Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

"how can I hire a guy called that, what were his parents thinking?"

"perceived foreign culture" then. clearly not racist.

david37

shirley_basso said:

Employment - "The report called for existing training to be replaced with new interventions such as “training and routine skills support for all employees in their professional and personal lives (for example on collaboration, confidence, communication, and presentation skills), which could disproportionately benefit more disadvantaged groups”."


Dont tell David37

Why not? if they are weaker in those areas why wouldnt that be a good thing?
collaboration confidence and communication are key skills. are you suggesting that I would like to see some people disadvantaged?

I know some of you want to see that. I know that because youve said as much.

shirley_basso

Didn't you call disadvantaged people 'losers'.

david37 said:

no but losers attract problems. real or imagined.

What if it was set up for black people, but anyone was invited to attend if they wanted.
Or if it was set up for anyone but only black people attended.

david37

shirley_basso said:

Didn't you call disadvantaged people 'losers'.

david37 said:

no but losers attract problems. real or imagined.

What if it was set up for black people, but anyone was invited to attend if they wanted.
Or if it was set up for anyone but only black people attended.

I believe I called losers losers.

but now youre asking hypothetical questions. nowhere that I'mm aware of does the report suggest that "black people" are the target. Merely that more needs to be done to address those issues in general but that some, but not all minority groups will get more benefit from it. There are many reasons why some groups do less well, some of it is largely down to attitude. the same reason why a different attitude and approach has catapulted other minority groups to the top of the qualifications and careers.

Youre trying very hard to find offence where there is non to be had. wasn't it you that said white people should be discriminated against in order to rectify some perceived imbalance?

Id go back and find it but i cant be bothered.

shirley_basso

The imbalance is not perceived, it's real.

I didn't say 'should' - I said I wouldn't mind if it was a short term thing to help the imbalance.

"some of it is largely down to attitude" is a pretty meanlingless statement which allows you flounce whereever you want in case you receive some flack.

Among racist mysogonists, it could mean "it's all about attitude, it's their own fault".
Being sympathetic you could be saying "a large minority of diadvantaged people have an attitude problem"

1) What are you actually trying to say?
2) Why would minorities have any more of an attitude problem than any other demographic?

Jezyboy

https://mobile.twitter.com/blackpoppies14/status/1377522299570638848

One of the academics consulted on the report...was unaware he'd been consulted.

elbowloh

Not been a great few weeks for the Met Police.

One arrested for murder.
Poorly handled policing of vigil for above copper's victim.
And now another copper has been found guilty of being a neo-nazi (hence why I'm posting here).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56604470

orraloon

Yebbut. Probationary bobby told porkies on his application, got found out a bit later and got done. But the meejah seem to want perfection in everything everytime by everyone. Apart from themselves of course.

DeVlaeminck

Looks like this guy can expect somewhere from 3-6 years for membership of this group - maybe less if he was a minor at the time - going by the wikipedia page info on previous convictions.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

The report proposes this language, which is worth bearing in mind when discussing the findings regarding each form:

The Commission therefore proposes the following framework to distinguish between different forms of racial disparity and racism:
1. Explained racial disparities: this term should be used when there are persistent ethnic differential outcomes that can demonstrably be shown to be as a result of other factors such as geography, class or sex.
2. Unexplained racial disparities: persistent differential outcomes for ethnic groups with no conclusive evidence about the causes. This applies to situations where a disparate outcome is identified, but there is no evidence as to what is causing it.
3. Institutional racism: applicable to an institution that is racist or discriminatory processes, policies, attitudes or behaviours in a single institution.
4. Systemic racism: this applies to interconnected organisations, or wider society, which exhibit racist or discriminatory processes, policies, attitudes or behaviours.
5. Structural racism: to describe a legacy of historic racist or discriminatory processes, policies, attitudes or behaviours that continue to shape organisations and societies today.

It's worth reading a bit of it, I dived into the "Bias at work and what to do about it" section on page 121.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/974507/20210331_-_CRED_Report_-_FINAL_-_Web_Accessible.pdf

I've read parts of the section on education. The whole thing feels very disjointed. There's a fair bit on how academic achievement varies across different ethnicities and social classes as well as geographical areas - no surprise that it's more complex than 'BAME kids don't do as well at school'. There's also discussion of how assumptions of what different students can achieve may become self-fulfilling prophecies. And then it jumps to suggesting that this can all be solved with extra tuition and after school clubs targeted at those groups that are under-achieving, which seems a bit fanciful when the last budget announced no additional spending for schools.

Having identified that there are ethnic disparities in academic achievement it then seems to just take as fact that no, this must be solely a result of social class.

And this,

"There is a new story about the Caribbean experience which speaks to
the slave period not only being about profit and suffering but how culturally African people
transformed themselves into a re-modelled African/Britain."

just feels about as condescending as it is possible to be.

rick_chasey

Yeah - I guess if you need to square the circle that the British Empire is worth celebrating, you have to make some mental gymnastics.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Yeah - I guess if you need to square the circle that the British Empire is worth celebrating, you have to make some mental gymnastics.

Not to mention sounding like something straight out of W1A.

Someone else commented that many of the recommendations echoed those in the Scarman Report after the Brixton Riots, published in 1981, which says a lot about how successive governments have played the old trick of commissioning a report rather than actually taking concrete steps to address problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarman_Report

david37

rick_chasey said:

Yeah - I guess if you need to square the circle that the British Empire is worth celebrating, you have to make some mental gymnastics.

The british empire is worth celebrating. unless youre a self loathing neo softie

Stevo_666

It's almost definitely better having an empire rather than being a part of someone else's. Which was probably the alternative if we had let other countries grow powerful and rich instead of us.

orraloon

You do realise the British Empire is a thing of the past? So whose ar5es are we licking nowadays then?

blazing_saddles

orraloon said:

You do realise the British Empire is a thing of the past? So whose ar5es are we licking nowadays then?

I take it you are primarily referring to the USA.
In which case definitely not the same one we and a lot of other countries would have been forced to lick, if there hadn't been a the British Empire.

Stevo_666

orraloon said:

You do realise the British Empire is a thing of the past?

No shyte Sherlock.

Blazing Saddles beat me to it on the other point I was going to make.

orraloon

But you do realise the British Empire is a thing of the past? Yes or no.

(Your technique spreads dodger666 😉)

Stevo_666

orraloon said:

But you do realise the British Empire is a thing of the past? Yes or no.

(Your technique spreads dodger666 😉)

Yep - that's why I said 'no shyte Sherlock', as you had stated the obvious. Lefty in low IQ shocker

But it was still a good thing while it existed - for the obvious reason stated above. Even if you don't like that

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

It's almost definitely better having an empire rather than being a part of someone else's. Which was probably the alternative if we had let other countries grow powerful and rich instead of us.

I guess we must have 'let' Spain, Portugal, France, Russia the Dutch and quite a few more grow rich and powerful from their own empires. 😂 Not sure there was ever much of a risk of us becoming part of any of those empires. Spain had one half-arsed attempt but most of the time we were just squabbling over who controlled which colony.

TheBigBean

Response from commission

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-commission-on-race-and-ethnic-disparities-statement

We have never said that racism does not exist in society or in institutions. We say the contrary: racism is real and we must do more to tackle it. That is why our very first recommendation to the Government is to challenge racist and discriminatory action and increase funding to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to pursue investigations. We reaffirm the Macpherson definition of institutional racism, though we did not find conclusive evidence that it exists in the areas we examined. However, we said that “both the reality and the perception of unfairness matter”, which is why our recommendations are underpinned by four themes – to build trust, promote fairness, create agency and to achieve inclusivity.

There has also been a wilful misrepresentation by some people of the Commission’s view on the history of slavery. The idea that the Commission would downplay the atrocities of slavery is as absurd as it is offensive to every one of us. The report merely says that in the face of the inhumanity of slavery, African people preserved their humanity and culture. The Commission’s recommendation for Government to create inclusive curriculum resources is about teaching these histories which often do not get the attention they deserve.

rick_chasey

Lol well if it’s offensive to the writers.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

It's almost definitely better having an empire rather than being a part of someone else's. Which was probably the alternative if we had let other countries grow powerful and rich instead of us.

Sorry, who is supposed to have colonised the UK?

And how does an empire protect against the UK being invaded?

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

It's almost definitely better having an empire rather than being a part of someone else's. Which was probably the alternative if we had let other countries grow powerful and rich instead of us.

Sorry, who is supposed to have colonised the UK?

And how does an empire protect against the UK being invaded?

Romans, Angles, Saxons, French and Vikings all gave it a good go and we live with their influences still today. Unless there is an arbitrary self imposed cutoff date.

pangolin

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

It's almost definitely better having an empire rather than being a part of someone else's. Which was probably the alternative if we had let other countries grow powerful and rich instead of us.

Sorry, who is supposed to have colonised the UK?

And how does an empire protect against the UK being invaded?

Romans, Angles, Saxons, French and Vikings all gave it a good go and we live with their influences still today. Unless there is an arbitrary self imposed cutoff date.

Those ones are in "no point crying over spilt milk" territory. Otherwise you could make a good case for the benefits.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

It's almost definitely better having an empire rather than being a part of someone else's. Which was probably the alternative if we had let other countries grow powerful and rich instead of us.

Sorry, who is supposed to have colonised the UK?

And how does an empire protect against the UK being invaded?

Romans, Angles, Saxons, French and Vikings all gave it a good go and we live with their influences still today. Unless there is an arbitrary self imposed cutoff date.

That’s not the same. Everyone forgets the Dutch successfully invaded the UK. None of them turned it into a colony.

I think a lot of you struggle with what colonialism actually is.

blazing_saddles

pangolin said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

It's almost definitely better having an empire rather than being a part of someone else's. Which was probably the alternative if we had let other countries grow powerful and rich instead of us.

Sorry, who is supposed to have colonised the UK?

And how does an empire protect against the UK being invaded?

Romans, Angles, Saxons, French and Vikings all gave it a good go and we live with their influences still today. Unless there is an arbitrary self imposed cutoff date.

Those ones are in "no point crying over spilt milk" territory. Otherwise you could make a good case for the benefits.

So, we can dismiss the ones that actually happened, because they were so long ago and ignore the inconvenient ones that would have happened, without Britain's colonial expansion.
The Empire was the overriding reason for Britain having a powerful navy, without which, even Spain's half-arsed attempt would probably have succeeded.

Interesting how this contemporary view of history manages to ignore and dismiss pretty much anything that doesn't tie into it's focal point.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

It's almost definitely better having an empire rather than being a part of someone else's. Which was probably the alternative if we had let other countries grow powerful and rich instead of us.

Sorry, who is supposed to have colonised the UK?

And how does an empire protect against the UK being invaded?

Romans, Angles, Saxons, French and Vikings all gave it a good go and we live with their influences still today. Unless there is an arbitrary self imposed cutoff date.

That’s not the same. Everyone forgets the Dutch successfully invaded the UK. None of them turned it into a colony.

I think a lot of you struggle with what colonialism actually is.

That William was the Conquerer and French was the official language in England from the 11th to 18th century says something.

noun: colonisation
the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area.

rick_chasey

Oh my god I can’t deal with f@cking stupid people today.

Have a think about why sensible learned people don’t refer to the Uk being colonised and why it’s almost always referring to what the Europeans did from the 15-16th century onwards.

If you don’t understand that colonialism is about exploiting the colony (almost always under the pressure of violence), you don’t understand what colonialism is.

If you think colonialism is great you don’t understand how it works and you don’t understand what happened in the colonies.

If you think colonialism is some “kill or be killed” scenario for Europeans you are either really ill educated or a moron.

It’s not up for discussion because it’s not debatable.

Coming up with examples *that aren’t colonialism* to describe what you think colonialism is is moronic.

F@ck me every time colonialism comes up the moronic takes come out.

Why not read about about what happened in the actual colonies hmm?

rick_chasey

blazing_saddles said:

pangolin said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

It's almost definitely better having an empire rather than being a part of someone else's. Which was probably the alternative if we had let other countries grow powerful and rich instead of us.

Sorry, who is supposed to have colonised the UK?

And how does an empire protect against the UK being invaded?

Romans, Angles, Saxons, French and Vikings all gave it a good go and we live with their influences still today. Unless there is an arbitrary self imposed cutoff date.

Those ones are in "no point crying over spilt milk" territory. Otherwise you could make a good case for the benefits.

So, we can dismiss the ones that actually happened, because they were so long ago and ignore the inconvenient ones that would have happened, without Britain's colonial expansion.
The Empire was the overriding reason for Britain having a powerful navy, without which, even Spain's half-arsed attempt would probably have succeeded.

Interesting how this contemporary view of history manages to ignore and dismiss pretty much anything that doesn't tie into it's focal point.

Because colonialism refers to a specific form of empire as acted out by Europeans in the 16th-18th century.

Heavily orientated around subjugation of colonies and exploiting them parasitically.