The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Doesn't it show the precise opposite? In a country which is 85% white you'd expect most criminals to also be white.
No one is trying to pretend that all grooming gangs are of Pakistani origin. That would be ridiculous. What they are saying is that they are grossly disproportionate to their share of the population. Which they very clearly are. Particularly in certain towns where there has clearly been a deeply poisonous culture which somehow made this ok.
And it is simply dishonest to deny it, or shout “look, a squirrel.”
Reform UK are averaging about 6% in the polls but it looks like they've abysmally failed to put up more than a handful of candidates at the local elections in May. More good news for Sunak.
Reform UK are averaging about 6% in the polls but it looks like they've abysmally failed to put up more than a handful of candidates at the local elections in May. More good news for Sunak.
I add about 2/3 of their support to the Tories and about half the Greens to Labour (in England and Wales). I think this simply reflects the reality that in many cases they won’t even have a candidate to vote for.
Reform UK are averaging about 6% in the polls but it looks like they've abysmally failed to put up more than a handful of candidates at the local elections in May. More good news for Sunak.
I add about 2/3 of their support to the Tories and about half the Greens to Labour (in England and Wales). I think this simply reflects the reality that in many cases they won’t even have a candidate to vote for.
FPT: For some years I have been worrying about the conflicts of interest often found in two-career political families. For example, when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, I thought that the Clinton Foundation should have stopped taking contributions from other nations. (Spoiler: They didn't.)
Many of our rules were made assuming just one bread winner. (Usually a man, but sometimes a widow, or a woman who has always been single.)
It looks as if the little problem you are having in Scotland may be -- among other things -- another example of that problem.
(And no, I don't have any simple solution to the problem.)
Older PBers will remember that Geoffrey Howe's missus gave up her job running the Equal Opportunities Commission when her husband entered the government.
Interesting PPB tonight by Labour tonight clearly aimed at the Red Wall. Dull in itself but EXTREMELY effective in response to the Sunak /Braverman tour of Rochdale yesterday.
Otherwise notable only for the presenter dropping the 'T' on ParTy. Twice
When I read this this morning, I did wonder what our police are playing at. It doesn't take specialist training to assess the risk:
"In one case, officers did nothing for 18 months following a report from the National Crime Agency (NCA) of two videos showing a nine-year-old girl being raped. This was despite the fact that officers identified the suspect as living with three children."
Yes that's the one. A great contrast with the Sunak/Braverman race hate show which is itself becoming a Tory meme. I also suspect it chimes more with peoples experiences of an absent police force
Hey DavidL, I was wondering earlier if Scottish contempt laws only apply to Scotland or does it apply across the whole of the UK? I wasn't going to say anything anyway that might be prejudiced, so don't worry about that!
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
The issue is that this is the only thing the government focuses on when protecting vulnerable children. It is a small percent of the answer and they say and do nothing to fix the rest.
Why are they so fixated on this issue? It is not because of protecting children or else they would have taken other steps including providing much better funding a decade since the Jay report.
Estimates of the numbers of victims of “Asian grooming” go from the high tens of thousands to one million. Literally one million
The idea this is a really small subset of a much bigger problem is odd, in that light
Well if it is a million, which it clearly isn't, then it is surely even worse that the government are not allocating resources to tackle the issue? Is it not?
It’s not me coming up with the “1 million” number. It’s the, er, MP for Rotherham. The LABOUR MP. Sarah Champion
EXCLUSIVE: Child sex abuse gangs could have assaulted ONE MILLION youngsters in the UK Rotherham’s Labour MP Sarah Champion describes it as a “national disaster” and is demanding a taskforce to fight the “horror"
It doesn't matter where the claim originates, it is clearly not accurate. However, care to answer my question - if it really was a million children, does not that make it worse that the government are only tackling this with hot air rather than real resources in social care, policing and courts?
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
The issue is that this is the only thing the government focuses on when protecting vulnerable children. It is a small percent of the answer and they say and do nothing to fix the rest.
Why are they so fixated on this issue? It is not because of protecting children or else they would have taken other steps including providing much better funding a decade since the Jay report.
Estimates of the numbers of victims of “Asian grooming” go from the high tens of thousands to one million. Literally one million
The idea this is a really small subset of a much bigger problem is odd, in that light
Well if it is a million, which it clearly isn't, then it is surely even worse that the government are not allocating resources to tackle the issue? Is it not?
It’s not me coming up with the “1 million” number. It’s the, er, MP for Rotherham. The LABOUR MP. Sarah Champion
EXCLUSIVE: Child sex abuse gangs could have assaulted ONE MILLION youngsters in the UK Rotherham’s Labour MP Sarah Champion describes it as a “national disaster” and is demanding a taskforce to fight the “horror"
It doesn't matter where the claim originates, it is clearly not accurate. However, care to answer my question - if it really was a million children, does not that make it worse that the government are only tackling this with hot air rather than real resources in social care, policing and courts?
Your evidence it isn't accurate is? Let me guess gut feeling. Champion had access to a lot of reports which I doubt you have even read.
All child abuse is bad. We should be tackling all of it. However there are cultures where women, whether white or their own are treated as second class citizens and some but not all use it as justification.
The rotherham reports suggested the gang had processed thousands, this gang affected 12. Both are bad both need dealing with full stop. The police need to take their head out of their arse and investigate all child abuse and no that doesn't mean either taking victims always at face value. Investigate....if there is corroborating evidence pursue it
Reform UK are averaging about 6% in the polls but it looks like they've abysmally failed to put up more than a handful of candidates at the local elections in May. More good news for Sunak.
I add about 2/3 of their support to the Tories and about half the Greens to Labour (in England and Wales). I think this simply reflects the reality that in many cases they won’t even have a candidate to vote for.
Reform UK are averaging about 6% in the polls but it looks like they've abysmally failed to put up more than a handful of candidates at the local elections in May. More good news for Sunak.
I add about 2/3 of their support to the Tories and about half the Greens to Labour (in England and Wales). I think this simply reflects the reality that in many cases they won’t even have a candidate to vote for.
Hey DavidL, I was wondering earlier if Scottish contempt laws only apply to Scotland or does it apply across the whole of the UK? I wasn't going to say anything anyway that might be prejudiced, so don't worry about that!
If it is accessible in Scotland then it is likely to be deemed to have been published here and therefore could constitute a contempt wherever you are. The former ambassador case, Murray, was problematic case in many respects but what it sent out loud and clear was the courts will not be messed about on this.
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
The issue is that this is the only thing the government focuses on when protecting vulnerable children. It is a small percent of the answer and they say and do nothing to fix the rest.
Why are they so fixated on this issue? It is not because of protecting children or else they would have taken other steps including providing much better funding a decade since the Jay report.
Estimates of the numbers of victims of “Asian grooming” go from the high tens of thousands to one million. Literally one million
The idea this is a really small subset of a much bigger problem is odd, in that light
Well if it is a million, which it clearly isn't, then it is surely even worse that the government are not allocating resources to tackle the issue? Is it not?
It’s not me coming up with the “1 million” number. It’s the, er, MP for Rotherham. The LABOUR MP. Sarah Champion
EXCLUSIVE: Child sex abuse gangs could have assaulted ONE MILLION youngsters in the UK Rotherham’s Labour MP Sarah Champion describes it as a “national disaster” and is demanding a taskforce to fight the “horror"
It doesn't matter where the claim originates, it is clearly not accurate. However, care to answer my question - if it really was a million children, does not that make it worse that the government are only tackling this with hot air rather than real resources in social care, policing and courts?
As to your last point, I agree entirely. Failing to provide an adequate criminal justice system, is a massive dereliction of duty.
Now that applies also to Labour (and the record of some Labour councillors in relation to child protection has been atrocious). Conservatives turn a blind eye because they don’t care, Labour for ideological reasons, but two wrongs don’t make a right.
Reform UK are averaging about 6% in the polls but it looks like they've abysmally failed to put up more than a handful of candidates at the local elections in May. More good news for Sunak.
I add about 2/3 of their support to the Tories and about half the Greens to Labour (in England and Wales). I think this simply reflects the reality that in many cases they won’t even have a candidate to vote for.
Good to have you back posting
Not really been away but doing yet another rape case and there are some current topics I really can’t comment on.
Good evening, another day, another day of SKS being utterly useless.
Mods I don't like calling for action and in fact I think this is the first time ever. This poster is either a former poster given the name similarity or someone masquerading as him
I think you really need to clarify because if this is not the original poster then its an attempt at vilifying him. If it is the original poster then this pretence is causing more harm than good
Meanwhile, another Pakistani men paedophile ring has been jailed. Thank goodness the Home Secretary has spoken out calling for more action, otherwise of these Pakistani men will be at it.
Not just the home secretary, pbs finest protectors of vulnerable young girls have been posting furiously about this scandal all day. Just with invisible ink.
When they all eventually serve their sentences and are released, repatriate them back from whence they came! Er, Walsall...
Meanwhile, another Pakistani men paedophile ring has been jailed. Thank goodness the Home Secretary has spoken out calling for more action, otherwise of these Pakistani men will be at it.
Not just the home secretary, pbs finest protectors of vulnerable young girls have been posting furiously about this scandal all day. Just with invisible ink.
When they all eventually serve their sentences and are released, repatriate them back from whence they came! Er, Walsall...
Isn't this just the flip side though of what you've accused the other side of doing in banging on about the ethnic angle? "Oh look, it's a white gang! Not all British-Pakistanis!". What happened to the kids is secondary.
I’ve just made a similar point. The victims are what should concern us here.
It’s obviously good that, for once, justice has been done.
Yes it is.
Except where it isn't. What happens to the kids in this case? Are they living with other relatives or have they been shunted off into care? Because it is teenagers in care who were preyed upon in Rotherham and similar cases across the country. Out of the frying pan into the fire?
A social worker told me decades ago that what the children want is for mum or dad to keep their hands off, not to disappear. Maybe the police officer speaking today had something similar in mind:-
The children who were abused were in a "much better place at this moment in time", Det Ch Insp Joanne Floyd said. "Their reaction is probably one of stoicism and they take no joy in the experience. There are no winners in the situation and they in no way feel happy or glad," she added. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-65189785
There are no winners in the situation and they in no way feel happy or glad.
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
The issue is that this is the only thing the government focuses on when protecting vulnerable children. It is a small percent of the answer and they say and do nothing to fix the rest.
Why are they so fixated on this issue? It is not because of protecting children or else they would have taken other steps including providing much better funding a decade since the Jay report.
Estimates of the numbers of victims of “Asian grooming” go from the high tens of thousands to one million. Literally one million
The idea this is a really small subset of a much bigger problem is odd, in that light
Well if it is a million, which it clearly isn't, then it is surely even worse that the government are not allocating resources to tackle the issue? Is it not?
It’s not me coming up with the “1 million” number. It’s the, er, MP for Rotherham. The LABOUR MP. Sarah Champion
EXCLUSIVE: Child sex abuse gangs could have assaulted ONE MILLION youngsters in the UK Rotherham’s Labour MP Sarah Champion describes it as a “national disaster” and is demanding a taskforce to fight the “horror"
It doesn't matter where the claim originates, it is clearly not accurate. However, care to answer my question - if it really was a million children, does not that make it worse that the government are only tackling this with hot air rather than real resources in social care, policing and courts?
So you simultaneously believe the claim is bollocks but also want me to answer a question on the basis the claim is true. Sort yourself out
As for the truth of her claim, it does seem incredible. And yet she is the Labour MP for Rotherham. What does she have to gain from an outrageous fabrication? Plus she clearly has more insight into this issue than you or I
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
I don't believe anyone on this board is trying to diminish the wickedness of abusers who happen to be of a specific racial origin. I don't believe anyone on here is absolving Labour Councillors if they turned a blind eye to this abuse on the grounds of creed or race. You yourself have highlighted the people involved as a "minority" of the stated group.
On the other hand a particular politician is being called out for politicising the criminality by taxi drivers in Rochdale and Rotherham for her own ends. That is perhaps as worrying and as outrageous as those Labour Councillors who turned a blind eye in the first place.
Good evening, another day, another day of SKS being utterly useless.
Mods I don't like calling for action and in fact I think this is the first time ever. This poster is either a former poster given the name similarity or someone masquerading as him
I think you really need to clarify because if this is not the original poster then its an attempt at vilifying him. If it is the original poster then this pretence is causing more harm than good
Of course you do.
If what you say is true, and this poster has another identity, so what? Why are you not calling out other posters who occasionally have a three way conversation with their alter egos?
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They wanted their employees to be “social activists.” They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
I bought some cat treats last year that had a rainbow flag on them for Pride. My cat seemed fairly indifferent.
Meanwhile, another Pakistani men paedophile ring has been jailed. Thank goodness the Home Secretary has spoken out calling for more action, otherwise of these Pakistani men will be at it.
Not just the home secretary, pbs finest protectors of vulnerable young girls have been posting furiously about this scandal all day. Just with invisible ink.
When they all eventually serve their sentences and are released, repatriate them back from whence they came! Er, Walsall...
Meanwhile, another Pakistani men paedophile ring has been jailed. Thank goodness the Home Secretary has spoken out calling for more action, otherwise of these Pakistani men will be at it.
Not just the home secretary, pbs finest protectors of vulnerable young girls have been posting furiously about this scandal all day. Just with invisible ink.
When they all eventually serve their sentences and are released, repatriate them back from whence they came! Er, Walsall...
Isn't this just the flip side though of what you've accused the other side of doing in banging on about the ethnic angle? "Oh look, it's a white gang! Not all British-Pakistanis!". What happened to the kids is secondary.
I’ve just made a similar point. The victims are what should concern us here.
It’s obviously good that, for once, justice has been done.
Yes it is.
Except where it isn't. What happens to the kids in this case? Are they living with other relatives or have they been shunted off into care? Because it is teenagers in care who were preyed upon in Rotherham and similar cases across the country. Out of the frying pan into the fire?
A social worker told me decades ago that what the children want is for mum or dad to keep their hands off, not to disappear. Maybe the police officer speaking today had something similar in mind:-
The children who were abused were in a "much better place at this moment in time", Det Ch Insp Joanne Floyd said. "Their reaction is probably one of stoicism and they take no joy in the experience. There are no winners in the situation and they in no way feel happy or glad," she added. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-65189785
There are no winners in the situation and they in no way feel happy or glad.
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
I don't believe anyone on this board is trying to diminish the wickedness of abusers who happen to be of a specific racial origin. I don't believe anyone on here is absolving Labour Councillors if they turned a blind eye to this abuse on the grounds of creed or race. You yourself have highlighted the people involved as a "minority" of the stated group.
On the other hand a particular politician is being called out for politicising the criminality by taxi drivers in Rochdale and Rotherham for her own ends. That is perhaps as worrying and as outrageous as those Labour Councillors who turned a blind eye in the first place.
We can certainly agree it shouldn't be politicized. However can I ask what you do when a particular community has an issue. To raise that is politicising it and it doesn't matter if that community is white, black asian or martian.
An example of this is for example knife crime....in london the main perpertrators were black, in scotland they were white from a certain demographic....stop and search in scotland wasn't an issue, in london it was. That was purely on the racial aspect.
Now do I think black people are inherently bad, no absolutely not. However if in an area 80% of white people are carrying and 10% of black people are and the mix of the area is 20% white and 80% black then I would fully expect that about 80% of white people in that area had been stop and searched for weapons
Reform UK are averaging about 6% in the polls but it looks like they've abysmally failed to put up more than a handful of candidates at the local elections in May. More good news for Sunak.
Is everything good news for the Conservatives or the Prime Minister?
When the admittedly small Reform UK voting pool has been sampled, fewer than 30% would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate. 15% would vote Labour which is presumably good news for Starmer but more than half wouldn’t vote at all.
In local elections I suspect Independent candidates would be the more likely beneficiaries of an absence of Reform candidates.
As an antidote, there are kids who survive abuse and end up fine
An acquaintance of mine was abused by her grandfather for years. She is now happily married with her own kids and no apparent issues. It happens. People survive
Good evening, another day, another day of SKS being utterly useless.
Mods I don't like calling for action and in fact I think this is the first time ever. This poster is either a former poster given the name similarity or someone masquerading as him
I think you really need to clarify because if this is not the original poster then its an attempt at vilifying him. If it is the original poster then this pretence is causing more harm than good
Of course you do.
If what you say is true, and this poster has another identity, so what? Why are you not calling out other posters who occasionally have a three way conversation with their alter egos?
I am specifically calling it for horse_b only for the following reasons
1) I am not sure if its an incarnation of CHB3 and if it is why is he posting the opposite of his usual
2) If its not an incarnation of CHB3 then a lot of people are assuming it is and thinking he has lost the plot. If I got banned and someone became pagan3 that was not me and started posting stuff that was the opposite I would hope someone would ask for clarity.
My problem is purely the name implies it is an incarnation of a banned poster and many are assuming it is. If the name was not implying so I would have no issue. If horse_b is indeed not CHB3 then he needs to be defended imo and this is coming from someone that doesn't really like him. Does that make it clear?
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They wanted their employees to be “social activists.” They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
I bought some cat treats last year that had a rainbow flag on them for Pride. My cat seemed fairly indifferent.
I also bought those. It didn't seem an obvious place for a campaign abput sexuality. Though having said that, I suppose my cats are trans, having all been neutered. They don't make a fuss about pronouns though and AFAICS seem reasonably happy with the identity nature gave them.
In other news Kate Forbes has found time to visit the important metrohub of Shieldaig (pop 85) and tweet about it. Other interesting tweets today are about the Scottish consultation on Highly Protected Marine Areas.
All round good day for Forbes. As PG Wodehouse would have said 'Keep your head down and don't press'.
And what an good time to just lose an election.
Had superb prawn cocktail at Shieldaig, prepared with langoustines not prawns.
Good evening, another day, another day of SKS being utterly useless.
Mods I don't like calling for action and in fact I think this is the first time ever. This poster is either a former poster given the name similarity or someone masquerading as him
I think you really need to clarify because if this is not the original poster then its an attempt at vilifying him. If it is the original poster then this pretence is causing more harm than good
Of course you do.
If what you say is true, and this poster has another identity, so what? Why are you not calling out other posters who occasionally have a three way conversation with their alter egos?
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
I don't believe anyone on this board is trying to diminish the wickedness of abusers who happen to be of a specific racial origin. I don't believe anyone on here is absolving Labour Councillors if they turned a blind eye to this abuse on the grounds of creed or race. You yourself have highlighted the people involved as a "minority" of the stated group.
On the other hand a particular politician is being called out for politicising the criminality by taxi drivers in Rochdale and Rotherham for her own ends. That is perhaps as worrying and as outrageous as those Labour Councillors who turned a blind eye in the first place.
We can certainly agree it shouldn't be politicized. However can I ask what you do when a particular community has an issue. To raise that is politicising it and it doesn't matter if that community is white, black asian or martian.
An example of this is for example knife crime....in london the main perpertrators were black, in scotland they were white from a certain demographic....stop and search in scotland wasn't an issue, in london it was. That was purely on the racial aspect.
Now do I think black people are inherently bad, no absolutely not. However if in an area 80% of white people are carrying and 10% of black people are and the mix of the area is 20% white and 80% black then I would fully expect that about 80% of white people in that area had been stop and searched for weapons
You could link your assertion to all sorts of other common denominators, for example, poverty, access to education, a whole range of issues, but you have chosen to focus on race. That is entirely your prerogative.
The Home Secretary on the other hand, who has up to the minute data available to her, has chosen to mischievously ignore issues other than the racial origin of a notorious group of criminals. She has followed this path because she believes it is politically expedient so to do.
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
The issue is that this is the only thing the government focuses on when protecting vulnerable children. It is a small percent of the answer and they say and do nothing to fix the rest.
Why are they so fixated on this issue? It is not because of protecting children or else they would have taken other steps including providing much better funding a decade since the Jay report.
Estimates of the numbers of victims of “Asian grooming” go from the high tens of thousands to one million. Literally one million
The idea this is a really small subset of a much bigger problem is odd, in that light
Well if it is a million, which it clearly isn't, then it is surely even worse that the government are not allocating resources to tackle the issue? Is it not?
It’s not me coming up with the “1 million” number. It’s the, er, MP for Rotherham. The LABOUR MP. Sarah Champion
EXCLUSIVE: Child sex abuse gangs could have assaulted ONE MILLION youngsters in the UK Rotherham’s Labour MP Sarah Champion describes it as a “national disaster” and is demanding a taskforce to fight the “horror"
I have no desire to minimise or get involved in discussion of this dismal subject except to comment that this Mirror story and headline is a good example of a general rule, now much ignored by, especially, the Guardian and the BBC.
The Rule: There is no such thing as a good headline containing a modal verb.
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
I don't believe anyone on this board is trying to diminish the wickedness of abusers who happen to be of a specific racial origin. I don't believe anyone on here is absolving Labour Councillors if they turned a blind eye to this abuse on the grounds of creed or race. You yourself have highlighted the people involved as a "minority" of the stated group.
On the other hand a particular politician is being called out for politicising the criminality by taxi drivers in Rochdale and Rotherham for her own ends. That is perhaps as worrying and as outrageous as those Labour Councillors who turned a blind eye in the first place.
We can certainly agree it shouldn't be politicized. However can I ask what you do when a particular community has an issue. To raise that is politicising it and it doesn't matter if that community is white, black asian or martian.
An example of this is for example knife crime....in london the main perpertrators were black, in scotland they were white from a certain demographic....stop and search in scotland wasn't an issue, in london it was. That was purely on the racial aspect.
Now do I think black people are inherently bad, no absolutely not. However if in an area 80% of white people are carrying and 10% of black people are and the mix of the area is 20% white and 80% black then I would fully expect that about 80% of white people in that area had been stop and searched for weapons
You could link your assertion to all sorts of other common denominators, for example, poverty, access to education, a whole range of issues, but you have chosen to focus on race. That is entirely your prerogative.
The Home Secretary on the other hand, who has up to the minute data available to her, has chosen to mischievously ignore issues other than the racial origin of a notorious group of criminals. She has followed this path because she believes it is politically expedient so to do.
You do know I am not a tory supporter and have no problem agreeing the home secretary is dubious?
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
Because if you link rape to Pakistani men the 99.9% of Pakistani men who would never commit a rape are offended. It tars the innocent with the same brush and it is therefore grossly offensive.
I heard something on the radio about a fraudster in Ireland who was called 'Israel' and it was assumed he was Jewish. They had the head of the Jewish community in Ireland saying how offensive such a trope was. And that was a single fraudster. Well the villification of Pakistani Muslim men goes way beyond that
What are you talking about. So far as I am aware people having merely being pointing out a fact, that various grooming gangs have been exclusively (or almost) made up of Pakistani men. Is it wrong to say that?
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
I don't believe anyone on this board is trying to diminish the wickedness of abusers who happen to be of a specific racial origin. I don't believe anyone on here is absolving Labour Councillors if they turned a blind eye to this abuse on the grounds of creed or race. You yourself have highlighted the people involved as a "minority" of the stated group.
On the other hand a particular politician is being called out for politicising the criminality by taxi drivers in Rochdale and Rotherham for her own ends. That is perhaps as worrying and as outrageous as those Labour Councillors who turned a blind eye in the first place.
We can certainly agree it shouldn't be politicized. However can I ask what you do when a particular community has an issue. To raise that is politicising it and it doesn't matter if that community is white, black asian or martian.
An example of this is for example knife crime....in london the main perpertrators were black, in scotland they were white from a certain demographic....stop and search in scotland wasn't an issue, in london it was. That was purely on the racial aspect.
Now do I think black people are inherently bad, no absolutely not. However if in an area 80% of white people are carrying and 10% of black people are and the mix of the area is 20% white and 80% black then I would fully expect that about 80% of white people in that area had been stop and searched for weapons
You could link your assertion to all sorts of other common denominators, for example, poverty, access to education, a whole range of issues, but you have chosen to focus on race. That is entirely your prerogative.
The Home Secretary on the other hand, who has up to the minute data available to her, has chosen to mischievously ignore issues other than the racial origin of a notorious group of criminals. She has followed this path because she believes it is politically expedient so to do.
You do know I am not a tory supporter and have no problem agreeing the home secretary is dubious?
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
I would say the precise opposite.
That's because you're an idiot when it comes to this subject.
Get this through your head: Wokery is a problem, not an answer.
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They wanted their employees to be “social activists.” They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
I bought some cat treats last year that had a rainbow flag on them for Pride. My cat seemed fairly indifferent.
I also bought those. It didn't seem an obvious place for a campaign abput sexuality. Though having said that, I suppose my cats are trans, having all been neutered. They don't make a fuss about pronouns though and AFAICS seem reasonably happy with the identity nature gave them.
Well perhaps more the identity you gave them and do they have the imagination or intellect to think what life might have been like unneutered.
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
Because if you link rape to Pakistani men the 99.9% of Pakistani men who would never commit a rape are offended. It tars the innocent with the same brush and it is therefore grossly offensive.
I heard something on the radio about a fraudster in Ireland who was called 'Israel' and it was assumed he was Jewish. They had the head of the Jewish community in Ireland saying how offensive such a trope was. And that was a single fraudster. Well the villification of Pakistani Muslim men goes way beyond that
What are you talking about. So far as I am aware people having merely being pointing out a fact, that various grooming gangs have been exclusively (or almost) made up of Pakistani men. Is it wrong to say that?
I ignore Roger on anything to do with rape, he has defended polanksi and tried to imply people are judging after the rape in scotland got only a 7 week community service penalty. Roger thinks women get what they deserve from what I can see
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
I don't believe anyone on this board is trying to diminish the wickedness of abusers who happen to be of a specific racial origin. I don't believe anyone on here is absolving Labour Councillors if they turned a blind eye to this abuse on the grounds of creed or race. You yourself have highlighted the people involved as a "minority" of the stated group.
On the other hand a particular politician is being called out for politicising the criminality by taxi drivers in Rochdale and Rotherham for her own ends. That is perhaps as worrying and as outrageous as those Labour Councillors who turned a blind eye in the first place.
We can certainly agree it shouldn't be politicized. However can I ask what you do when a particular community has an issue. To raise that is politicising it and it doesn't matter if that community is white, black asian or martian.
An example of this is for example knife crime....in london the main perpertrators were black, in scotland they were white from a certain demographic....stop and search in scotland wasn't an issue, in london it was. That was purely on the racial aspect.
Now do I think black people are inherently bad, no absolutely not. However if in an area 80% of white people are carrying and 10% of black people are and the mix of the area is 20% white and 80% black then I would fully expect that about 80% of white people in that area had been stop and searched for weapons
You could link your assertion to all sorts of other common denominators, for example, poverty, access to education, a whole range of issues, but you have chosen to focus on race. That is entirely your prerogative.
The Home Secretary on the other hand, who has up to the minute data available to her, has chosen to mischievously ignore issues other than the racial origin of a notorious group of criminals. She has followed this path because she believes it is politically expedient so to do.
It would be very odd in the case of Rotherham or Rochdale or Telford or Oxford to conclude that the main factor was poverty or access to education.
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
There are two problems:-
1. It’s performative.
2. Antnomianism. The belief that “to the pure all things are pure.” If your beliefs are pure, your conduct really does not matter. I don’t doubt that people like Weinstein or Polanski think they’re good people because they’ve always backed what they see as noble causes.
Of course, you can find it among their opponents. Some of the wickedest people that you’ll ever encounter are found among social conservatives who call themselves devoutly religious.
What I admire is the historic nonconformist (especially Quaker) belief that good work and good works are one and the same. You treat staff, customers, creditors fairly, and you don’t brag about it.
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
I don't believe anyone on this board is trying to diminish the wickedness of abusers who happen to be of a specific racial origin. I don't believe anyone on here is absolving Labour Councillors if they turned a blind eye to this abuse on the grounds of creed or race. You yourself have highlighted the people involved as a "minority" of the stated group.
On the other hand a particular politician is being called out for politicising the criminality by taxi drivers in Rochdale and Rotherham for her own ends. That is perhaps as worrying and as outrageous as those Labour Councillors who turned a blind eye in the first place.
We can certainly agree it shouldn't be politicized. However can I ask what you do when a particular community has an issue. To raise that is politicising it and it doesn't matter if that community is white, black asian or martian.
An example of this is for example knife crime....in london the main perpertrators were black, in scotland they were white from a certain demographic....stop and search in scotland wasn't an issue, in london it was. That was purely on the racial aspect.
Now do I think black people are inherently bad, no absolutely not. However if in an area 80% of white people are carrying and 10% of black people are and the mix of the area is 20% white and 80% black then I would fully expect that about 80% of white people in that area had been stop and searched for weapons
You could link your assertion to all sorts of other common denominators, for example, poverty, access to education, a whole range of issues, but you have chosen to focus on race. That is entirely your prerogative.
The Home Secretary on the other hand, who has up to the minute data available to her, has chosen to mischievously ignore issues other than the racial origin of a notorious group of criminals. She has followed this path because she believes it is politically expedient so to do.
You do know I am not a tory supporter and have no problem agreeing the home secretary is dubious?
No, I assumed you were an enthusiast.
I didnt vote tory in 2015, 2017 nor 2019.....I didn't vote in fact for anyone because I only had lab ld and tory to vote for and they are all shite equally nor would I have voted ukip or bnp or refuk if they were standing
Shout out for Sputini in Gordon Street in Glasgow. What a meal. Fantastic. But that gym work didn’t go far. If anyone is looking for an outstanding Italian in Glasgow come here.
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
There are two problems:-
1. It’s performative.
2. Antnomianism. The belief that “to the pure all things are pure.” If your beliefs are pure, your conduct really does not matter. I don’t doubt that people like Weinstein or Polanski think they’re good people because they’ve always backed what they see as noble causes.
Of course, you can find it among their opponents. Some of the wickedest people that you’ll ever encounter are found among social conservatives who call themselves devoutly religious.
What I admire is the historic nonconformist (especially Quaker) belief that good work and good works are one and the same. You treat staff, customers, creditors fairly, and you don’t brag about it.
Exactly so. The Quakers got it right.
Yes. Related to which, there were historically a lot of lesbians who became quakers - like my first cousin once removed. Not because they made a big sing and dance about being pro-lesbian, but because they were genuinely welcoming and inclusive. I rather liked them when I came across tgem.
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
There are two problems:-
1. It’s performative.
2. Antnomianism. The belief that “to the pure all things are pure.” If your beliefs are pure, your conduct really does not matter. I don’t doubt that people like Weinstein or Polanski think they’re good people because they’ve always backed what they see as noble causes.
Of course, you can find it among their opponents. Some of the wickedest people that you’ll ever encounter are found among social conservatives who call themselves devoutly religious.
What I admire is the historic nonconformist (especially Quaker) belief that good work and good works are one and the same. You treat staff, customers, creditors fairly, and you don’t brag about it.
Exactly so. The Quakers got it right.
Yes. Related to which, there were historically a lot of lesbians who became quakers - like my first cousin once removed. Not because they made a big sing and dance about being pro-lesbian, but because they were genuinely welcoming and inclusive. I rather liked them when I came across tgem.
Quakers tend to be nice people, one of the few religous folk I actually like
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
There are two problems:-
1. It’s performative.
2. Antnomianism. The belief that “to the pure all things are pure.” If your beliefs are pure, your conduct really does not matter. I don’t doubt that people like Weinstein or Polanski think they’re good people because they’ve always backed what they see as noble causes.
Of course, you can find it among their opponents. Some of the wickedest people that you’ll ever encounter are found among social conservatives who call themselves devoutly religious.
What I admire is the historic nonconformist (especially Quaker) belief that good work and good works are one and the same. You treat staff, customers, creditors fairly, and you don’t brag about it.
Exactly so. The Quakers got it right.
What gives Quakers their special characteristic: Everyone approves of them and admires them and thinks they ought to keep up the good work, but no-one wants to be one or join them?
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
I would say the precise opposite.
That's because you're an idiot when it comes to this subject.
Get this through your head: Wokery is a problem, not an answer.
Wokery by and large is a confected construct in the minds of peculiar people. Most of us you are accusing of wokery don't even understand what you are banging on about.
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
I would say the precise opposite.
That's because you're an idiot when it comes to this subject.
Get this through your head: Wokery is a problem, not an answer.
I think you are too strong on this Casino. Much wokery is simply treating people with respect, acknowledging how they see themselves and being polite.
In law there is a good metaphor of personal bar being a shield and not a sword. In short it can stop you or someone else doing things but it can’t give you positive results. Wokery is the same. Where it is a shield it is no more than good manners. When it’s used as a sword it’s more problematic.
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
There are two problems:-
1. It’s performative.
2. Antnomianism. The belief that “to the pure all things are pure.” If your beliefs are pure, your conduct really does not matter. I don’t doubt that people like Weinstein or Polanski think they’re good people because they’ve always backed what they see as noble causes.
Of course, you can find it among their opponents. Some of the wickedest people that you’ll ever encounter are found among social conservatives who call themselves devoutly religious.
What I admire is the historic nonconformist (especially Quaker) belief that good work and good works are one and the same. You treat staff, customers, creditors fairly, and you don’t brag about it.
Exactly so. The Quakers got it right.
What gives Quakers their special characteristic: Everyone approves of them and admires them and thinks they ought to keep up the good work, but no-one wants to be one or join them?
From my point of view its because they don't want to force you to believe anything. They are merely accepting of your beliefs even if they run counter to their own
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
I don't believe anyone on this board is trying to diminish the wickedness of abusers who happen to be of a specific racial origin. I don't believe anyone on here is absolving Labour Councillors if they turned a blind eye to this abuse on the grounds of creed or race. You yourself have highlighted the people involved as a "minority" of the stated group.
On the other hand a particular politician is being called out for politicising the criminality by taxi drivers in Rochdale and Rotherham for her own ends. That is perhaps as worrying and as outrageous as those Labour Councillors who turned a blind eye in the first place.
We can certainly agree it shouldn't be politicized. However can I ask what you do when a particular community has an issue. To raise that is politicising it and it doesn't matter if that community is white, black asian or martian.
An example of this is for example knife crime....in london the main perpertrators were black, in scotland they were white from a certain demographic....stop and search in scotland wasn't an issue, in london it was. That was purely on the racial aspect.
Now do I think black people are inherently bad, no absolutely not. However if in an area 80% of white people are carrying and 10% of black people are and the mix of the area is 20% white and 80% black then I would fully expect that about 80% of white people in that area had been stop and searched for weapons
You could link your assertion to all sorts of other common denominators, for example, poverty, access to education, a whole range of issues, but you have chosen to focus on race. That is entirely your prerogative.
The Home Secretary on the other hand, who has up to the minute data available to her, has chosen to mischievously ignore issues other than the racial origin of a notorious group of criminals. She has followed this path because she believes it is politically expedient so to do.
You do know I am not a tory supporter and have no problem agreeing the home secretary is dubious?
No, I assumed you were an enthusiast.
I didnt vote tory in 2015, 2017 nor 2019.....I didn't vote in fact for anyone because I only had lab ld and tory to vote for and they are all shite equally nor would I have voted ukip or bnp or refuk if they were standing
It’s perfectly reasonable to be against all the choices on offer.
I’m curious as to what you would vote for. What for instance would be the key principles of a Pagan2 Party?
Reform UK are averaging about 6% in the polls but it looks like they've abysmally failed to put up more than a handful of candidates at the local elections in May. More good news for Sunak.
There are as many Heritage Party candidates round here as Reform candidates - Heritage being a splinter group who didn't think UKIP were frothing enough.
Quite splendidly they decided their inaugural campaigning expedition would be in our little Cotswold town (which is assertively small-L and big-L liberal) on Farmers' Market day. This is roughly comparable to the Green Party trying to leaflet Jaywick.
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
I don't believe anyone on this board is trying to diminish the wickedness of abusers who happen to be of a specific racial origin. I don't believe anyone on here is absolving Labour Councillors if they turned a blind eye to this abuse on the grounds of creed or race. You yourself have highlighted the people involved as a "minority" of the stated group.
On the other hand a particular politician is being called out for politicising the criminality by taxi drivers in Rochdale and Rotherham for her own ends. That is perhaps as worrying and as outrageous as those Labour Councillors who turned a blind eye in the first place.
We can certainly agree it shouldn't be politicized. However can I ask what you do when a particular community has an issue. To raise that is politicising it and it doesn't matter if that community is white, black asian or martian.
An example of this is for example knife crime....in london the main perpertrators were black, in scotland they were white from a certain demographic....stop and search in scotland wasn't an issue, in london it was. That was purely on the racial aspect.
Now do I think black people are inherently bad, no absolutely not. However if in an area 80% of white people are carrying and 10% of black people are and the mix of the area is 20% white and 80% black then I would fully expect that about 80% of white people in that area had been stop and searched for weapons
You could link your assertion to all sorts of other common denominators, for example, poverty, access to education, a whole range of issues, but you have chosen to focus on race. That is entirely your prerogative.
The Home Secretary on the other hand, who has up to the minute data available to her, has chosen to mischievously ignore issues other than the racial origin of a notorious group of criminals. She has followed this path because she believes it is politically expedient so to do.
It would be very odd in the case of Rotherham or Rochdale or Telford or Oxford to conclude that the main factor was poverty or access to education.
Fair enough, pick some other common denominator like taxi driver, evil sexual predator. or entitled male.
Meanwhile, another Pakistani men paedophile ring has been jailed. Thank goodness the Home Secretary has spoken out calling for more action, otherwise of these Pakistani men will be at it.
Not just the home secretary, pbs finest protectors of vulnerable young girls have been posting furiously about this scandal all day. Just with invisible ink.
The grooming gangs debate is one I avoid. It always boils down to left or right trading blows about the ethnicity of the perpetrators.
The victims seem incidental, sadly.
The actual facts are
- the majority of such gangs are non-Asian. Which isn't surprising given the relative population sizes. - a *section* of the Pakistani community is over-represented in the offenders who go to trial, compared to the size of their community in the population. - this section of the Pakistani community would be called Gammon etc, if they were white, by some here.
I'm not saying any of that is wrong, but you might also have added that we have no good statistics on which to base such conclusions.
Not least because cases which actually come to court are probably the tip of the iceberg.
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
There are two problems:-
1. It’s performative.
2. Antnomianism. The belief that “to the pure all things are pure.” If your beliefs are pure, your conduct really does not matter. I don’t doubt that people like Weinstein or Polanski think they’re good people because they’ve always backed what they see as noble causes.
Of course, you can find it among their opponents. Some of the wickedest people that you’ll ever encounter are found among social conservatives who call themselves devoutly religious.
What I admire is the historic nonconformist (especially Quaker) belief that good work and good works are one and the same. You treat staff, customers, creditors fairly, and you don’t brag about it.
Exactly so. The Quakers got it right.
What gives Quakers their special characteristic: Everyone approves of them and admires them and thinks they ought to keep up the good work, but no-one wants to be one or join them?
On the contrary. They are extremely annoying people. A particular pain in 1890-1920 or so, with their pacifism and their pointing out certain facts about British-built concentration camps* in South Africa and the Boer lands.
*The name used at the time. And the death rate, particularly for children, was hideous because of the conditions.
Good for the Society of Friends.
I don't suppose CR is a ban the bomber? But that is what many Quakers are. And when it comes to social justice ...
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
There are two problems:-
1. It’s performative.
2. Antnomianism. The belief that “to the pure all things are pure.” If your beliefs are pure, your conduct really does not matter. I don’t doubt that people like Weinstein or Polanski think they’re good people because they’ve always backed what they see as noble causes.
Of course, you can find it among their opponents. Some of the wickedest people that you’ll ever encounter are found among social conservatives who call themselves devoutly religious.
What I admire is the historic nonconformist (especially Quaker) belief that good work and good works are one and the same. You treat staff, customers, creditors fairly, and you don’t brag about it.
Exactly so. The Quakers got it right.
What gives Quakers their special characteristic: Everyone approves of them and admires them and thinks they ought to keep up the good work, but no-one wants to be one or join them?
Kind of interesting considering how even for a religiously febrile time many were really outraged by the early Quakers to the point that despite rapid early growth I'm almost surprised they managed to keep going.
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
I would say the precise opposite.
That's because you're an idiot when it comes to this subject.
Get this through your head: Wokery is a problem, not an answer.
Wokery by and large is a confected construct in the minds of peculiar people. Most of us you are accusing of wokery don't even understand what you are banging on about.
Wokeness is a bit like pornography, slightly hard to define - and that definition varies from person to person - but you certainly know it when you see it. And it definitely exists
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
I would say the precise opposite.
That's because you're an idiot when it comes to this subject.
Get this through your head: Wokery is a problem, not an answer.
Wokery by and large is a confected construct in the minds of peculiar people. Most of us you are accusing of wokery don't even understand what you are banging on about.
Wokeness is a bit like pornography, slightly hard to define - and that definition varies from person to person - but you certainly know it when you see it. And it definitely exists
Shout out for Sputini in Gordon Street in Glasgow. What a meal. Fantastic. But that gym work didn’t go far. If anyone is looking for an outstanding Italian in Glasgow come here.
Thank you for the recommendation, @DavidL. Will bear it in mind.
FPT: For some years I have been worrying about the conflicts of interest often found in two-career political families. For example, when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, I thought that the Clinton Foundation should have stopped taking contributions from other nations. (Spoiler: They didn't.)
Many of our rules were made assuming just one bread winner. (Usually a man, but sometimes a widow, or a woman who has always been single.)
It looks as if the little problem you are having in Scotland may be -- among other things -- another example of that problem.
(And no, I don't have any simple solution to the problem.)
It seems simple enough - the couple in question needs to decide who and what to prioritise, if in positions which could lead to conflicts, rather than just brazen it out on the basis that they are different and it doesn't matter.
Trump seems to have been able to run into massive conflicts of interest, all by himself.
Kushner (a member of Trump's administration, remember) getting $5bn or so from Saudi Arabia is an outstanding example.
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
I would say the precise opposite.
That's because you're an idiot when it comes to this subject.
Get this through your head: Wokery is a problem, not an answer.
I think you are too strong on this Casino. Much wokery is simply treating people with respect, acknowledging how they see themselves and being polite.
In law there is a good metaphor of personal bar being a shield and not a sword. In short it can stop you or someone else doing things but it can’t give you positive results. Wokery is the same. Where it is a shield it is no more than good manners. When it’s used as a sword it’s more problematic.
But it’s not just wrong.
Respecting peoples view of themselves is good, I have trans friends I am happy to call them her or him or it depending on their preference and yes sometimes I make mistakes because I knew them for a long time as something else and from experience if you are trying and make a mistake from time to time no big deal. That is a woke I can get behind.
A woke I won't support however is one where vulnerable people, mainly women get exposed to people who use it to access them. Those of my two friends who are mtf I would probably trust in a womens prison. They went through the old style grc and are on hormones. Someone going to jail and decides they are suddenly female certainly not. As I have said before if I was facing a prison term I would self identify because a womens prison will probably be nicer for me
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
There are two problems:-
1. It’s performative.
2. Antnomianism. The belief that “to the pure all things are pure.” If your beliefs are pure, your conduct really does not matter. I don’t doubt that people like Weinstein or Polanski think they’re good people because they’ve always backed what they see as noble causes.
Of course, you can find it among their opponents. Some of the wickedest people that you’ll ever encounter are found among social conservatives who call themselves devoutly religious.
What I admire is the historic nonconformist (especially Quaker) belief that good work and good works are one and the same. You treat staff, customers, creditors fairly, and you don’t brag about it.
Exactly so. The Quakers got it right.
What gives Quakers their special characteristic: Everyone approves of them and admires them and thinks they ought to keep up the good work, but no-one wants to be one or join them?
Kind of interesting considering how even for a religiously febrile time many were really outraged by the early Quakers to the point that despite rapid early growth I'm almost surprised they managed to keep going.
Been to pay homage to George Fox's cell at Scarborough Castle. He was such a PITA they banged him up.
And as a bonus there were bee orchids in the grass outside!
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
I would say the precise opposite.
That's because you're an idiot when it comes to this subject.
Get this through your head: Wokery is a problem, not an answer.
I think Foxy is right in some ways. If you think about a problem like sexual harrassment it is only 'wokery' that has really burst the dam, because no longer can people hide behind the 'its not a crime and your allegations are defamatory' thing. In a lot of ways the cultural change is broadly positive, even though it creates some unfair outcomes, some very unjustified cancellations etc. Clearly there are massive problems with 'woke' ideology, but a lot of people have no understanding of that, even highly educated people, as is evidenced by the discussion on here.
I think the problem with critics of 'wokery' is that in a lot of ways they are engaged in a hopeless attempt to try and turn back the clock to a situation that was flawed anyway. I don't think it can work. It is better to try and think about what a 'post woke' situation should look like.
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
I don't believe anyone on this board is trying to diminish the wickedness of abusers who happen to be of a specific racial origin. I don't believe anyone on here is absolving Labour Councillors if they turned a blind eye to this abuse on the grounds of creed or race. You yourself have highlighted the people involved as a "minority" of the stated group.
On the other hand a particular politician is being called out for politicising the criminality by taxi drivers in Rochdale and Rotherham for her own ends. That is perhaps as worrying and as outrageous as those Labour Councillors who turned a blind eye in the first place.
We can certainly agree it shouldn't be politicized. However can I ask what you do when a particular community has an issue. To raise that is politicising it and it doesn't matter if that community is white, black asian or martian.
An example of this is for example knife crime....in london the main perpertrators were black, in scotland they were white from a certain demographic....stop and search in scotland wasn't an issue, in london it was. That was purely on the racial aspect.
Now do I think black people are inherently bad, no absolutely not. However if in an area 80% of white people are carrying and 10% of black people are and the mix of the area is 20% white and 80% black then I would fully expect that about 80% of white people in that area had been stop and searched for weapons
You could link your assertion to all sorts of other common denominators, for example, poverty, access to education, a whole range of issues, but you have chosen to focus on race. That is entirely your prerogative.
The Home Secretary on the other hand, who has up to the minute data available to her, has chosen to mischievously ignore issues other than the racial origin of a notorious group of criminals. She has followed this path because she believes it is politically expedient so to do.
You do know I am not a tory supporter and have no problem agreeing the home secretary is dubious?
No, I assumed you were an enthusiast.
I didnt vote tory in 2015, 2017 nor 2019.....I didn't vote in fact for anyone because I only had lab ld and tory to vote for and they are all shite equally nor would I have voted ukip or bnp or refuk if they were standing
It’s perfectly reasonable to be against all the choices on offer.
I’m curious as to what you would vote for. What for instance would be the key principles of a Pagan2 Party?
I did a thread header did you miss it? just in case pm'ing you the link
Good evening, another day, another day of SKS being utterly useless.
Mods I don't like calling for action and in fact I think this is the first time ever. This poster is either a former poster given the name similarity or someone masquerading as him
I think you really need to clarify because if this is not the original poster then its an attempt at vilifying him. If it is the original poster then this pretence is causing more harm than good
Of course you do.
If what you say is true, and this poster has another identity, so what? Why are you not calling out other posters who occasionally have a three way conversation with their alter egos?
I am specifically calling it for horse_b only for the following reasons
1) I am not sure if its an incarnation of CHB3 and if it is why is he posting the opposite of his usual
2) If its not an incarnation of CHB3 then a lot of people are assuming it is and thinking he has lost the plot. If I got banned and someone became pagan3 that was not me and started posting stuff that was the opposite I would hope someone would ask for clarity.
My problem is purely the name implies it is an incarnation of a banned poster and many are assuming it is. If the name was not implying so I would have no issue. If horse_b is indeed not CHB3 then he needs to be defended imo and this is coming from someone that doesn't really like him. Does that make it clear?
We all know it's him.
He's experimenting with a different method and trying to get as much attention as possible, as usual.
Good evening, another day, another day of SKS being utterly useless.
Mods I don't like calling for action and in fact I think this is the first time ever. This poster is either a former poster given the name similarity or someone masquerading as him
I think you really need to clarify because if this is not the original poster then its an attempt at vilifying him. If it is the original poster then this pretence is causing more harm than good
Of course you do.
If what you say is true, and this poster has another identity, so what? Why are you not calling out other posters who occasionally have a three way conversation with their alter egos?
I am specifically calling it for horse_b only for the following reasons
1) I am not sure if its an incarnation of CHB3 and if it is why is he posting the opposite of his usual
2) If its not an incarnation of CHB3 then a lot of people are assuming it is and thinking he has lost the plot. If I got banned and someone became pagan3 that was not me and started posting stuff that was the opposite I would hope someone would ask for clarity.
My problem is purely the name implies it is an incarnation of a banned poster and many are assuming it is. If the name was not implying so I would have no issue. If horse_b is indeed not CHB3 then he needs to be defended imo and this is coming from someone that doesn't really like him. Does that make it clear?
We all know it's him.
He's experimenting with a different method and trying to get as much attention as possible, as usual.
But it might not be is my point maybe its just someone that dislikes him. I don't know for sure either way
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
I would say the precise opposite.
That's because you're an idiot when it comes to this subject.
Get this through your head: Wokery is a problem, not an answer.
Wokery by and large is a confected construct in the minds of peculiar people. Most of us you are accusing of wokery don't even understand what you are banging on about.
Wokeness is a bit like pornography, slightly hard to define - and that definition varies from person to person - but you certainly know it when you see it. And it definitely exists
A nice analogy and analysis.
I hope you don't mind, but I also had you in mind when I wrote the first sentence in my post
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
The issue is that this is the only thing the government focuses on when protecting vulnerable children. It is a small percent of the answer and they say and do nothing to fix the rest.
Why are they so fixated on this issue? It is not because of protecting children or else they would have taken other steps including providing much better funding a decade since the Jay report.
Estimates of the numbers of victims of “Asian grooming” go from the high tens of thousands to one million. Literally one million
The idea this is a really small subset of a much bigger problem is odd, in that light
Well if it is a million, which it clearly isn't, then it is surely even worse that the government are not allocating resources to tackle the issue? Is it not?
It’s not me coming up with the “1 million” number. It’s the, er, MP for Rotherham. The LABOUR MP. Sarah Champion
EXCLUSIVE: Child sex abuse gangs could have assaulted ONE MILLION youngsters in the UK Rotherham’s Labour MP Sarah Champion describes it as a “national disaster” and is demanding a taskforce to fight the “horror"
It doesn't matter where the claim originates, it is clearly not accurate. However, care to answer my question - if it really was a million children, does not that make it worse that the government are only tackling this with hot air rather than real resources in social care, policing and courts?
As to your last point, I agree entirely. Failing to provide an adequate criminal justice system, is a massive dereliction of duty.
Now that applies also to Labour (and the record of some Labour councillors in relation to child
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
Because if you link rape to Pakistani men the 99.9% of Pakistani men who would never commit a rape are offended. It tars the innocent with the same brush and it is therefore grossly offensive.
I heard something on the radio about a fraudster in Ireland who was called 'Israel' and it was assumed he was Jewish. They had the head of the Jewish community in Ireland saying how offensive such a trope was. And that was a single fraudster. Well the villification of Pakistani Muslim men goes way beyond that
What are you talking about. So far as I am aware people having merely being pointing out a fact, that various grooming gangs have been exclusively (or almost) made up of Pakistani men. Is it wrong to say that?
I ignore Roger on anything to do with rape, he has defended polanksi and tried to imply people are judging after the rape in scotland got only a 7 week community service penalty. Roger thinks women get what they deserve from what I can see
Do we believe this, given she departed 20 minutes before the police arrived?
"Ms Sturgeon said she had "no prior knowledge" of Police Scotland's plans."
Strangely, not everyone spends all of their life indoors. Many people leave their house at various times for perfectly legitimate reasons.
I will criticise Sturgeon as freely as the next person,* but we will need a lot more than 'she didn't happen to be in when the police came calling without a prior appointment' before we assume an illegal tip-off.
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
There are two problems:-
1. It’s performative.
2. Antnomianism. The belief that “to the pure all things are pure.” If your beliefs are pure, your conduct really does not matter. I don’t doubt that people like Weinstein or Polanski think they’re good people because they’ve always backed what they see as noble causes.
Of course, you can find it among their opponents. Some of the wickedest people that you’ll ever encounter are found among social conservatives who call themselves devoutly religious.
What I admire is the historic nonconformist (especially Quaker) belief that good work and good works are one and the same. You treat staff, customers, creditors fairly, and you don’t brag about it.
Exactly so. The Quakers got it right.
What gives Quakers their special characteristic: Everyone approves of them and admires them and thinks they ought to keep up the good work, but no-one wants to be one or join them?
On the contrary. They are extremely annoying people. A particular pain in 1890-1920 or so, with their pacifism and their pointing out certain facts about British-built concentration camps* in South Africa and the Boer lands.
*The name used at the time. And the death rate, particularly for children, was hideous because of the conditions.
Good for the Society of Friends.
I don't suppose CR is a ban the bomber? But that is what many Quakers are. And when it comes to social justice ...
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
I would say the precise opposite.
That's because you're an idiot when it comes to this subject.
Get this through your head: Wokery is a problem, not an answer.
I think Foxy is right in some ways. If you think about a problem like sexual harrassment it is only 'wokery' that has really burst the dam, because no longer can people hide behind the 'its not a crime and your allegations are defamatory' thing. In a lot of ways the cultural change is broadly positive, even though it creates some unfair outcomes, some very unjustified cancellations etc. Clearly there are massive problems with 'woke' ideology, but a lot of people have no understanding of that, even highly educated people, as is evidenced by the discussion on here.
I think the problem with critics of 'wokery' is that in a lot of ways they are engaged in a hopeless attempt to try and turn back the clock to a situation that was flawed anyway. I don't think it can work. It is better to try and think about what a 'post woke' situation should look like.
I try to avoid using the word as there is no agreed definition of what it means. I'll be blunt. Much of my opposition to modern social justice movements is rooted in intellectual snobbery. They just don't seem to have anything much to say beyond chanting a mantra and being dismissive of anyone who takes a different view to their cultural (not material) egalitarianism.
That said...... if you take Weinstein, clearly there has been some positive change from their tactics of agitation. A bit like a trade union in a way. And it's not that I don't care about social justice. I just cannot understand why people would want to direct their energies at statues of people who've been dead for centuries.
As an antidote, there are kids who survive abuse and end up fine
An acquaintance of mine was abused by her grandfather for years. She is now happily married with her own kids and no apparent issues. It happens. People survive
Yes, some people are very resilient.
On the other hand, for a lot it ruins their life. When I was doing psychiatry I was told to ask every patient about sexual abuse. I was surprised by how often the answer came back that they had been abused, mostly by family members. Even depressed people in their sixties, and often it was the first time that anyone had asked them.
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
I don't believe anyone on this board is trying to diminish the wickedness of abusers who happen to be of a specific racial origin. I don't believe anyone on here is absolving Labour Councillors if they turned a blind eye to this abuse on the grounds of creed or race. You yourself have highlighted the people involved as a "minority" of the stated group.
On the other hand a particular politician is being called out for politicising the criminality by taxi drivers in Rochdale and Rotherham for her own ends. That is perhaps as worrying and as outrageous as those Labour Councillors who turned a blind eye in the first place.
We can certainly agree it shouldn't be politicized. However can I ask what you do when a particular community has an issue. To raise that is politicising it and it doesn't matter if that community is white, black asian or martian.
An example of this is for example knife crime....in london the main perpertrators were black, in scotland they were white from a certain demographic....stop and search in scotland wasn't an issue, in london it was. That was purely on the racial aspect.
Now do I think black people are inherently bad, no absolutely not. However if in an area 80% of white people are carrying and 10% of black people are and the mix of the area is 20% white and 80% black then I would fully expect that about 80% of white people in that area had been stop and searched for weapons
You could link your assertion to all sorts of other common denominators, for example, poverty, access to education, a whole range of issues, but you have chosen to focus on race. That is entirely your prerogative.
The Home Secretary on the other hand, who has up to the minute data available to her, has chosen to mischievously ignore issues other than the racial origin of a notorious group of criminals. She has followed this path because she believes it is politically expedient so to do.
You do know I am not a tory supporter and have no problem agreeing the home secretary is dubious?
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
There are two problems:-
1. It’s performative.
2. Antnomianism. The belief that “to the pure all things are pure.” If your beliefs are pure, your conduct really does not matter. I don’t doubt that people like Weinstein or Polanski think they’re good people because they’ve always backed what they see as noble causes.
Of course, you can find it among their opponents. Some of the wickedest people that you’ll ever encounter are found among social conservatives who call themselves devoutly religious.
What I admire is the historic nonconformist (especially Quaker) belief that good work and good works are one and the same. You treat staff, customers, creditors fairly, and you don’t brag about it.
Exactly so. The Quakers got it right.
What gives Quakers their special characteristic: Everyone approves of them and admires them and thinks they ought to keep up the good work, but no-one wants to be one or join them?
On the contrary. They are extremely annoying people. A particular pain in 1890-1920 or so, with their pacifism and their pointing out certain facts about British-built concentration camps* in South Africa and the Boer lands.
*The name used at the time. And the death rate, particularly for children, was hideous because of the conditions.
Good for the Society of Friends.
I don't suppose CR is a ban the bomber? But that is what many Quakers are. And when it comes to social justice ...
Good evening, another day, another day of SKS being utterly useless.
Mods I don't like calling for action and in fact I think this is the first time ever. This poster is either a former poster given the name similarity or someone masquerading as him
I think you really need to clarify because if this is not the original poster then its an attempt at vilifying him. If it is the original poster then this pretence is causing more harm than good
Of course you do.
If what you say is true, and this poster has another identity, so what? Why are you not calling out other posters who occasionally have a three way conversation with their alter egos?
I am specifically calling it for horse_b only for the following reasons
1) I am not sure if its an incarnation of CHB3 and if it is why is he posting the opposite of his usual
2) If its not an incarnation of CHB3 then a lot of people are assuming it is and thinking he has lost the plot. If I got banned and someone became pagan3 that was not me and started posting stuff that was the opposite I would hope someone would ask for clarity.
My problem is purely the name implies it is an incarnation of a banned poster and many are assuming it is. If the name was not implying so I would have no issue. If horse_b is indeed not CHB3 then he needs to be defended imo and this is coming from someone that doesn't really like him. Does that make it clear?
I agree. If this is CHB4 and he's had a pro-Tory epiphany, that's fine. But it sounds way more like someone is trolling with a Horse-shaped sock puppet. Which if true is not funny.
Good evening, another day, another day of SKS being utterly useless.
Mods I don't like calling for action and in fact I think this is the first time ever. This poster is either a former poster given the name similarity or someone masquerading as him
I think you really need to clarify because if this is not the original poster then its an attempt at vilifying him. If it is the original poster then this pretence is causing more harm than good
Of course you do.
If what you say is true, and this poster has another identity, so what? Why are you not calling out other posters who occasionally have a three way conversation with their alter egos?
I am specifically calling it for horse_b only for the following reasons
1) I am not sure if its an incarnation of CHB3 and if it is why is he posting the opposite of his usual
2) If its not an incarnation of CHB3 then a lot of people are assuming it is and thinking he has lost the plot. If I got banned and someone became pagan3 that was not me and started posting stuff that was the opposite I would hope someone would ask for clarity.
My problem is purely the name implies it is an incarnation of a banned poster and many are assuming it is. If the name was not implying so I would have no issue. If horse_b is indeed not CHB3 then he needs to be defended imo and this is coming from someone that doesn't really like him. Does that make it clear?
We all know it's him.
He's experimenting with a different method and trying to get as much attention as possible, as usual.
But it might not be is my point maybe its just someone that dislikes him. I don't know for sure either way
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
I don't believe anyone on this board is trying to diminish the wickedness of abusers who happen to be of a specific racial origin. I don't believe anyone on here is absolving Labour Councillors if they turned a blind eye to this abuse on the grounds of creed or race. You yourself have highlighted the people involved as a "minority" of the stated group.
On the other hand a particular politician is being called out for politicising the criminality by taxi drivers in Rochdale and Rotherham for her own ends. That is perhaps as worrying and as outrageous as those Labour Councillors who turned a blind eye in the first place.
We can certainly agree it shouldn't be politicized. However can I ask what you do when a particular community has an issue. To raise that is politicising it and it doesn't matter if that community is white, black asian or martian.
An example of this is for example knife crime....in london the main perpertrators were black, in scotland they were white from a certain demographic....stop and search in scotland wasn't an issue, in london it was. That was purely on the racial aspect.
Now do I think black people are inherently bad, no absolutely not. However if in an area 80% of white people are carrying and 10% of black people are and the mix of the area is 20% white and 80% black then I would fully expect that about 80% of white people in that area had been stop and searched for weapons
You could link your assertion to all sorts of other common denominators, for example, poverty, access to education, a whole range of issues, but you have chosen to focus on race. That is entirely your prerogative.
The Home Secretary on the other hand, who has up to the minute data available to her, has chosen to mischievously ignore issues other than the racial origin of a notorious group of criminals. She has followed this path because she believes it is politically expedient so to do.
You do know I am not a tory supporter and have no problem agreeing the home secretary is dubious?
I like you a lot better now than I thought I did!
Well I have pointed out on numerous occasions I am not a tory by any means....ideologies are a means to an end in my view
The end we all agree on is a better life for everyone.....we merely disagree how to get there
Good evening, another day, another day of SKS being utterly useless.
Mods I don't like calling for action and in fact I think this is the first time ever. This poster is either a former poster given the name similarity or someone masquerading as him
I think you really need to clarify because if this is not the original poster then its an attempt at vilifying him. If it is the original poster then this pretence is causing more harm than good
Of course you do.
If what you say is true, and this poster has another identity, so what? Why are you not calling out other posters who occasionally have a three way conversation with their alter egos?
You’re never alone with schizophrenia.
Does schizophrenia encompass up to half a dozen different identities?
The coppers apparently knocked on the sturgeons door at 7.30am. So it really was pretty much a dawn raid. Nicola was there. She left at 8.30am
The optics are spectacularly bad
For who? I'm not sure. The whole CSI thing, with the forensic tents etc, seems to be a bit weird for a long running fraud case. I just wonder if it will be the police who end up looking stupid, not the SNP.
Good evening, another day, another day of SKS being utterly useless.
Mods I don't like calling for action and in fact I think this is the first time ever. This poster is either a former poster given the name similarity or someone masquerading as him
I think you really need to clarify because if this is not the original poster then its an attempt at vilifying him. If it is the original poster then this pretence is causing more harm than good
Of course you do.
If what you say is true, and this poster has another identity, so what? Why are you not calling out other posters who occasionally have a three way conversation with their alter egos?
I am specifically calling it for horse_b only for the following reasons
1) I am not sure if its an incarnation of CHB3 and if it is why is he posting the opposite of his usual
2) If its not an incarnation of CHB3 then a lot of people are assuming it is and thinking he has lost the plot. If I got banned and someone became pagan3 that was not me and started posting stuff that was the opposite I would hope someone would ask for clarity.
My problem is purely the name implies it is an incarnation of a banned poster and many are assuming it is. If the name was not implying so I would have no issue. If horse_b is indeed not CHB3 then he needs to be defended imo and this is coming from someone that doesn't really like him. Does that make it clear?
I agree. If this is CHB4 and he's had a pro-Tory epiphany, that's fine. But it sounds way more like someone is trolling with a Horse-shaped sock puppet. Which if true is not funny.
If it really is a sock puppet that isnt chb then yes it needs exposing because we all assume its him
The Walsall child sex abuse case is grotesque. It sounds like abuse within families over multiple generations. Like something from darkest Appalachia
It shows the crassness of trying to link rape cases to ethnicity as Sunak and Braverman did yesterday backed up today by a really vile article by Alison Pearson in the Telegraph
Does anyone seriously dispute that most child sex abuse in the U.K. is by whites? Simply by the majority population. But there has been a particular type of crime associated with groups of largely Pakistani origin men. I note that the current case is very different to those cases, being much more family based.
I don’t get why some people find it difficult to accept that there has been, and probably still is, an issue with a minority of Pakistani men. Saying doesn’t mean diminish in any way the horror of all other sexual abuse.
The issue is that this is the only thing the government focuses on when protecting vulnerable children. It is a small percent of the answer and they say and do nothing to fix the rest.
Why are they so fixated on this issue? It is not because of protecting children or else they would have taken other steps including providing much better funding a decade since the Jay report.
Estimates of the numbers of victims of “Asian grooming” go from the high tens of thousands to one million. Literally one million
The idea this is a really small subset of a much bigger problem is odd, in that light
Well if it is a million, which it clearly isn't, then it is surely even worse that the government are not allocating resources to tackle the issue? Is it not?
It’s not me coming up with the “1 million” number. It’s the, er, MP for Rotherham. The LABOUR MP. Sarah Champion
EXCLUSIVE: Child sex abuse gangs could have assaulted ONE MILLION youngsters in the UK Rotherham’s Labour MP Sarah Champion describes it as a “national disaster” and is demanding a taskforce to fight the “horror"
It doesn't matter where the claim originates, it is clearly not accurate. However, care to answer my question - if it really was a million children, does not that make it worse that the government are only tackling this with hot air rather than real resources in social care, policing and courts?
As to your last point, I agree entirely. Failing to provide an adequate criminal justice system, is a massive dereliction of duty.
Now that applies also to Labour (and the record of some Labour councillors in relation to child
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
There are two problems:-
1. It’s performative.
2. Antnomianism. The belief that “to the pure all things are pure.” If your beliefs are pure, your conduct really does not matter. I don’t doubt that people like Weinstein or Polanski think they’re good people because they’ve always backed what they see as noble causes.
Of course, you can find it among their opponents. Some of the wickedest people that you’ll ever encounter are found among social conservatives who call themselves devoutly religious.
What I admire is the historic nonconformist (especially Quaker) belief that good work and good works are one and the same. You treat staff, customers, creditors fairly, and you don’t brag about it.
Exactly so. The Quakers got it right.
What gives Quakers their special characteristic: Everyone approves of them and admires them and thinks they ought to keep up the good work, but no-one wants to be one or join them?
On the contrary. They are extremely annoying people. A particular pain in 1890-1920 or so, with their pacifism and their pointing out certain facts about British-built concentration camps* in South Africa and the Boer lands.
*The name used at the time. And the death rate, particularly for children, was hideous because of the conditions.
Good for the Society of Friends.
I don't suppose CR is a ban the bomber? But that is what many Quakers are. And when it comes to social justice ...
The coppers apparently knocked on the sturgeons door at 7.30am. So it really was pretty much a dawn raid. Nicola was there. She left at 8.30am
The optics are spectacularly bad
For who? I'm not sure. The whole CSI thing, with the forensic tents etc, seems to be a bit weird for a long running fraud case. I just wonder if it will be the police who end up looking stupid, not the SNP.
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
There are two problems:-
1. It’s performative.
2. Antnomianism. The belief that “to the pure all things are pure.” If your beliefs are pure, your conduct really does not matter. I don’t doubt that people like Weinstein or Polanski think they’re good people because they’ve always backed what they see as noble causes.
Of course, you can find it among their opponents. Some of the wickedest people that you’ll ever encounter are found among social conservatives who call themselves devoutly religious.
What I admire is the historic nonconformist (especially Quaker) belief that good work and good works are one and the same. You treat staff, customers, creditors fairly, and you don’t brag about it.
Exactly so. The Quakers got it right.
What gives Quakers their special characteristic: Everyone approves of them and admires them and thinks they ought to keep up the good work, but no-one wants to be one or join them?
Kind of interesting considering how even for a religiously febrile time many were really outraged by the early Quakers to the point that despite rapid early growth I'm almost surprised they managed to keep going.
Been to pay homage to George Fox's cell at Scarborough Castle. He was such a PITA they banged him up.
And as a bonus there were bee orchids in the grass outside!
The coppers apparently knocked on the sturgeons door at 7.30am. So it really was pretty much a dawn raid. Nicola was there. She left at 8.30am
The optics are spectacularly bad
For who? I'm not sure. The whole CSI thing, with the forensic tents etc, seems to be a bit weird for a long running fraud case. I just wonder if it will be the police who end up looking stupid, not the SNP.
Unless we get “police have identified human remains at a location in central Scotland.”
Woke is collapsing in on itself. Simply delightful.
I honestly don't think it is, sadly. Perhaps the cause of woke is advancing less fast. But it's everywhere. I mean, I just looked up from writing this and saw this:
It's the start of a trend. These bullshit flags are everywhere but although people show them no-one really takes them seriously.
It just says, "Oh, look at me! I'm inclusive!"
Doesn't really mean anything.
Serious question. If it doesn't mean anything then why does it bother you? I am certainly no admirer of the current 'woke' debate when it has real world physical consequences in terms of removal of statues or changing books. But when it comes to people putting up flags to show their support for a particular issue - even if it is one I disagree with - then I really don't see why anyone should be hassled by that. Clearly the companies feel there is mileage in doing this and my attitude is good luck to them.
People really do need to stop being offended by stuff so much. And that applies equally to the 'woke' and the 'anti-woke'
People can signal their virtue by displaying a flag (or deliberately not displaying one) or what have, there's no point getting worked up about that. Actual law and policy changes which are harmful or nonsensical should be the focus.
Agreed, but “woke capitalism” is a case of “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.
Giving a few thousand to Stonewall is like buying indulgences.
My experience has been precisely this.
The worst leaders I've worked for in my career have been the most publicly "Wokey", which is one reason I have such contempt for it. I don't respect it.
People think that must mean I'm a secret bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth and then need to see through - and not be taken in - by such shallowness or my contempt will extend to them too.
You get banks with dirty reputations flying rainbow flags, companies that boast of their “ethical credentials” employing children in poor countries, turning a blind eye to sexual harassment, or routing their profits through tax havens..
The worst I know was a truly horrid law firm called MacMillan Williams, which has thankfully gone bankrupt. They were so woke that on their very extensive diversity monitoring forms, they were asking intrusive questions about peoples’ sexual practices.
There are still significant issues with sexism and racism in the NHS, and more to be done, but things are far, far better then they were 3 decades ago.
I agree, and the Wokery has precisely nothing to do with fixing that.
There are two problems:-
1. It’s performative.
2. Antnomianism. The belief that “to the pure all things are pure.” If your beliefs are pure, your conduct really does not matter. I don’t doubt that people like Weinstein or Polanski think they’re good people because they’ve always backed what they see as noble causes.
Of course, you can find it among their opponents. Some of the wickedest people that you’ll ever encounter are found among social conservatives who call themselves devoutly religious.
What I admire is the historic nonconformist (especially Quaker) belief that good work and good works are one and the same. You treat staff, customers, creditors fairly, and you don’t brag about it.
Exactly so. The Quakers got it right.
What gives Quakers their special characteristic: Everyone approves of them and admires them and thinks they ought to keep up the good work, but no-one wants to be one or join them?
The reason is surely that it requires a lot of personal change.
The coppers apparently knocked on the sturgeons door at 7.30am. So it really was pretty much a dawn raid. Nicola was there. She left at 8.30am
The optics are spectacularly bad
For who? I'm not sure. The whole CSI thing, with the forensic tents etc, seems to be a bit weird for a long running fraud case. I just wonder if it will be the police who end up looking stupid, not the SNP.
Meanwhile, another Pakistani men paedophile ring has been jailed. Thank goodness the Home Secretary has spoken out calling for more action, otherwise of these Pakistani men will be at it.
Not just the home secretary, pbs finest protectors of vulnerable young girls have been posting furiously about this scandal all day. Just with invisible ink.
When they all eventually serve their sentences and are released, repatriate them back from whence they came! Er, Walsall...
Meanwhile, another Pakistani men paedophile ring has been jailed. Thank goodness the Home Secretary has spoken out calling for more action, otherwise of these Pakistani men will be at it.
Not just the home secretary, pbs finest protectors of vulnerable young girls have been posting furiously about this scandal all day. Just with invisible ink.
When they all eventually serve their sentences and are released, repatriate them back from whence they came! Er, Walsall...
Isn't this just the flip side though of what you've accused the other side of doing in banging on about the ethnic angle? "Oh look, it's a white gang! Not all British-Pakistanis!". What happened to the kids is secondary.
I’ve just made a similar point. The victims are what should concern us here.
It’s obviously good that, for once, justice has been done.
Yes it is.
Except where it isn't. What happens to the kids in this case? Are they living with other relatives or have they been shunted off into care? ...
At least some are with foster families, since it was reported the offences originally came to light when foster parents were told of the abuse. Beyond that, I think it unlikely that we'll know about and individual victims (and probably rightly so).
The coppers apparently knocked on the sturgeons door at 7.30am. So it really was pretty much a dawn raid. Nicola was there. She left at 8.30am
The optics are spectacularly bad
Without pre-judging, it's sobering to think that if the IndyRef had gone the other way we would have been governed ever since by a troika comprising Salmond, Sturgeon and Murrell.
Comments
All child abuse is bad. We should be tackling all of it. However there are cultures where women, whether white or their own are treated as second class citizens and some but not all use it as justification.
The rotherham reports suggested the gang had processed thousands, this gang affected 12. Both are bad both need dealing with full stop. The police need to take their head out of their arse and investigate all child abuse and no that doesn't mean either taking victims always at face value. Investigate....if there is corroborating evidence pursue it
The former ambassador case, Murray, was problematic case in many respects but what it sent out loud and clear was the courts will not be messed about on this.
Now that applies also to Labour (and the record of some Labour councillors in relation to child protection has been atrocious). Conservatives turn a blind eye because they don’t care, Labour for ideological reasons, but two wrongs don’t make a right.
I think you really need to clarify because if this is not the original poster then its an attempt at vilifying him. If it is the original poster then this pretence is causing more harm than good
Except where it isn't. What happens to the kids in this case? Are they living with other relatives or have they been shunted off into care? Because it is teenagers in care who were preyed upon in Rotherham and similar cases across the country. Out of the frying pan into the fire?
A social worker told me decades ago that what the children want is for mum or dad to keep their hands off, not to disappear. Maybe the police officer speaking today had something similar in mind:-
The children who were abused were in a "much better place at this moment in time", Det Ch Insp Joanne Floyd said. "Their reaction is probably one of stoicism and they take no joy in the experience. There are no winners in the situation and they in no way feel happy or glad," she added.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-65189785
There are no winners in the situation and they in no way feel happy or glad.
As for the truth of her claim, it does seem incredible. And yet she is the Labour MP for Rotherham. What does she have to gain from an outrageous fabrication? Plus she clearly has more insight into this issue than you or I
https://twitter.com/PA/status/1643692422751301632
On the other hand a particular politician is being called out for politicising the criminality by taxi drivers in Rochdale and Rotherham for her own ends. That is perhaps as worrying and as outrageous as those Labour Councillors who turned a blind eye in the first place.
Champions League is looking very much on.
If what you say is true, and this poster has another identity, so what? Why are you not calling out other posters who occasionally have a three way conversation with their alter egos?
An example of this is for example knife crime....in london the main perpertrators were black, in scotland they were white from a certain demographic....stop and search in scotland wasn't an issue, in london it was. That was purely on the racial aspect.
Now do I think black people are inherently bad, no absolutely not. However if in an area 80% of white people are carrying and 10% of black people are and the mix of the area is 20% white and 80% black then I would fully expect that about 80% of white people in that area had been stop and searched for weapons
When the admittedly small Reform UK voting pool has been sampled, fewer than 30% would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate. 15% would vote Labour which is presumably good news for Starmer but more than half wouldn’t vote at all.
In local elections I suspect Independent candidates would be the more likely beneficiaries of an absence of Reform candidates.
An acquaintance of mine was abused by her grandfather for years. She is now happily married with her own kids and no apparent issues. It happens. People survive
1) I am not sure if its an incarnation of CHB3 and if it is why is he posting the opposite of his usual
2) If its not an incarnation of CHB3 then a lot of people are assuming it is and thinking he has lost the plot. If I got banned and someone became pagan3 that was not me and started posting stuff that was the opposite I would hope someone would ask for clarity.
My problem is purely the name implies it is an incarnation of a banned poster and many are assuming it is. If the name was not implying so I would have no issue. If horse_b is indeed not CHB3 then he needs to be defended imo and this is coming from someone that doesn't really like him. Does that make it clear?
Though having said that, I suppose my cats are trans, having all been neutered.
They don't make a fuss about pronouns though and AFAICS seem reasonably happy with the identity nature gave them.
The Home Secretary on the other hand, who has up to the minute data available to her, has chosen to mischievously ignore issues other than the racial origin of a notorious group of criminals. She has followed this path because she believes it is politically expedient so to do.
The Rule: There is no such thing as a good headline containing a modal verb.
Get this through your head: Wokery is a problem, not an answer.
If anyone is looking for an outstanding Italian in Glasgow come here.
I rather liked them when I came across tgem.
In law there is a good metaphor of personal bar being a shield and not a sword. In short it can stop you or someone else doing things but it can’t give you positive results. Wokery is the same. Where it is a shield it is no more than good manners. When it’s used as a sword it’s more problematic.
But it’s not just wrong.
I’m curious as to what you would vote for. What for instance would be the key principles of a Pagan2 Party?
Quite splendidly they decided their inaugural campaigning expedition would be in our little Cotswold town (which is assertively small-L and big-L liberal) on Farmers' Market day. This is roughly comparable to the Green Party trying to leaflet Jaywick.
Not least because cases which actually come to court are probably the tip of the iceberg.
*The name used at the time. And the death rate, particularly for children, was hideous because of the conditions.
Good for the Society of Friends.
I don't suppose CR is a ban the bomber? But that is what many Quakers are. And when it comes to social justice ...
https://www.quaker.org.uk/news-and-events/news/quakers-address-the-monarch-at-buckingham-palace
Braverman moves on to a new constituency, at expense of Drummond.
A woke I won't support however is one where vulnerable people, mainly women get exposed to people who use it to access them. Those of my two friends who are mtf I would probably trust in a womens prison. They went through the old style grc and are on hormones. Someone going to jail and decides they are suddenly female certainly not. As I have said before if I was facing a prison term I would self identify because a womens prison will probably be nicer for me
And as a bonus there were bee orchids in the grass outside!
https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/scarborough-castle/history/
I think the problem with critics of 'wokery' is that in a lot of ways they are engaged in a hopeless attempt to try and turn back the clock to a situation that was flawed anyway. I don't think it can work. It is better to try and think about what a 'post woke' situation should look like.
just in case pm'ing you the link
He's experimenting with a different method and trying to get as much attention as possible, as usual.
"Ms Sturgeon said she had "no prior knowledge" of Police Scotland's plans."
I hope you don't mind, but I also had you in mind when I wrote the first sentence in my post
Now that applies also to Labour (and the record of some Labour councillors in relation to child Roger’s views on this are Neanderthal.
I will criticise Sturgeon as freely as the next person,* but we will need a lot more than 'she didn't happen to be in when the police came calling without a prior appointment' before we assume an illegal tip-off.
*unless the next person is @malcolmg of course.
The optics are spectacularly bad
Sir Richard Body was a Quaker.
That said...... if you take Weinstein, clearly there has been some positive change from their tactics of agitation. A bit like a trade union in a way. And it's not that I don't care about social justice. I just cannot understand why people would want to direct their energies at statues of people who've been dead for centuries.
On the other hand, for a lot it ruins their life. When I was doing psychiatry I was told to ask every patient about sexual abuse. I was surprised by how often the answer came back that they had been abused, mostly by family members. Even depressed people in their sixties, and often it was the first time that anyone had asked them.
The end we all agree on is a better life for everyone.....we merely disagree how to get there
The whole CSI thing, with the forensic tents etc, seems to be a bit weird for a long running fraud case.
I just wonder if it will be the police who end up looking stupid, not the SNP.
Now that applies also to Labour (and the record of some Labour councillors in relation to child He was.
Beyond that, I think it unlikely that we'll know about and individual victims (and probably rightly so).