Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

1…2627293132…69

Comments

  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,398
    ballysmate said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Donating to left wing groups with somewhat questionable records on anti-Semitism just to wind people up has a proud history on this website. I'm glad to see it upheld.

    I notice Pangolin has been online today but hasn't commented. Might suggest he was suckered :)
    Perhaps he has been trying to get his money back?
    :D
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,398
    ballysmate said:

    White lives matter Burnley

    White Lives Don’t Matter. As white lives.


    One of these statements gets you sacked from work, the other is no hindrance to being elevated to professor at Cambridge University.
    Don't scratch your head too much working out which is which. ;)

    Cambridge, you say?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,398
    ballysmate said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    Not that amazing really, tbh.

    At least one poster on here would consider the Social Democrats to be hard care reactionaries.

    "Ironically, whinging about virtue signalling seems to be the fashionable way to show what a hard core reactionary you are, and get some likes from your fellow reactionaries".

    I bet the SDP never thought they would have to wear that label. :D

    I thought the SDP was a sort of convalescent home for former UKIP MEPs. I'd say Patrick O'Flynn fits the description pretty well.
    https://sdp.org.uk/about/

    Yes, they are Eurosceptics, is it this that taints your view? If you are Eurosceptic it must follow that you have to be 'hard core reactionary'?
    Er, no. I just wondered why you plucked them from obscurity to support your point. What next, a link to Gardener's World?
    I used the SDP because they are a pretty much inoffensive bunch and in no way could be described right wing or portrayed as some sort of swivel eyed loons. If I had picked a right wing source, I'm sure you or someone else would've just brandished them fascist.
    Never occurred to me that the views would be rejected just because the source was Eurosceptic.
    Mea culpa. I should've known better.

    What on earth has it got to do with left/right or Euroscepticism?

    I don't understand what that link adds to anything. If you are pointing out that the BLMUK group seem to have some pretty unpleasant and downright stupid ideas, then I'll agree with you there. They seem a pretty suspect bunch and tweeting rubbish about Zionism or how black people should under no circumstances engage or cooperate with the police just makes them look stupid. But so what? There are lots of pressure groups at the edges of larger movements at all points of the political spectrum.
    At last. That is what I've been saying. People have been quite happy to donate to groups with some 'unpleasant and downright stupid ideas' all because of the prefix BLM. They don't all appear to know the causes they are bankrolling when they hand over their cash. Yes, a lot of movements have pressure groups at the edges, but I would prefer that people know how the money they donate is being used. I accept that your view is "So what?" Your prerogative.

    I agreed with Rick's post and in fact quoted that I recognised that there is a distinction between the world wide movement and these 'fringe groups' and have not criticised the world wide movement.

    Part of the SDP article I linked referenced the way no criticism, real or implied of the BLM movement will be tolerated. The response I received for pointing out the 'unpleasant and downright stupid ideas' seems to bear that out.






    I think it is concerning that this one group seems to be piggybacking its other agendas on a larger issue but then that's hardly a pattern we've never seen before. BLMUK have hardly kept quiet about their more extreme views, but it's broken through a bit more now that they have started tweeting about Zionism, That said, it was mentioned on here that they aren't *the* official UK group a couple of weeks back, yet the Spectator article and some of the other reports I have seen describe it as the UK chapter of the movement. From what I can see that is incorrect. This is not a single international organisation. There are many other groups and charities to which people can and have donated, many of which have a far more constructive approach to the problem. Its a shame they haven't had the same publicity. I think it's a mistake to think this one group organised the whole thing.
    The real concern is that criticising anything connected, no matter how tenuously to BLM, brings howls of protest from the people 'on message' and even if the criticism is justified, it can spell death to your career.
    Does it? There's plenty of criticism of the specific BLMUK group from across the political spectrum if you care to look. As for career ending, who's? We've all been discussing it here; have you been sacked? Don't talk such b******s.
    Well there were examples in the SDP article you dismissed due to ex UKIP members having joined.


    One of the great successes of the campaign is how it has got many institutions in our society applying this block themselves, promoting the organisation and even punishing insiders who publicly question and criticise any activities carried out under the BLM branding. Manx Radio suspended presenter Stu Peters for responding to the movement with the phrase ‘all lives matter’ and questioning the idea of ‘white privilege’ live on air. Literature Wales removed Western Mail journalist Martin Shipton from the Wales Book of the Year judging panel for comments criticising BLM on social distancing. In the mainstream broadcast media, the group has barely been challenged.



    Dig out the actual transcript of what the DJ or journalist said and let's have a look at it rather than taking a third hand report.

    Stevo, you've found the same guy as Bally.
    The transcript of what the radio presenter said is in the BBC link I posted above. Go read, then tell us what crime he committed.
    Come on Stevo, get with the programme. The guy wasn't on message and had to go.
    Terrible thing, this free speech busineess. I'm sure a lot of people are glad it's being put right.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Stevo_666 said:

    ballysmate said:

    White lives matter Burnley

    White Lives Don’t Matter. As white lives.


    One of these statements gets you sacked from work, the other is no hindrance to being elevated to professor at Cambridge University.
    Don't scratch your head too much working out which is which. ;)

    Cambridge, you say?
    Probably just a coincidence. :)
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 9,104
    There's a similar phenomenon with transgender politics - people who dare to suggest that gender is anything to do with biology have been subject to abuse, threats, branded as spreading hate speech and I'm some circumstances put their careers at risk.

    My brother is an academic and a campaigner against this stuff. I remember years ago agreeing with him but thinking it was really just academics arguing with other academics. OK a few speakers were being no platformed at universities but that was about the extent of it. How wrong I was.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    DeVlaeminck said:

    There's a similar phenomenon with transgender politics - people who dare to suggest that gender is anything to do with biology have been subject to abuse, threats, branded as spreading hate speech and I'm some circumstances put their careers at risk.

    My brother is an academic and a campaigner against this stuff. I remember years ago agreeing with him but thinking it was really just academics arguing with other academics. OK a few speakers were being no platformed at universities but that was about the extent of it. How wrong I was.

    If J K Rowling was an unknown writer today, would she stand any chance of getting her books published following her tweets? Not a hope.
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    Blistered my finger liking Stevo and Ballys posts this morning 😀
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Easier ground than making his own enoch powell style pronouncements.

    I think this is unfair, based on yesterday's conversation.
    What did Bally mean by “tensions” created by a show of solidarity against (what they thought at the time was an act of) racism then?
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited June 2020
    DeVlaeminck said:

    There's a similar phenomenon with transgender politics - people who dare to suggest that gender is anything to do with biology have been subject to abuse, threats, branded as spreading hate speech and I'm some circumstances put their careers at risk.

    My brother is an academic and a campaigner against this stuff. I remember years ago agreeing with him but thinking it was really just academics arguing with other academics. OK a few speakers were being no platformed at universities but that was about the extent of it. How wrong I was.

    Sorry who’s getting abuse here?

    The eugenicist who lost his job mainly did so because his work was so badly done he got the academic equivalent of being totally rinsed by hundreds of peers. His work was just shoddy, and plainly done to suit a racist agenda.

    The woman who got promoted a) will have been promoted long before the announcement and long before BLM and b) has had the context of the statement removed and is a lot more sensible if you actually read it.

    Should they have released the promotion statement given the current climate? No.

    Is what she said helpful to coming to a positive end to the debate? Also probably no.

    Your brother will also no doubt be familiar with the inverse correlation between Cambridge academics’ understanding of their topic and their comprehension of what is going outside the university beyond their topic.
    _
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    rick_chasey said:

    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Easier ground than making his own enoch powell style pronouncements.

    I think this is unfair, based on yesterday's conversation.
    What did Bally mean by “tensions” created by a show of solidarity against (what they thought at the time was an act of) racism then?
    Bally was referring to the tensions created by publicising an act of racism that did not happen. I thought that was pretty clear tbh.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    ballysmate said:

    rick_chasey said:

    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Easier ground than making his own enoch powell style pronouncements.

    I think this is unfair, based on yesterday's conversation.
    What did Bally mean by “tensions” created by a show of solidarity against (what they thought at the time was an act of) racism then?
    Bally was referring to the tensions created by publicising an act of racism that did not happen. I thought that was pretty clear tbh.
    Surely showing solidarity against racism is good, regardless. It plainly wasn’t just about the noose, was it?

    _
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    Not that amazing really, tbh.

    At least one poster on here would consider the Social Democrats to be hard care reactionaries.

    "Ironically, whinging about virtue signalling seems to be the fashionable way to show what a hard core reactionary you are, and get some likes from your fellow reactionaries".

    I bet the SDP never thought they would have to wear that label. :D

    I thought the SDP was a sort of convalescent home for former UKIP MEPs. I'd say Patrick O'Flynn fits the description pretty well.
    https://sdp.org.uk/about/

    Yes, they are Eurosceptics, is it this that taints your view? If you are Eurosceptic it must follow that you have to be 'hard core reactionary'?
    Er, no. I just wondered why you plucked them from obscurity to support your point. What next, a link to Gardener's World?
    I used the SDP because they are a pretty much inoffensive bunch and in no way could be described right wing or portrayed as some sort of swivel eyed loons. If I had picked a right wing source, I'm sure you or someone else would've just brandished them fascist.
    Never occurred to me that the views would be rejected just because the source was Eurosceptic.
    Mea culpa. I should've known better.

    What on earth has it got to do with left/right or Euroscepticism?

    I don't understand what that link adds to anything. If you are pointing out that the BLMUK group seem to have some pretty unpleasant and downright stupid ideas, then I'll agree with you there. They seem a pretty suspect bunch and tweeting rubbish about Zionism or how black people should under no circumstances engage or cooperate with the police just makes them look stupid. But so what? There are lots of pressure groups at the edges of larger movements at all points of the political spectrum.
    At last. That is what I've been saying. People have been quite happy to donate to groups with some 'unpleasant and downright stupid ideas' all because of the prefix BLM. They don't all appear to know the causes they are bankrolling when they hand over their cash. Yes, a lot of movements have pressure groups at the edges, but I would prefer that people know how the money they donate is being used. I accept that your view is "So what?" Your prerogative.

    I agreed with Rick's post and in fact quoted that I recognised that there is a distinction between the world wide movement and these 'fringe groups' and have not criticised the world wide movement.

    Part of the SDP article I linked referenced the way no criticism, real or implied of the BLM movement will be tolerated. The response I received for pointing out the 'unpleasant and downright stupid ideas' seems to bear that out.






    I think it is concerning that this one group seems to be piggybacking its other agendas on a larger issue but then that's hardly a pattern we've never seen before. BLMUK have hardly kept quiet about their more extreme views, but it's broken through a bit more now that they have started tweeting about Zionism, That said, it was mentioned on here that they aren't *the* official UK group a couple of weeks back, yet the Spectator article and some of the other reports I have seen describe it as the UK chapter of the movement. From what I can see that is incorrect. This is not a single international organisation. There are many other groups and charities to which people can and have donated, many of which have a far more constructive approach to the problem. Its a shame they haven't had the same publicity. I think it's a mistake to think this one group organised the whole thing.
    The real concern is that criticising anything connected, no matter how tenuously to BLM, brings howls of protest from the people 'on message' and even if the criticism is justified, it can spell death to your career.
    Does it? There's plenty of criticism of the specific BLMUK group from across the political spectrum if you care to look. As for career ending, who's? We've all been discussing it here; have you been sacked? Don't talk such b******s.
    If you don't accept the examples already given on how criticism of BLM can be the death knell to your career, here's another one from a different angle.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8471787/Jameela-Jamil-insists-high-profile-stars-scared-speak-BLM.html

    Apparently, high profile people who support the BLM are afraid to speak out just in case they 'get it wrong' . They want to help but are fearful of being 'cancelled' if they say the wrong thing.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited June 2020
    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    Not that amazing really, tbh.

    At least one poster on here would consider the Social Democrats to be hard care reactionaries.

    "Ironically, whinging about virtue signalling seems to be the fashionable way to show what a hard core reactionary you are, and get some likes from your fellow reactionaries".

    I bet the SDP never thought they would have to wear that label. :D

    I thought the SDP was a sort of convalescent home for former UKIP MEPs. I'd say Patrick O'Flynn fits the description pretty well.
    https://sdp.org.uk/about/

    Yes, they are Eurosceptics, is it this that taints your view? If you are Eurosceptic it must follow that you have to be 'hard core reactionary'?
    Er, no. I just wondered why you plucked them from obscurity to support your point. What next, a link to Gardener's World?
    I used the SDP because they are a pretty much inoffensive bunch and in no way could be described right wing or portrayed as some sort of swivel eyed loons. If I had picked a right wing source, I'm sure you or someone else would've just brandished them fascist.
    Never occurred to me that the views would be rejected just because the source was Eurosceptic.
    Mea culpa. I should've known better.

    What on earth has it got to do with left/right or Euroscepticism?

    I don't understand what that link adds to anything. If you are pointing out that the BLMUK group seem to have some pretty unpleasant and downright stupid ideas, then I'll agree with you there. They seem a pretty suspect bunch and tweeting rubbish about Zionism or how black people should under no circumstances engage or cooperate with the police just makes them look stupid. But so what? There are lots of pressure groups at the edges of larger movements at all points of the political spectrum.
    At last. That is what I've been saying. People have been quite happy to donate to groups with some 'unpleasant and downright stupid ideas' all because of the prefix BLM. They don't all appear to know the causes they are bankrolling when they hand over their cash. Yes, a lot of movements have pressure groups at the edges, but I would prefer that people know how the money they donate is being used. I accept that your view is "So what?" Your prerogative.

    I agreed with Rick's post and in fact quoted that I recognised that there is a distinction between the world wide movement and these 'fringe groups' and have not criticised the world wide movement.

    Part of the SDP article I linked referenced the way no criticism, real or implied of the BLM movement will be tolerated. The response I received for pointing out the 'unpleasant and downright stupid ideas' seems to bear that out.






    I think it is concerning that this one group seems to be piggybacking its other agendas on a larger issue but then that's hardly a pattern we've never seen before. BLMUK have hardly kept quiet about their more extreme views, but it's broken through a bit more now that they have started tweeting about Zionism, That said, it was mentioned on here that they aren't *the* official UK group a couple of weeks back, yet the Spectator article and some of the other reports I have seen describe it as the UK chapter of the movement. From what I can see that is incorrect. This is not a single international organisation. There are many other groups and charities to which people can and have donated, many of which have a far more constructive approach to the problem. Its a shame they haven't had the same publicity. I think it's a mistake to think this one group organised the whole thing.
    The real concern is that criticising anything connected, no matter how tenuously to BLM, brings howls of protest from the people 'on message' and even if the criticism is justified, it can spell death to your career.
    Does it? There's plenty of criticism of the specific BLMUK group from across the political spectrum if you care to look. As for career ending, who's? We've all been discussing it here; have you been sacked? Don't talk such b******s.
    If you don't accept the examples already given on how criticism of BLM can be the death knell to your career, here's another one from a different angle.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8471787/Jameela-Jamil-insists-high-profile-stars-scared-speak-BLM.html

    Apparently, high profile people who support the BLM are afraid to speak out just in case they 'get it wrong' . They want to help but are fearful of being 'cancelled' if they say the wrong thing.
    This is a problem across the spectrum. You think people on the other side of the fence are abuse free?

    I get that this gets to the heart of your objections to political correctness and you resist the contents of it more then you otherwise would as a sort of reflex.

    It happens all over the place however.

    I mean, what do you think black lives matter is actually about?
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    ballysmate said:

    White lives matter Burnley

    White Lives Don’t Matter. As white lives.


    One of these statements gets you sacked from work, the other is no hindrance to being elevated to professor at Cambridge University.
    Don't scratch your head too much working out which is which. ;)

    If either of them had a job as a writer then they deserved to go.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited June 2020
    rick_chasey said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    Not that amazing really, tbh.

    At least one poster on here would consider the Social Democrats to be hard care reactionaries.

    "Ironically, whinging about virtue signalling seems to be the fashionable way to show what a hard core reactionary you are, and get some likes from your fellow reactionaries".

    I bet the SDP never thought they would have to wear that label. :D

    I thought the SDP was a sort of convalescent home for former UKIP MEPs. I'd say Patrick O'Flynn fits the description pretty well.
    https://sdp.org.uk/about/

    Yes, they are Eurosceptics, is it this that taints your view? If you are Eurosceptic it must follow that you have to be 'hard core reactionary'?
    Er, no. I just wondered why you plucked them from obscurity to support your point. What next, a link to Gardener's World?
    I used the SDP because they are a pretty much inoffensive bunch and in no way could be described right wing or portrayed as some sort of swivel eyed loons. If I had picked a right wing source, I'm sure you or someone else would've just brandished them fascist.
    Never occurred to me that the views would be rejected just because the source was Eurosceptic.
    Mea culpa. I should've known better.

    What on earth has it got to do with left/right or Euroscepticism?

    I don't understand what that link adds to anything. If you are pointing out that the BLMUK group seem to have some pretty unpleasant and downright stupid ideas, then I'll agree with you there. They seem a pretty suspect bunch and tweeting rubbish about Zionism or how black people should under no circumstances engage or cooperate with the police just makes them look stupid. But so what? There are lots of pressure groups at the edges of larger movements at all points of the political spectrum.
    At last. That is what I've been saying. People have been quite happy to donate to groups with some 'unpleasant and downright stupid ideas' all because of the prefix BLM. They don't all appear to know the causes they are bankrolling when they hand over their cash. Yes, a lot of movements have pressure groups at the edges, but I would prefer that people know how the money they donate is being used. I accept that your view is "So what?" Your prerogative.

    I agreed with Rick's post and in fact quoted that I recognised that there is a distinction between the world wide movement and these 'fringe groups' and have not criticised the world wide movement.

    Part of the SDP article I linked referenced the way no criticism, real or implied of the BLM movement will be tolerated. The response I received for pointing out the 'unpleasant and downright stupid ideas' seems to bear that out.






    I think it is concerning that this one group seems to be piggybacking its other agendas on a larger issue but then that's hardly a pattern we've never seen before. BLMUK have hardly kept quiet about their more extreme views, but it's broken through a bit more now that they have started tweeting about Zionism, That said, it was mentioned on here that they aren't *the* official UK group a couple of weeks back, yet the Spectator article and some of the other reports I have seen describe it as the UK chapter of the movement. From what I can see that is incorrect. This is not a single international organisation. There are many other groups and charities to which people can and have donated, many of which have a far more constructive approach to the problem. Its a shame they haven't had the same publicity. I think it's a mistake to think this one group organised the whole thing.
    The real concern is that criticising anything connected, no matter how tenuously to BLM, brings howls of protest from the people 'on message' and even if the criticism is justified, it can spell death to your career.
    Does it? There's plenty of criticism of the specific BLMUK group from across the political spectrum if you care to look. As for career ending, who's? We've all been discussing it here; have you been sacked? Don't talk such b******s.
    If you don't accept the examples already given on how criticism of BLM can be the death knell to your career, here's another one from a different angle.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8471787/Jameela-Jamil-insists-high-profile-stars-scared-speak-BLM.html

    Apparently, high profile people who support the BLM are afraid to speak out just in case they 'get it wrong' . They want to help but are fearful of being 'cancelled' if they say the wrong thing.
    This is a problem across the spectrum. You think people on the other side of the fence are abuse free?

    I get that this gets to the heart of your objections to political correctness and you resist the contents of it more then you otherwise would as a sort of reflex.

    It happens all over the place however.

    I mean, what do you think black lives matter is actually about?
    To elaborate on this; the entire political discourse is sides shouting past the other about how awful the other is. Where they have spheres of influence, the fringes abuse the opposition.

    Whether that's female politicians who speak out against Brexit living under constant and regular death threats (which, after Jo Cox, we can probably say carries some level of actual threat), or high profile people declaring that sex is a biological fact.

    Right wing commentators complain of being deplatformed in universities and historians complain of the gov't whitewashing British colonial history in schools?

    It takes different forms because different sides have different spheres of influence, but isn't all the deplatforming etc more a symptom of the problem than the problem itself?

    And wouldn't you say it's a problem across the spectrum?

    I'd even go as far as to say if this political environment continues, where everything is both politicised and polarised, then it's no coincidence the latest generation to grow up in that continue in that vein?
    _
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,725
    ballysmate said:

    rick_chasey said:

    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Easier ground than making his own enoch powell style pronouncements.

    I think this is unfair, based on yesterday's conversation.
    What did Bally mean by “tensions” created by a show of solidarity against (what they thought at the time was an act of) racism then?
    Bally was referring to the tensions created by publicising an act of racism that did not happen. I thought that was pretty clear tbh.
    Please don't take the bait and go back there, it's already done more laps than a NASCAR race.

    Some good stuff brought up last night which Rick is keen to steer away from.
    Plenty of mileage in that to spar over.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    blazing_saddles said:

    ballysmate said:

    rick_chasey said:

    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Easier ground than making his own enoch powell style pronouncements.

    I think this is unfair, based on yesterday's conversation.
    What did Bally mean by “tensions” created by a show of solidarity against (what they thought at the time was an act of) racism then?
    Bally was referring to the tensions created by publicising an act of racism that did not happen. I thought that was pretty clear tbh.
    Please don't take the bait and go back there, it's already done more laps than a NASCAR race.

    Some good stuff brought up last night which Rick is keen to steer away from.
    Plenty of mileage in that to spar over.
    Point taken. :D

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    tailwindhome said:

    Three word slogans have a lot to answer for in their over simplistic, undeliverable or disingenuous treatment of complex issues

    'Defund the Police' is the worst I've seen.

    Yeah I don't see why it's applicable here. I thought the entire point in the US was the police have the powers and the money to buy military hardware which is useless/actually worsens the quality of policing in the US.

    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    rick_chasey said:

    tailwindhome said:

    Three word slogans have a lot to answer for in their over simplistic, undeliverable or disingenuous treatment of complex issues

    'Defund the Police' is the worst I've seen.

    Yeah I don't see why it's applicable here. I thought the entire point in the US was the police have the powers and the money to buy military hardware which is useless/actually worsens the quality of policing in the US.

    The slogan is ridiculous because it means that to some people, it means "divert some of the money currently used for policing to social programs so that the police don't have to deal with drug addicts, because that isn't the right approach to that problem" to some people, and to others it means "abolish the concept of police and live in a self governing anarchist utopia".

    If you ask the question differently, you get a different answer:


    https://www.vox.com/2020/6/23/21299118/defunding-the-police-minneapolis-budget-george-floyd
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Hah. Classic.
    _
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,398
    ballysmate said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    And here is what Nick Buckley wrote:
    https://tfa.net/nick_buckley_must_be_reinstated_as_ceo_of_mancunian_way

    Same again RJS, do tell us what his crime is.

    Stevo_666 said:

    And here is what Nick Buckley wrote:
    https://tfa.net/nick_buckley_must_be_reinstated_as_ceo_of_mancunian_way

    Same again RJS, do tell us what his crime is.

    Can't see any crime there, unless of course he had anything to do with any ex UKIP members?

    RJS hasn't come back with any alleged crimes based on the detail of what was said/written in either case, so maybe you weren't talking bollox after all Bally :smile:

    Unless anyone else has worked out a valid reason why these two individuals were removed from their posts?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,398
    shortfall said:

    Blistered my finger liking Stevo and Ballys posts this morning 😀

    Good excuse :p
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,398
    blazing_saddles said:

    ballysmate said:

    rick_chasey said:

    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Easier ground than making his own enoch powell style pronouncements.

    I think this is unfair, based on yesterday's conversation.
    What did Bally mean by “tensions” created by a show of solidarity against (what they thought at the time was an act of) racism then?
    Bally was referring to the tensions created by publicising an act of racism that did not happen. I thought that was pretty clear tbh.
    Please don't take the bait and go back there, it's already done more laps than a NASCAR race.

    Some good stuff brought up last night which Rick is keen to steer away from.
    Plenty of mileage in that to spar over.
    Good point. We're still searching for an answer as to why those two people were removed from their jobs. It's all gone a bit quiet on that front for some reason.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Stevo_666 said:

    And here is what Nick Buckley wrote:
    https://tfa.net/nick_buckley_must_be_reinstated_as_ceo_of_mancunian_way

    Same again RJS, do tell us what his crime is.

    I'm a bit confused, why are we now quoting from libertarian pressure groups?

    There's a lot of "people are being silent on this" - it's quite simple, I don't know anything about it.
    _
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    rick_chasey said:

    rick_chasey said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    Not that amazing really, tbh.

    At least one poster on here would consider the Social Democrats to be hard care reactionaries.

    "Ironically, whinging about virtue signalling seems to be the fashionable way to show what a hard core reactionary you are, and get some likes from your fellow reactionaries".

    I bet the SDP never thought they would have to wear that label. :D

    I thought the SDP was a sort of convalescent home for former UKIP MEPs. I'd say Patrick O'Flynn fits the description pretty well.
    https://sdp.org.uk/about/

    Yes, they are Eurosceptics, is it this that taints your view? If you are Eurosceptic it must follow that you have to be 'hard core reactionary'?
    Er, no. I just wondered why you plucked them from obscurity to support your point. What next, a link to Gardener's World?
    I used the SDP because they are a pretty much inoffensive bunch and in no way could be described right wing or portrayed as some sort of swivel eyed loons. If I had picked a right wing source, I'm sure you or someone else would've just brandished them fascist.
    Never occurred to me that the views would be rejected just because the source was Eurosceptic.
    Mea culpa. I should've known better.

    What on earth has it got to do with left/right or Euroscepticism?

    I don't understand what that link adds to anything. If you are pointing out that the BLMUK group seem to have some pretty unpleasant and downright stupid ideas, then I'll agree with you there. They seem a pretty suspect bunch and tweeting rubbish about Zionism or how black people should under no circumstances engage or cooperate with the police just makes them look stupid. But so what? There are lots of pressure groups at the edges of larger movements at all points of the political spectrum.
    At last. That is what I've been saying. People have been quite happy to donate to groups with some 'unpleasant and downright stupid ideas' all because of the prefix BLM. They don't all appear to know the causes they are bankrolling when they hand over their cash. Yes, a lot of movements have pressure groups at the edges, but I would prefer that people know how the money they donate is being used. I accept that your view is "So what?" Your prerogative.

    I agreed with Rick's post and in fact quoted that I recognised that there is a distinction between the world wide movement and these 'fringe groups' and have not criticised the world wide movement.

    Part of the SDP article I linked referenced the way no criticism, real or implied of the BLM movement will be tolerated. The response I received for pointing out the 'unpleasant and downright stupid ideas' seems to bear that out.






    I think it is concerning that this one group seems to be piggybacking its other agendas on a larger issue but then that's hardly a pattern we've never seen before. BLMUK have hardly kept quiet about their more extreme views, but it's broken through a bit more now that they have started tweeting about Zionism, That said, it was mentioned on here that they aren't *the* official UK group a couple of weeks back, yet the Spectator article and some of the other reports I have seen describe it as the UK chapter of the movement. From what I can see that is incorrect. This is not a single international organisation. There are many other groups and charities to which people can and have donated, many of which have a far more constructive approach to the problem. Its a shame they haven't had the same publicity. I think it's a mistake to think this one group organised the whole thing.
    The real concern is that criticising anything connected, no matter how tenuously to BLM, brings howls of protest from the people 'on message' and even if the criticism is justified, it can spell death to your career.
    Does it? There's plenty of criticism of the specific BLMUK group from across the political spectrum if you care to look. As for career ending, who's? We've all been discussing it here; have you been sacked? Don't talk such b******s.
    If you don't accept the examples already given on how criticism of BLM can be the death knell to your career, here's another one from a different angle.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8471787/Jameela-Jamil-insists-high-profile-stars-scared-speak-BLM.html

    Apparently, high profile people who support the BLM are afraid to speak out just in case they 'get it wrong' . They want to help but are fearful of being 'cancelled' if they say the wrong thing.
    This is a problem across the spectrum. You think people on the other side of the fence are abuse free?

    I get that this gets to the heart of your objections to political correctness and you resist the contents of it more then you otherwise would as a sort of reflex.

    It happens all over the place however.

    I mean, what do you think black lives matter is actually about?
    To elaborate on this; the entire political discourse is sides shouting past the other about how awful the other is. Where they have spheres of influence, the fringes abuse the opposition.

    Whether that's female politicians who speak out against Brexit living under constant and regular death threats (which, after Jo Cox, we can probably say carries some level of actual threat), or high profile people declaring that sex is a biological fact.

    Right wing commentators complain of being deplatformed in universities and historians complain of the gov't whitewashing British colonial history in schools?

    It takes different forms because different sides have different spheres of influence, but isn't all the deplatforming etc more a symptom of the problem than the problem itself?

    And wouldn't you say it's a problem across the spectrum?

    I'd even go as far as to say if this political environment continues, where everything is both politicised and polarised, then it's no coincidence the latest generation to grow up in that continue in that vein?
    I think the problem is identity politics, designed by nature to cause division.
    Take the BLM organisation for instance. (The US one, not the UK one which some on here see no problem with) Their web page states

    We affirm the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks, folks with records, women, and all Black lives along the gender spectrum. Our network centers those who have been marginalized within Black liberation movements.

    Black folks would have had it covered, but that is not good enough in today's world, you have to be seen to specify an increasingly lengthening list of groups.
    If you are seen not to conform to your perceived group identity, you can be rounded upon.
    Pritti Patel for instance spoke about the racism she endured growing up. According to 40 odd Labour MPs and front benchers, her experiences were not valid. Doesn't conform to what people expect does she? Black people who don't conform to how others think they should are shamefully branded 'Coconuts'
    My next door neighbour for the past 25 years is black, but his colour doesn't define him and nor should it.
    Up until 10 years ago, I had spent 25 years working with a gay man. His sexuality in no way defined who he was. I am not sure that where identity politics play such a role in life now, that would be the case today.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    ballysmate said:

    rick_chasey said:

    rick_chasey said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    Not that amazing really, tbh.

    At least one poster on here would consider the Social Democrats to be hard care reactionaries.

    "Ironically, whinging about virtue signalling seems to be the fashionable way to show what a hard core reactionary you are, and get some likes from your fellow reactionaries".

    I bet the SDP never thought they would have to wear that label. :D

    I thought the SDP was a sort of convalescent home for former UKIP MEPs. I'd say Patrick O'Flynn fits the description pretty well.
    https://sdp.org.uk/about/

    Yes, they are Eurosceptics, is it this that taints your view? If you are Eurosceptic it must follow that you have to be 'hard core reactionary'?
    Er, no. I just wondered why you plucked them from obscurity to support your point. What next, a link to Gardener's World?
    I used the SDP because they are a pretty much inoffensive bunch and in no way could be described right wing or portrayed as some sort of swivel eyed loons. If I had picked a right wing source, I'm sure you or someone else would've just brandished them fascist.
    Never occurred to me that the views would be rejected just because the source was Eurosceptic.
    Mea culpa. I should've known better.

    What on earth has it got to do with left/right or Euroscepticism?

    I don't understand what that link adds to anything. If you are pointing out that the BLMUK group seem to have some pretty unpleasant and downright stupid ideas, then I'll agree with you there. They seem a pretty suspect bunch and tweeting rubbish about Zionism or how black people should under no circumstances engage or cooperate with the police just makes them look stupid. But so what? There are lots of pressure groups at the edges of larger movements at all points of the political spectrum.
    At last. That is what I've been saying. People have been quite happy to donate to groups with some 'unpleasant and downright stupid ideas' all because of the prefix BLM. They don't all appear to know the causes they are bankrolling when they hand over their cash. Yes, a lot of movements have pressure groups at the edges, but I would prefer that people know how the money they donate is being used. I accept that your view is "So what?" Your prerogative.

    I agreed with Rick's post and in fact quoted that I recognised that there is a distinction between the world wide movement and these 'fringe groups' and have not criticised the world wide movement.

    Part of the SDP article I linked referenced the way no criticism, real or implied of the BLM movement will be tolerated. The response I received for pointing out the 'unpleasant and downright stupid ideas' seems to bear that out.






    I think it is concerning that this one group seems to be piggybacking its other agendas on a larger issue but then that's hardly a pattern we've never seen before. BLMUK have hardly kept quiet about their more extreme views, but it's broken through a bit more now that they have started tweeting about Zionism, That said, it was mentioned on here that they aren't *the* official UK group a couple of weeks back, yet the Spectator article and some of the other reports I have seen describe it as the UK chapter of the movement. From what I can see that is incorrect. This is not a single international organisation. There are many other groups and charities to which people can and have donated, many of which have a far more constructive approach to the problem. Its a shame they haven't had the same publicity. I think it's a mistake to think this one group organised the whole thing.
    The real concern is that criticising anything connected, no matter how tenuously to BLM, brings howls of protest from the people 'on message' and even if the criticism is justified, it can spell death to your career.
    Does it? There's plenty of criticism of the specific BLMUK group from across the political spectrum if you care to look. As for career ending, who's? We've all been discussing it here; have you been sacked? Don't talk such b******s.
    If you don't accept the examples already given on how criticism of BLM can be the death knell to your career, here's another one from a different angle.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8471787/Jameela-Jamil-insists-high-profile-stars-scared-speak-BLM.html

    Apparently, high profile people who support the BLM are afraid to speak out just in case they 'get it wrong' . They want to help but are fearful of being 'cancelled' if they say the wrong thing.
    This is a problem across the spectrum. You think people on the other side of the fence are abuse free?

    I get that this gets to the heart of your objections to political correctness and you resist the contents of it more then you otherwise would as a sort of reflex.

    It happens all over the place however.

    I mean, what do you think black lives matter is actually about?
    To elaborate on this; the entire political discourse is sides shouting past the other about how awful the other is. Where they have spheres of influence, the fringes abuse the opposition.

    Whether that's female politicians who speak out against Brexit living under constant and regular death threats (which, after Jo Cox, we can probably say carries some level of actual threat), or high profile people declaring that sex is a biological fact.

    Right wing commentators complain of being deplatformed in universities and historians complain of the gov't whitewashing British colonial history in schools?

    It takes different forms because different sides have different spheres of influence, but isn't all the deplatforming etc more a symptom of the problem than the problem itself?

    And wouldn't you say it's a problem across the spectrum?

    I'd even go as far as to say if this political environment continues, where everything is both politicised and polarised, then it's no coincidence the latest generation to grow up in that continue in that vein?
    I think the problem is identity politics, designed by nature to cause division.
    Take the BLM organisation for instance. (The US one, not the UK one which some on here see no problem with) Their web page states

    We affirm the lives of Black censored and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks, folks with records, women, and all Black lives along the gender spectrum. Our network centers those who have been marginalized within Black liberation movements.

    Black folks would have had it covered, but that is not good enough in today's world, you have to be seen to specify an increasingly lengthening list of groups.
    If you are seen not to conform to your perceived group identity, you can be rounded upon.
    Pritti Patel for instance spoke about the racism she endured growing up. According to 40 odd Labour MPs and front benchers, her experiences were not valid. Doesn't conform to what people expect does she? Black people who don't conform to how others think they should are shamefully branded 'Coconuts'
    My next door neighbour for the past 25 years is black, but his colour doesn't define him and nor should it.
    Up until 10 years ago, I had spent 25 years working with a gay man. His sexuality in no way defined who he was. I am not sure that where identity politics play such a role in life now, that would be the case today.
    Right, so you've listed a bunch of problems on one side of the fence.

    Wonderful.

    That's not really what I was driving at, is it?
    _
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,227
    edited June 2020
    rick_chasey said:

    tailwindhome said:

    Three word slogans have a lot to answer for in their over simplistic, undeliverable or disingenuous treatment of complex issues

    'Defund the Police' is the worst I've seen.

    Yeah I don't see why it's applicable here. I thought the entire point in the US was the police have the powers and the money to buy military hardware which is useless/actually worsens the quality of policing in the US.

    Indeed. Whole different policing model in US, where this current wave started, from UK. But DTP becoming a thing in UK media. E.g. it got mention this week in one of the football podcasts I listen to. An extension of why not enough BAME in sports reporting creeping into... who knows where?

    Edit. Oh and not yet listened to a Velonews podcast on why no black faces in GB 2012 Olympics cycling success! Scanned their website flier. Hmmm. From a USAnian outlet...
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    Also, a lot of the military hardware is given to the police departments for free, because the military don't want to have to maintain it any more. Why the police departments accept it when it is going to cost them just as much, I've no idea. But it does mean the police look more like an army.

    This is the latest reported one - a "mine resistant ambush protection vehicle" given to the police department of a town with a population of 8,400 in West Virginia:

  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,915
    Would anyone be kind enough to give me a summary of what you are all arguing about?
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,725
    Surely, in order for "global" protests to be coordinated under the BLM banner, they must share objectives?
    In which case, defunding the UK police would be recognised as a key component.

    If this isn't the case, it does look as if Stu Peters on Manx radio had a point.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.

Categories