UK Politics - Not a Special Relationship

[Heartofice]

29 minutes ago, mormont said:

Looking at the two appointments together, they confirm what we already knew - the government intend to impose upon the EHRC an ideological framework in which equalities issues are largely a fuss over nothing. It's not as if that were ever a secret. But it's a disgrace just the same.

Again, in regards to both appointments, what seems to be the main gripe about them is that there is only one perspective that is correct and so any appointment to these boards should already be a card carrying member of a certain consensus. Butcher doesn't sign up to some of the positions those on the left would demand, but so what? That doesn't actually mean she is any less for equality, she regards herself as feminist. Goodhart is also deeply concerned about equality and fairness. 

Both seem to be quite sensible appointments.
 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Again, in regards to both appointments, what seems to be the main gripe about them is that there is only one perspective that is correct and so any appointment to these boards should already be a card carrying member of a certain consensus. Butcher doesn't sign up to some of the positions those on the left would demand, but so what? That doesn't actually mean she is any less for equality, she regards herself as feminist. Goodhart is also deeply concerned about equality and fairness. 

Both seem to be quite sensible appointments.
 

why do you consider them both to be quite sensible appointments?  what qualifies them for this?

[Heartofice]

30 minutes ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

why do you consider them both to be quite sensible appointments?  what qualifies them for this?

What would you suggest the necessary qualifications for such a position would be?

Goodhart has researched, spoken and written on these subjects for many years and is very well respected. Butcher is a young female entrepreneur who has also written and spoken on these topics. If you look at previous members of these committees, there really isn't a qualification you get which means you are a shoe in for such a position, they come from all walks of life. Some position themselves as 'diversity experts' and some are just people who worked in business. 

It's also worth noting that there have been 4 new appointments to the EHRC recently, Bernard Ribeiro and Su-Mei Thompson. There has been less outcry about their appointment because they haven't displayed 'wrong think' in regards to a couple of key subjects. 

My point about 'sensible' appointments is in regards to having diversity of opinion on such a board. If everyone comes in the room with exactly the same perception then that is pretty damaging and not helpful. I also personally tend to agree with many of the perspectives of Goodhart and Butcher in this case, and I'm quite happy that there are some level headed people there.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

What would you suggest the necessary qualifications for such a position would be?

Goodhart has researched, spoken and written on these subjects for many years and is very well respected. Butcher is a young female entrepreneur who has also written and spoken on these topics. If you look at previous members of these committees, there really isn't a qualification you get which means you are a shoe in for such a position, they come from all walks of life. Some position themselves as 'diversity experts' and some are just people who worked in business. 

It's also worth noting that there have been 4 new appointments to the EHRC recently, Bernard Ribeiro and Su-Mei Thompson. There has been less outcry about their appointment because they haven't displayed 'wrong think' in regards to a couple of key subjects. 

My point about 'sensible' appointments is in regards to having diversity of opinion on such a board. If everyone comes in the room with exactly the same perception then that is pretty damaging and not helpful. I also personally tend to agree with many of the perspectives of Goodhart and Butcher in this case, and I'm quite happy that there are some level headed people in the room.

Personally, I'm not sure as I've not really looked into it who sat on these comities in the past.  the argument others have made with Goodhart is the only reason he appears to have been selected is because of his stated views and not because of any previous skills, or qualifications which would be a bad reason to appoint anyone to any position required to judge fairly.

 

I would think someone with Human rights experience and or a legal background would be a good fit as they are likely to have a good understanding instead of just an opinion and being good at expressing it.  Being well respected is only really a good indicator if you are well respected by a people who don't agree with them.

 

I have no idea if these two do have the skills and experience, which is why I asked you as you seem to approve of them and implied it was not just because of their stated views.

[Heartofice]

Just now, Pebble thats Stubby said:

I have no idea if these two do have the skills and experience, which is why I asked you as you seem to approve of them and implied it was not just because of their stated views.

I wasn't that aware of Butcher before now, I think I'd seen a TED talk of hers in the past. I would concede her CV doesn't look especially impressive in these matters. Goodhart is someone I've followed for a long time and I like a lot of what he has to say, I think he is definitely qualified. 

However, if you look at the criticism in the media against their appointments, it is because they don't have the correct views. The argument from places like the Guardian is that only someone with the correct views on diversity can be allowed to sit on such a board. There doesn't seem to be much worry about Butchers lack of experience, more that she attacked 'modern feminism' and so therefore must be against women and diversity. The implication is that these two are trying to attack diversity itself. That is clearly not the case if you read anything they have written.



 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

I wasn't that aware of Butcher before now, I think I'd seen a TED talk of hers in the past. I would concede her CV doesn't look especially impressive in these matters. Goodhart is someone I've followed for a long time and I like a lot of what he has to say, I think he is definitely qualified. 

However, if you look at the criticism in the media against their appointments, it is because they don't have the correct views. The argument from places like the Guardian is that only someone with the correct views on diversity can be allowed to sit on such a board. There doesn't seem to be much worry about Butchers lack of experience, more that she attacked 'modern feminism' and so therefore must be against women and diversity. The implication is that these two are trying to attack diversity itself. That is clearly not the case if you read anything they have written.



 

I'm sure you have noticed media as in newspapers tend to focus in on things that resonate with their readership.  I was going by what has been said in this thread which has been

what makes them qualified for the role?  (eg experience / skills)   if these can't be stated is the Only reason they have been appointed because of their views?

 

 

I don't really know either, I can say the few things I have read recently are kinda worrying, but I'm aware I'm not getting the full picture.  Hence me asking for information about their skills and experience.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

I'm sure you have noticed media as in newspapers tend to focus in on things that resonate with their readership.  I was going by what has been said in this thread which has been

what makes them qualified for the role?  (eg experience / skills)   if these can't be stated is the Only reason they have been appointed because of their views?

 

 

I don't really know either, I can say the few things I have read recently are kinda worrying, but I'm aware I'm not getting the full picture.  Hence me asking for information about their skills and experience.

Their views definitely come into it. But then why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't people be appointed to bring a diversity of opinion? That won't be the only reason they were appointed but I don't have a problem with it being a qualifying attribute. They have also  appointed Su-Mei Thompson who appears to not hold similar opinions to Butcher, and so hopefully there would be some level of discussion and disagreement. Which is a good thing.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

I'm not saying they can't have different views.     having a range of views is a good thing proving all people there are qualified.  which myself I cant judge.   I'm trying to move beyond their stated views to their skills and experience so see if they really should be appointed.

 

the last few days this board has been

"your only complaining cos they don't agree with your views"

VS

"we are only complaining because we cant see why he is qualified so we think he's only been given the role because of his views"

 

and we have been going round in circles.     Today is the only day where you have briefly mentioned why you think he has some qualifications beyond his published views.  Even you have admitted Butchers qualifications do look a little on the light side.  I don't personally know if Goodhearts works are enough to qualify him for the role or not or who he is well respected by.  (I give more weight to respected when its from people with opposing views as that's a better indicator)

 

As long as you can agree for people to be appointed it can't be ONLY because of their views,  hence us wanting to talk about their skills / experience or what else makes them qualified.  as long as this can be identified and is considered reasonable by all sides then I have no problems.   

[Heartofice]

13 minutes ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

the last few days this board has been

"your only complaining cos they don't agree with your views"

VS

"we are only complaining because we cant see why he is qualified so we think he's only been given the role because of his views"

That's actually not true. The first post about Goodhart was complaining that someone who was a racist was appointed to the EHRC. I pointed out that he really isn't one. A number of other posters also joined in on that point. It was only  Mormont who then tried to divert to saying it was because Goodhart wasn't qualified. I asked him what such a qualification would look like, to which he declined to answer. 

Both links posted onto this board were Guardian links which were only interested in the views of Goodhart and Butcher and implied that they shouldn't get those jobs on the basis that their opinions are not the correct ones. Let's be honest that is where the real outrage is coming from, because there has been little discussion about what qualifies anyone for these boards before. If people are going to post links to articles I don't see why I shouldn't be able to talk about the content of those articles.

In terms of trying to impose an 'ideological framework' on the board then why have they just appointed someone who doesn't agree with that framework (whatever the hell that framework is , mostly it seems to be about not buying into most of the bull that comes out from the left).

 

[mormont]

If you think you've heard the 'diversity of views' argument before, it's because the right have used to to appoint climate change sceptics to scientific bodies dealing with the environment, and so on. It's about as valid.

As with Goodhart, the reason Butcher is being appointed despite lacking any expertise is, nobody who has expertise in these areas holds views the government like. And that is because the more you know about the subject, the more you realise those views are wrong.

[Which Tyler]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

That's actually not true. The first post about Goodhart was complaining that someone who was a racist was appointed to the EHRC. I pointed out that he really isn't one. A number of other posters also joined in on that point. It was only  Mormont who then tried to divert to saying it was because Goodhart wasn't qualified. I asked him what such a qualification would look like, to which he declined to answer. 

Both links posted onto this board were Guardian links which were only interested in the views of Goodhart and Butcher and implied that they shouldn't get those jobs on the basis that their opinions are not the correct ones. Let's be honest that is where the real outrage is coming from, because there has been little discussion about what qualifies anyone for these boards before. If people are going to post links to articles I don't see why I shouldn't be able to talk about the content of those articles.

In terms of trying to impose an 'ideological framework' on the board then why have they just appointed someone who doesn't agree with that framework (whatever the hell that framework is , mostly it seems to be about not buying into most of the bull that comes out from the left).

 

That's not actually true.

The very first post on the Goodhart was mine, where I pointed out that he was racist (you disagreed, but are wrong by everyone's definition of "racist" but your own); and didn't want him appointed because he was incredibly biased.

 

We then went in circles about my wanting someone unbiased, and you insisting that I meant the precise opposite of the words I used.

I posted 2 links, one from the Guardian, and one from a source I wasn't familiar with, so posted the Guardian as well to be a trusted source (as in they don't print lies, not as in they print HOI's opinion)

[Heartofice]

Sorry you’re right. I forgot the bit where you couldn’t explain what I’d gotten wrong about your post. Thanks for reminding me

[Heartofice]

Anyway, in more important news Boris announces that we will return the highly successful *ahem* tier system when lockdown ends. But on the upside gyms are now exempt and can reopen

[The Anti-Targ]

Dunno if this belongs here or in the Entertainment section. It seems Harry and Meghan are demanding that Netflix cancels 'The Crown' before it catches up to their dramas. That would leave it up to 'The Windsors' to tell the whole story, and since Harry and Meghan are already in there I guess it can just continue.

Never watched 'The Crown', but 'The Windors' is great fun. Kind of like a live action spitting image. Still even though I have no direct interest in 'The Crown', while I accept the right of anyone to complain about a fictional biopic TV series, esp if it's about their family, and to say they don't want their story fictitiously dramatised, I think it's fine for Netflix to duly note their objection, but their independence to make a decision on how and whether to proceed should not be curtailed. 

Anyhoo, back to politics, sorry about the digression.

[Crixus]

What I read about The Crown was that the creator, Peter Morgan, never intended to depict present day events as in his view, he's more interested in the 'history' angle rather than current events that are still unfolding, such as Harry and Megan. The '20 year rule', in other words.

https://www.radiotimes.com/news/on-demand/2020-08-20/the-crown-peter-morgan-harry-meghan/ 

[Maltaran]

My understanding is that season 5 will be the final one, which will cover the 90s

[Heartofice]

Maybe Morgan is just worried about being sued for libel, considering how much of The Crown is basically made up. Anyway Harry and Megan don't need to worry about the Crown making them look foolish, they've been doing a great job of that themselves.

[The Anti-Targ]

How can you be sued for libel for stuff you've made up in a fictional TV show even if it is based on real people and mostly real events? it is fiction, that is surely a strict defence against libel? If it was a documentary and it was full of made up shite, sure then libel comes into it. The law must give pretty wide latitude for fictionalising TV series like these or they would never be made and dramatised where controversial and highly emotive events are involved.

5 seasons is the norm for Netflix.

[Heartofice]

No idea. I was joking.

[Soylent Brown]

Were you? It seems more like you were just using the opportunity to take a dig at Meghan and Harry.

Nasty foreigners coming over and ruining the culture of the Royal Family, eh?