UK Politics - I Protest

[Heartofice]

7 hours ago, mormont said:

The report concludes that any problems with minority students failing to progress, ending up in lower tariff universities, earning less as graduates, etc. are the result of factors other than racism

True

7 hours ago, mormont said:

Or, to put it another way, that when it comes to racism, the subject of the report, there is no problem.

Not true.
 

7 hours ago, mormont said:

m what I have read, and I have read quite a bit more about this report than it really merits, that's not so strange after all. This report is all about downplaying racism, which was always the intent.

That has been the problem, the predictable problem, with all the commentary so far. I knew before the report came out exactly what the criticms of it would be. Any attempt to even suggest that factors other than institutional racism are more relevant when it comes to explaining disparities are met with howls of anger. And so instead you have people like Clive Lewis MP sending images of the KKK and numerous Guardian columnists trying to attack the report, without really bothering to engage with anything that has been said. Predictable.

[mormont]

Not true.

Most of the comment on the report has engaged with its actual contents. You just don't seem to like the conclusions that engagement has reached.

[Heartofice]

Have to just disagree then. I’ve seen a lot of commentary on the report, most of it doesn’t talk about then conclusions of the report or even the recommendations, mainly it’s ‘nah it’s racism’ variety 

[mormont]

Again, that's simply not true. The conclusions of the report have been widely discussed. The problem is that they were presented in a very political way, because the government always meant them to serve a political narrative, and accordingly leaked the conclusions and spun them to suit that narrative. If the discussion has then focused on these aspects of the report, that is because it was always intended by the government that it should. Even the BBC acknowledge that:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56578839

Your problem seems to be that nobody is giving this report any credibility. When you say commentators aren't 'bothering to engage with' the report, I think that's what you mean. But one can engage with a report and conclude that it's rubbish.

[DanteGabriel]

6 hours ago, Heartofice said:

 

That has been the problem, the predictable problem, with all the commentary so far. I knew before the report came out exactly what the criticms of it would be. Any attempt to even suggest that factors other than institutional racism are more relevant when it comes to explaining disparities are met with howls of anger. And so instead you have people like Clive Lewis MP sending images of the KKK and numerous Guardian columnists trying to attack the report, without really bothering to engage with anything that has been said. Predictable.

This is the flaw in your crusade against people discussing racism -- you conflate "systemic racism exists and it leads to worse health outcomes for non-white people" with "systemic racism exists and is the sole cause of these problems."

This is your MO every time. Someone observes that racism contributed to an event and you strawman it into "you guys blame everything on racism."

Of course there are other factors that contribute to worse outcomes. Only a moron would argue that racism is the only thing influencing outcomes. So maybe accept some nuance and stop treating people like they are making moronic arguments.

[Heartofice]

10 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

This is the flaw in your crusade against people discussing racism -- you conflate "systemic racism exists and it leads to worse health outcomes for non-white people" with "systemic racism exists and is the sole cause of these problems."

This is your MO every time. Someone observes that racism contributed to an event and you strawman it into "you guys blame everything on racism."

Of course there are other factors that contribute to worse outcomes. Only a moron would argue that racism is the only thing influencing outcomes. So maybe accept some nuance and stop treating people like they are making moronic arguments.

Not really. In this case I’m saying that there is very little proof that racism contributed to the outcome. Just because there is a disparity it doesn’t mean it’s racism causing it. That’s actually my consistent take here.

[DanteGabriel]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Not really. In this case I’m saying that there is very little proof that racism contributed to the outcome. Just because there is a disparity it doesn’t mean it’s racism causing it. That’s actually my consistent take here.

"I didn't say what I said" is also kind of your thing.

Okay, I'll play. What causes the disparities in outcomes? Because you seem to be acting like if racism can't be measured with a ruler or a spectrometer or something, it's not a factor.

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

"I didn't say what I said" is also kind of your thing.

Okay, I'll play. What causes the disparities in outcomes? Because you seem to be acting like if racism can't be measured with a ruler or a spectrometer or something, it's not a factor.

Like online harassment is your game. No I won’t play your game. It’s in the report, go read it.

[Derfel Cadarn]

I see BBC News website finally put something up about BoJo/Acari ...

On April 1st. 

[A wilding]

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Have to just disagree then. I’ve seen a lot of commentary on the report, most of it doesn’t talk about then conclusions of the report or even the recommendations, mainly it’s ‘nah it’s racism’ variety 

The problem is though that the government put out a statement "this report proves racism is not a problem in the UK", let that narrative dominate the news headlines, and only later actually published the report. So to complain about people objecting to the initial spin and to complain that they should just be engaging with the detail of the report is disingenuous of them at best.

(And that is not even to get into the fact that getting that initial headline was clearly the whole point of the exercise when they commissioned the report in the first place.)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56578839

[Spockydog]

Could this be the first step towards the UK decriminalizing cannabis?

Mayor of London to examine benefits of cannabis legalisation

Quote

 

The mayor of London is to launch a review examining the feasibility of decriminalising cannabis as part of a new approach to tackling drug-related crime.

Should he be re-elected on 6 May, Sadiq Khan said he would set up an independent London drugs commission to examine the potential health, economic and criminal justice benefits of decriminalising the class-B drug.

Khan believes there is widespread public support for a more relaxed approach to decriminalisation, citing polls showing more than half of the UK – and nearly two-thirds of those in the capital – support legalising cannabis for adult recreational use.

 

No matter what Khan does, it's only a matter of time before the law is changed. Though, I imagine future US demands to accept their cannabis exports as part of any trade deal may prove more of a catalyst.

[Heartofice]

He can’t change the law can he? He’s just the mayor. I agree it’s probably only a matter of time before the law gets changed, I don’t really get why Khan is the one dealing with it though 

Also on the subject of Mayor, could this possibly be the worst mayoral lineup in history when it comes to elections, I feel like every candidate is trolling us

[Maltaran]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

He can’t change the law can he? He’s just the mayor. I agree it’s probably only a matter of time before the law gets changed, I don’t really get why Khan is the one dealing with it though 

Also on the subject of Mayor, could this possibly be the worst mayoral lineup in history when it comes to elections, I feel like every candidate is trolling us

As long as Count Binface beats Lawrence Fox I'll be happy.

[Derfel Cadarn]

22 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

As long as Count Binface beats Lawrence Fox I'll be happy.

Judging by the polling numbers, Fox is well placed to add failed politician to failed actor and musician on his CV

[Werthead]

Cannabis decriminalisation is one of those things I can see the government going either way on. Agreeing with it makes them seem even more socially progressive and with it than Labour (like when Labour had 13 years to legalise gay marriage, didn't bother doing anything with it and the Tories did it relatively quickly after taking office) on a topic that isn't as hot-button an issue it would have been a few years ago. Lots of people opposed to cannabis law reform were a much older generation who are departing in droves, and a lot of the Tory core vote is now concentrated in boomers who probably did far worse in the 1960s and 1970s.

However, if someone like Khan comes out in strong support of it, the Tories may feel a kneejerk inclination to oppose it, or just let the current status quo (where lots of people do it and no-one really gives a shit) endure whilst trying to spin it that Khan and Labour are soft on drugs etc.

Starmer being resolutely against even looking into the issue seems odd though.

[williamjm]

3 hours ago, Maltaran said:

As long as Count Binface beats Lawrence Fox I'll be happy.

I hadn't looked at the line-up of the more eccentric candidates before, I hadn't realised Piers Corbyn was running or that the UKIP candidate is called Gammons.

[Werthead]

I know nostalgia for the eighties and nineties are strong, but I don't think people meant scenes like those coming out of Northern Ireland this week with it.

[Spockydog]

11 hours ago, Werthead said:

I know nostalgia for the eighties and nineties are strong, but I don't think people meant scenes like those coming out of Northern Ireland this week with it.

 

 

[Fragile Bird]

Well, I guess Titancon might be dead this year too.

[Spockydog]

Can't wait for all the Brexit benefits we were promised to start rolling in.