo has spent his entire career lying, I think I trust BoJo less to be honest.

Dura_Ace

Pulpstar said:

Interesting that Cummings has gone from public enemy number 1 to the fountain of original truth.

It doesn't matter whether he's telling the truth or not. He's almost certainly not as he is a proven liar.

The important thing is that he has decided to destroy Johnson and is quite well placed, for historical reasons, to do significant damage.

However, if anybody deserves to be brought low by lies it's Johnson.

Stuartinromford

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. L, aye. Wonder if the princess is still angry at the ex-grand vizier.

BoJo did a silly petulant thing, partly because he is silly and petulant and partly because someone looked at his current bird funny.

Sometimes, the simplest explanations are the best.

Harder one to make sense of is Dom. Whatever it is he wants, how does he get it by going so nuclear so publicly so early?

Morris_Dancer

I wonder if this will harm Johnson less than people think.

Right now the news is constantly contrasting the relatively good situation here with the horror in India. It might be that that looms larger in the collective mind than a quote that, if the situation weren't both still active and relatively good for the UK (and its government), would be very damaging.

Foxy

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

Pulpstar said:

Interesting that Cummings has gone from public enemy number 1 to the fountain of original truth.

No, Cummings has always been a scumbag, and one who has history revising his past.

Though it was Johnson who put him at the centre of his team knowing this, a classic example of how Johnson uses people, then ditches them. It is no wonder there are no known long term Johnson loyalists, not even in his own family.

His ex wives (etc) are quiet though. Financial/legal reasons?

The first rule of super injunctions is to not mention super injunctions...

Philip_Thompson

rcs1000 said:

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Politico.com - U.S. pledges medical aid for India to combat surge
America also intends to pay for an expansion of manufacturing capability for the vaccine manufacturer in India.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/25/us-pledges-medical-aid-for-india-to-combat-surge-484584

What on earth is the USA doing with it's AZ stock. Should donate it to India tbh

Emergent Biosciences is sitting on 150 MILLION doses of AZ and J&J that are currently unusable because their Baltimore factory has not been approved by the FDA.

Wasn’t it a factory in Baltimore that wrecked a whole batch of J&J by supplying a contaminated ingredient?

Same factory. Same pharma company.

So why are you saying they're sitting on doses, when the reason the doses are unusable is because they're being tested for contamination and may need to be destroyed?

That's not really sat on.

squareroot2

I doubt it will be difficult to find something that Cummings says to be proven to be untrue. His Barnard Castle visit demonstrates that he had to be lying about it and has not been entirely forgotten by the public.

malcolmg

Foxy said:

TimT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

williamglenn said:

Rapid action from the EU on India. A meeting will take place on the 8th of May.

Also, tut tut, failed to use the word unity....

May 8. Clearly no rush.

Already underway:

"Upon request for assistance by #India, we have activated the #EU Civil Protection Mechanism.

The 🇪🇺 will do its utmost to mobilise assistance to support people of 🇮🇳.

Our #ERCC is already coordinating EU MS that are ready to provide urgently needed #oxygen & medicine rapidly."

https://twitter.com/JanezLenarcic/status/1386270858688270336?s=19

Germany is apparently sending 23 oxygen generating plants.

https://twitter.com/SwarajyaMag/status/1385466997660479490?s=19

You spoiled the "I hate the EU" brigades fun with that kind of reality Foxy. They will not be able to gloat till 8th of May now.

eek

Morris_Dancer said:

I wonder if this will harm Johnson less than people think.

Right now the news is constantly contrasting the relatively good situation here with the horror in India. It might be that that looms larger in the collective mind than a quote that, if the situation weren't both still active and relatively good for the UK (and its government), would be very damaging.

Until someone points out we were merely days away from having an India type situation here.

Remember on December 14th the Government was threatening Greenwich council to keep schools open days before London went into a second lockdown.

Even then it was obvious was the situation was going to be...

The thing with exponential growth is that by the time you know you have a problem, the problem is already out of your control.

malcolmg

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Completely agreed with Mike.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!

But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.

Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'

When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by
threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious
bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with
each word uttered.

Critical race theorists have reinvented
racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.

How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?

Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?

I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?

I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".

Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨

More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.

This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.

For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.

And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.

Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.

I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?

The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.

Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.

Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.

Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.

Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.

Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -

"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."

A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.

You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.

I see you. 👀

Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?

Racists.

Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.

The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.

This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.

C'mon.

No its not.

People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.

Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.

People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.

I suggested that as a white man in England you weren't particularly conscious of your skin colour because it was the default.

You said no it has nothing to do with that. It's because you're not a racist!

That's on the record, I'm afraid. The sentiment and it's clear and absurd inference is "on you".

As I say, you need to think before you say stuff. If you don't you end up in this sort of mess. It's not the first time, let's face it.

Completely disagreed with Kinabalu. Sorry but logic and text doesn't work that way. If you are racist then you think about colour.

If you're not, you might or might not depending upon your experiences.

Its not all one or the other, you can't pigeon hole everyone the way you're trying to do. Your inference is wrong and you made it.

You chose crass, vacuous virtue signaling over serious engagement with the point. No amount of post hoc contortions can undo that. You should keep off this topic. You try too hard to come over as "not a racist bone in your body". It feels off. It's phony. Get back to flags and free markets and making England great again. At least there's authenticity there.

Maybe you should stop being judgemental.

I don't try hard to come over as not racist, the reason I come off that way is simply that I'm not. Same as most people nowadays, especially most young people.

Racism is a thing of the past. Its an alien concept to like homophobia that should be left in the past.

Your attempts to try and flush everyone out as a secret racist is what is really off and phony. Maybe you should pay more attention to the man in the mirror and stop judging others.

I wish we could simply say that "racism is a thing of the past".

Racism still exists. Not as much as it used to, and the UK can be proud of what it's achieved in the last fifty years.

But when Tommy Robinson creates a fake video of him being hit by an African migrant and that gets a million views and tens of thousands of likes, that tells you there's some definitely racism. I could give you a hundred more examples - many of which don't involve white people at all - that tell us that we need to be on guard.

It is also worth remembering that the UK is not the US. There is far more systemic racism, particularly in the Deep South, in the US than in the UK. And there is a legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and voter suppression that the UK simply doesn't have.

The problem is that Critical Race theory does nothing to overturn the real racism that exists, it serves only as an enormous distraction and something that (sadly) puts a large number of normal people on the same side as Tommy Robinson.

Oh 100% agreed with all this. There's a reason I said most people.

Tommy Robinson, his scumbag followers and anyone like them are in the minority that the majority of non racist people abhor. In the past such views would have been shared by many more people. Just because most people aren't racist doesn't mean we shouldn't try and deal with those that are.

As for the USA I 100% agree that the USA is not the UK. When the typical number of black people killed by American cops measures hundreds per annum, versus around zero in the UK, the two are worlds apart.

Finally I would note that racism is being and has been largely defeated in the UK by being anti racist. Things like the Macpherson Report etc have dealt with it. Not going on about critical race theory etc.

I think you have your rose tinted glasses on , it is far from gone unless there are lots of liars out complaining about it constantly.

Alistair

CarlottaVance said:

Han Dodges:

The problem Boris now has. There are one of two explanations:

a) The "Let the bodies pile high" quote is a complete fabrication. In which case he appointed a serial fantasist as his most senior advisor.

b) The quote is true.

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1386569232444448768?s=20

Having a shitty senior adviser has basically no effect on a politician. Otherwise Cameron would not have been leader at the 2015 General Election given his employment of obvious criminal Andy Coulson.

Alistair

squareroot2 said:

I doubt it will be difficult to find something that Cummings says to be proven to be untrue. His Barnard Castle visit demonstrates that he had to be lying about it and has not been entirely forgotten by the public.

Do you think he'll try editing his blog again?

Philip_Thompson

eek said:

Morris_Dancer said:

I wonder if this will harm Johnson less than people think.

Right now the news is constantly contrasting the relatively good situation here with the horror in India. It might be that that looms larger in the collective mind than a quote that, if the situation weren't both still active and relatively good for the UK (and its government), would be very damaging.

Until someone points out we were merely days away from having an India type situation here.

Remember on December 14th the Government was threatening Greenwich council to keep schools open days before London went into a second lockdown.

Even then it was obvious was the situation was going to be...

The thing with exponential growth is that by the time you know you have a problem, the problem is already out of your control.

14 December was before we knew what the Kent variant meant that was only told to the Government just before Christmas and they acted within 24 hours of that remember?

And we didn't have an India type situation here, that was prevented.

So . . . nul points.