Printable version of thread

Posted by: vidcapper 12th September 2017, 06:41 AM

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/too-white-red-cross-struggled-to-help-pcpq9vjqc

The head of the British Red Cross has admitted the charity struggled with the Grenfell disaster because its workforce is too white.

Mike Adamson, the charity’s chief executive, said: “There is a risk that in a very diverse community like Grenfell, an organisation with the words ‘British’ and ‘Cross’ in its title is confused with a Christian establishment organisation.”

Although the charity is impartial in its work, he added: “There is no escaping the fact that with shining exceptions, such as our refugee services, we are nowhere near as diverse as we need to be in our volunteer base, our staffing or our leadership.”

{Unfortunately most of the article is trapped behind a paywall]

*************************************

Surely the ethnic make-up of a charity's staff doesn't matter, it's what they do to help that is crucial. Besides, charities are hardly in a position to pick & choose since their staff are volunteers.

Also, anyone who turns down sincerely offered help for racial/cultural reasons, is likely to lose a lot of sympathy.

There's also the factor that tax-exempt charitable status depends on being non-political...

Posted by: StillJupiter 12th September 2017, 07:48 AM

Sounds to me like a quote that's been taken out of context, two separate statements that have been put together. That is, 1) they want to increase their diversity (probably for policy reasons or following new laws set by the government, or to get some particular kind of funding) and 2) they don't want to come across as a Christian charity when they're not one.

Posted by: Baytree 12th September 2017, 08:27 AM

I can't read the article other than the quote you refer to because Times articles are behind a pay wall. Are there any examples of specific people from Greenwell refusing help because they had that impression?

I don''t read papers nowadays because the standard of journalism is so poor.

Articles now tend to contain biased opinion masquerading as impartiality. They also seem more and more to be cobbled out of news feed, quotes from other journalists' pieces and social media. It's the age of puffed out opinionated sound bites, often taken out of context, and lurid (sub) headlines.

Sometimes the broadsheets can still do research and produce a series of In-depth articles but it's so very rare. They know what good journalism is but won't spend the money. If they did, maybe more people would buy a daily paper.

Posted by: vidcapper 12th September 2017, 09:27 AM

Unfortunately the paywall prevents me from knowing that, either.

Suffice to say, had the article been from the Mail I wouldn't have even bothered posting it, as I know the usual reaction to them, here.




I agree, except to say that that's not exactly new.

Posted by: Suedehead2 12th September 2017, 10:52 AM

The Times made a complete mess of a story about a five-year-old girl's fostering arrangements a couple weeks ago so they seem to be trying to be as unreliable as the Mail.

It's not the first time the name Red Cross has been misinterpreted. It was, of course, named because their emblem is the reverse of the Swiss flag but they still felt they had to call themselves Red Crescent in Islamic countries.

Posted by: vidcapper 13th September 2017, 05:42 AM

Are you saying that story was a complete fabrication, or that the wrong emphasis was placed on aspects of it?

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th September 2017, 07:48 AM

The "journalists" who wrote the coverage made no attempt to make sur they had a proper grasp of the facts. As a result, the repot was highly misleading and inflammatory.

Posted by: vidcapper 13th September 2017, 08:38 AM

I bet I can guess which paper posted a more 'PC' version of the story.

I should point out that virtually all the papers published a very similar version of the story, even most of the 'Buzzjack approved' ones.

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th September 2017, 08:48 AM

I assume you are referring to the Guardian. I have no idea how they covered the story although I assume it was more fact-based than the Times' distorted version. That wouldn't be difficult.

Posted by: vidcapper 13th September 2017, 09:47 AM

Bingo!



https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/01/muslim-fostering-row-media-times-mail-skewed-portrayal

Given the Tower Hamlets reputation, it's an easy target for unsophisticated journalism, though.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/02/muslim-fostering-row-times-journalist-defends-story

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th September 2017, 10:09 AM

The fact that Tower Hamlets have had major failings in the past is no excuse for sloppy (or deliberately misleading) journalism.

Posted by: Qassändra 13th September 2017, 05:02 PM

The headline really doesn't seem to match up to the story.

It's obvious how a lack of diversity can impede help in these kinds of circumstances - where people being helped don't have English as their first language, for example.

I mean yes, the categories white and not speaking the family's first language / not having full knowledge of how being Muslim might mean someone after a disaster has different needs (on food they can eat, services they need access to, funeral traditions after death and the need to bury the day after a body is returned and how that might impact on a family's time and availability and access to charity help) likely generally coincide. But it isn't the whiteness that's the problem there, it's the not having the understanding. The headline's going for inaccurate sensationalism over portraying what the actual drift of the CEO was saying about how a more diverse volunteer base for Red Cross would make it easier for them to help in some instances.

Posted by: vidcapper 1st October 2017, 06:48 AM

Going off at a tangent, what does Political Correctness actually mean to people here?

From my pov : It started out as a well-meaning attempt to protect minorities from abuse (which I have no problem with), but it is now often hijacked by the left, and used by them as an Orwellian device to suppress opposition to the Left's ideology.

I await the inevitable request for examples...

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st October 2017, 08:28 AM

So why not pre-empt that by providing some. BTW, the baa-baa green sheep story is a widely discredited myth.

Posted by: vidcapper 1st October 2017, 08:44 AM

Well, I didn't want to jump the gun in case no-one did ask.

'Rioting gets speaker 'banned'

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uc-berkeley-officials-college-republicans-at-odds-over-another-right-wing-speaker/

For good or ill, he's part of our history...

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/feb/02/students-cecil-rhodes-statue-campaign-oxford-oriel-college

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st October 2017, 08:58 AM

Od dear, the old statues argument again. I have been to Germany quite a few times over the years. I haven't seen a single statue commemorating Nazi-era leaders. Similarly, there are not many statues of Lenin and Stalin in the old USSR or of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Opinions of people change over the years. It is, therefore, perfectly reasonable to reassess how we commemorate these people.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 1st October 2017, 12:46 PM

Strangely enough, in recent years there's been a resurgence of statues of Stalin being erected in Russia, fuelled by increasing nationalism amongst younger Russians and for his role in defeating the Nazis in WW2 (conveniently forgetting that when the war started, the USSR were on the Nazi's side). https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/08/16/soviet-union-terror-josef-stalin-popularity/556625001/about it also claimed that 46% of Russian express admiration of Stalin, which is quite chilling.

Veering off topic slightly, on the subject of Germany, when I was in Berlin last year I visited the Berlin Film Museum, and when it came to the section of the museum surrounding film of the 30s, I found it interesting, yet understandable, that none of the materials surrounding this period was kept in open display, instead it was kept in drawers which had to be opened to learn more detail about it

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st October 2017, 03:17 PM

Staying off topic slightly, I went to the Berlin Film Museum myself a few years ago. I was lucky enough to go when they had a fascinating full=scale exhibition devoted to Metropolis, in my opinion one of the greatest films ever made.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 1st October 2017, 05:11 PM

They still had an exhibition for Metropolis when I visited, which was quite impressive. It's to my shame that I still haven't watched Metropolis - as my degree's in Film, it's one of those key films that I really should have seen.

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st October 2017, 05:28 PM

It is fair to say that I spent a long time on the Metropolis exhibition! When watching the film, it's fascinating to observe how many videos, adverts etc. have been influenced by it. It's also an extraordinary technical achievement for a film made in 1927, the year my Dad was born.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th October 2017, 08:13 AM

Back on topic...

No sex on the census: ONS proposes making 'intrusive' question voluntary

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/08/no-sex-census-ons-proposes-making-intrusive-question-voluntary/

Posted by: Suedehead2 9th October 2017, 08:48 AM

The intention of the census change is to make due allowance for transgender people. That seems perfectly reasonable. OTOH, if a lot of people choose not to disclose their gender (for whatever reason) it will make the census data less useful for planning purposes.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th October 2017, 09:19 AM

Then why not 'male/female/'other' (*)

(*) depending on what euphemism is in vogue at the time.



I doubt many would refuse, since most people are very clear on their gender, and proud to declare it.

Posted by: Suedehead2 9th October 2017, 09:50 AM

I think it's more a matter of people doing it for a joke - rather like declaring their religion as Jedi.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th October 2017, 10:15 AM

Good point.

But how did transgender people fill out that question in the past - and why couldn't they do the same in future?

Posted by: Qassändra 9th October 2017, 05:55 PM

The ONS has already said that the story is bollocks - they're still consulting on how they'll do the question.

Posted by: vidcapper 10th October 2017, 06:16 AM

Then the next question must be - who fed the story to the papers?

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th October 2017, 10:24 AM

Either somebody who opposed the change and wanted to create an outcry or someone (possibly acting on coded instructions from a minister) testing public opinion. They are the usual suspects. Given the papers which were fed the story, the former seems more likely.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 10th October 2017, 12:52 PM

Non-binary folks too!!

Posted by: vidcapper 10th October 2017, 01:38 PM

Of course, even if people choose not to disclose it, whoever is transcribing it will usually be able to guess it from the name given on the form.

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd October 2017, 05:56 AM

I didn't want to start a new thread for this, but which would you say are the main protected minorities under law, and can you think of others that might be included?

To start the ball rolling :

Race
Religion (except Christianity perhaps)
Sexual Orientation

...

Posted by: vidcapper 28th October 2017, 06:49 AM

Vicar bans hymn Onward Christian Soldiers from Remembrance Sunday service 'because not everyone attending will be Christian'

Even the leftist Daily Mirror has picked up on *this* one!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/royal-british-legion-club-furious-11419368

Posted by: Chop-part-freak 28th October 2017, 08:12 AM

Think how popular a hymn called Onward Muslim Soldiers would be. Sentiment which is specifically aimed at one religion for those fighting in a war/wars is wrong and the choice not to use it (if true) is one I would support. For the record, people of all faiths died fighting the Nazis, who were not entirely claiming to not represent Christianity.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th October 2017, 09:10 AM

But I thought the point of the article was that it was to be sung in a church, so the chances of there being anyone there who would genuinely be offended would be very small.

Posted by: vidcapper 8th November 2017, 07:09 AM

Another example of PC 'snowflakeness'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-41899293

Cambridge Uni students warned against 'good time' by prof

7 November 2017

New students at Queens' College were warned to be careful how they "handle" themselves
A Cambridge University professor who warned new students against having a "good time" has been criticised.
Prof Eugene Terentjev e-mailed science first years at Queens' College amid "rumours" of a rise in drinking games.
He advised Natural Sciences scholars that choosing to "enjoy their social life" could harm their grades on the "very hard" course.
A student mental health charity said the message promoted an "unhealthy and dangerous way to live".

********

How ironic is the last line.

Excessive drinking is far more likely to lead to health issues than overwork!

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 8th November 2017, 07:21 AM

That has nothing to do with political correctness at all.

Posted by: vidcapper 8th November 2017, 07:38 AM

I don't entirely agree with you there - it's connected to the whole PC-derived notion of 'immunity from criticism', 'safe spaces' etc.

Apart from anything else, being 'wrapped up in cotton wool' will in no way prepare them for the world of work.

Refusing criticism in work will lead you to being sent to a 'safe space' in the local job centre!

***************

You should see the Mail's headline to this story though...

'Revolt of Cambridge cry-babies: Freshers' fury after professor dares to tell them to stop drinking and start studying '

Posted by: Suedehead2 8th November 2017, 09:36 AM

But I thought the Wail was opposed to people being given advice. I thought that was the nanny state.

Posted by: vidcapper 8th November 2017, 10:43 AM

I thought 'Nanny State' meant using the law to enforce behaviour, rather than just offering advice?

Posted by: vidcapper 16th November 2017, 06:48 AM

Another example :

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/horrified-students-slavery-row-demand-13905776

A group of students are demanding their university change the name of its halls in a row over slavery.

The Liverpool University students said they were “horrified” their accommodation was named after Liverpool-born former prime minister William Gladstone.

They claim the university should not commemorate the major 19th century Liberal politician as they claim he did not wholeheartedly support the abolition of slavery.

They suggested replacing his name on the Roscoe & Gladstone building, which is currently being demolished to be re-developed, with that of Channel 4 presenter Jon Snow.

Article continues

**********************

In cases like this, the cynical part of me wonders what a bit of genealogy might turn up about almost anyone's ancestors...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th November 2017, 07:30 AM

Nanny is carer for those unable to care for themselves, and is for the exclusively rich.

Tories wish to reserve that for themselves and everyone else should be left to look after themselves and not rely on tax-payer help or guidance and regulations on how to avoid problems.

That's what Nanny-state means.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th November 2017, 07:33 AM

click-bait and 3 students named. Jon Snow? They clearly mean game Of Thrones and someone is taking the piss on a non-story.

Posted by: vidcapper 16th November 2017, 07:47 AM

Why do you think I didn't use the Mail as a source.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th November 2017, 01:27 PM

Scousers love a piss-take wind-up just for the lols. Prob did it to watch it get quoted elsewhere and laugh

Posted by: vidcapper 16th November 2017, 02:48 PM

Where does that put me then - I'm 1/8th Liverpudlian...

Posted by: Qassändra 16th November 2017, 09:26 PM

What have people's ancestors got to do with it? If your point is that their ancestors were likely racist and pro-slavery too...yeah, we aren't naming university halls after any of their ancestors either.

Poor reasoning and targeting on their part though. Gladstone later repented and regretted for his pro-slavery views. Far more relevant reasons why we shouldn't be paying tribute to him than that.

Posted by: vidcapper 17th November 2017, 06:58 AM

But only because they weren't famous - and we know it's often the followers rather than the leaders that commit the worst atrocities, as they are under less scrutiny.

As for naming buildings - look closely into the background of virtually *every* famous historical figure, and you can find they've committed actions very dubious to modern sensibilities.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 17th November 2017, 09:05 AM

...and I lived there during my childhood, my grandma lived there till she died in 1989, and one of my best friend's is from merseyside, and I was last there last year.

You?

Posted by: vidcapper 17th November 2017, 10:02 AM

My mother's maternal grandmother was born there in 1855 (and lived there until 1881) - not as close a connection as yours of course, but I did say just 1/8th.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 17th November 2017, 01:20 PM

my maternal great-grandfather was from Denmark (so my grandma said) so I guess that makes both closely (relatively recently) related (ish) to our fellow European citizens. What a happy thought!

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th November 2017, 04:50 PM

Maybe you're related to Sandi Toksvig

Posted by: Popchartfreak 17th November 2017, 09:07 PM

Oh if only! I could get invited onto QI and use all my best gags. Not sure what I'd do for the other 25 minutes though...

The family surname though is Gretrex (not sure of the spelling) but I like to think my great-great Grandad was known as Gretrex The A-Bit-North-Of-Gaul.

Boom, boom!

Posted by: vidcapper 18th November 2017, 07:29 AM

A to Z of politically correct madness: The Left's 'Thought Police' continues to censor language as 'manfully' is labelled sexist

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5094791/A-Z-politically-correct-madness.html

Only the Mail is bold enough to point out one of the main reasons this country is a laughing stock, especially in America.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 18th November 2017, 11:14 AM

Care to paste the article text in here so I don't have to give them a click?

Posted by: vidcapper 18th November 2017, 02:26 PM

It's not like you'd catch the plague if you did but here you go...

Here’s an A to Z compilation of some everyday words, practices and concepts that have fallen foul of the new Political Correctness orthodoxy.

A is for avoiding eye contact
Oxford University’s Equality and Diversity Unit tried to accuse people who avoid eye contact with others of ‘racist micro-aggression’ — before it was pointed out that such advice might be seen as discriminatory against people with autism who may struggle to look others in the eye.

B is for ‘born a man’ or ‘born a woman’
Transgender campaigners condemn such phrases as inaccurate and offensive. Even ‘biologically male’ and ‘biologically female’ are deemed ‘problematic’ by the influential U.S. gay rights ‘media monitoring’ group GLAAD (which used to be called the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, because they ‘oversimplify’ the ‘complex subject’ of gender. We’re told the correct usage is to say an individual is ‘assigned’ or ‘designated’ male or female at birth.

C is for cat’s eyes
Suffolk County Council stopped using traditional signs warning drivers ‘Cat’s eyes removed’ after fears that real cats may have been killed to manufacture these reflective road safety measures.
Ipswich resident Rebecca Brewer was reported as saying: ‘I have a five-year-old daughter who was very upset the first time she saw the sign — she really thought cruel people were torturing cats.’
Instead, signs across the county now state: ‘Caution, road studs removed.’
A council spokesman said: ‘The term “road studs” is one we now use as standard.’

C is also for clapping
Applause was banned by the National Union of Students’ Women’s Campaign over concerns that it could ‘trigger anxiety’ among nervous students. Whooping and cheering have also raised concerns. Instead, politically-correct students now show support for a speaker with a bizarre display of ‘jazz hands’, a form of exuberant but silent manual acclamation taken from musical theatre.

D is for dreadlocks
Use of this braided hairstyle by white people is said to represent cultural appropriation. When the designer Marc Jacobs was criticised for using a group of predominantly white models wearing dreadlocks in a show, he argued — not unreasonably — that this was similar to black women straightening their hair. This was met with further outrage from (mostly white) commentators who complained that hair-straightening had been ‘forced upon the black community due to beauty ideals based on white archetypes’.

E is for ‘Exotic’
A word some social justice warriors claim carries ‘nasty racial underpinnings’. U.S. fashion editor and blogger Katie Dupere says ‘exotic’ is ‘a major verbal micro-aggression’.

F is for ‘Fat’
An unacceptable term, which, according to so-called ‘fat-liberation activists, is used ‘to shame people who might not fit the conventional beauty standards of our society’. Contradictorily, though, anyone with a fuller figure is allowed to ‘reclaim “Fat” as an empowering identity’.

F is also for ‘forefathers’
A word that Cardiff Metropolitan University’s code of practice states is sexist (because it includes the gender-exclusive ‘fathers’) and should be replaced by ‘ancestors’ or ‘forebears’. The code lists 34 words and phrases to be avoided as part of efforts to ‘embrace cultural diversity’.

G is for ‘girls’
A sexist word according to Cardiff Metropolitan University, which said that it should never be used about adult women, as it is a way of belittling them.

G is also for ‘genius’
one of the words that Lucy Delap, a lecturer in British history at Cambridge, says should be discouraged as it ‘carries assumptions of gender inequality and also of class and ethnicity’.

H is for Hate Speech
Any view that departs from the social justice agenda is at risk of being seen as ‘hate speech’. Home Secretary Amber Rudd’s speech to last year’s Tory party conference was reported to police as a ‘hate crime’ by Left-wing Oxford professor Joshua Silver.
The speech — which the academic later admitted he hadn’t actually watched — had included promises of tighter controls on immigration.
Credulous police duly recorded Rudd’s speech as ‘a non-crime hate incident’.

I is for ‘Illegal’
This is apparently a pejorative word and therefore unacceptable when applied to migrants — even to describe those who have, indeed, entered a country illegally. One set of guidelines in the U.S. states: ‘Actions are illegal, people are not . . . The word ‘illegal’ has been applied and abused by those advocating harsh immigration policies that are undoubtedly racist and xenophobic.’ The politically correct terminology is ‘undocumented immigrants’.

J is for Jamaican Stew
This traditional Caribbean dish became a recipe for a race row when chefs at Pembroke College, Cambridge, were ordered to rethink the menu after ethnic minority students complained that the ‘Jamaican Stew’ — as well as other dishes including ‘Tunisian Rice’ — constituted ‘micro-aggressions’ against them, since such offerings did not properly represent the foods of their native lands.

K is for Kilts
Some Scots have suggested any non-Scot who wears one is guilty of cultural appropriation — particularly considering England’s long history of ‘oppression’ against its northern neighbour.
‘Scottish Gaelic culture has been subject to rampant cultural appropriation for centuries as a result of its subordination to Anglophone culture in an Anglo-centric British Empire,’ laments Michael Newton, author of Warriors Of The Word: The World Of The Scottish Highlanders.

L is for ‘Lame’
A word deemed offensive by some disability campaigners, particularly when used in the sense of being ‘ineffectual’ or ‘unappealing’. According to the ‘Ableist Word Profile’ (an online guide that ‘explores a variety of feminist issues through a disability lens’), use of the word ‘lame’ is ‘pejorative’ as it ‘reinforces ableism in our culture by reminding people that disability is bad’.

M is for ‘mother’ (AND ‘MANFULLY’)
Mother is a word that’s far too old-fashioned in our modern world where there is sensitivity about transgenderism.
In January, the British Medical Association advised members that mothers-to-be should be referred to as ‘pregnant people’ to avoid offence and ‘celebrate diversity’.
Another previously innocuous M-word frowned upon by the PC brigade is ‘man’: censors at Cardiff Metropolitan University have stipulated that ‘manpower’ should be replaced by ‘personnel’, ‘human resources’ or ‘staff’ to avoid offence to women. ‘Sportsmanship’ and ‘taxman’ should not be used, either.

N is for Native American headdress
Another victim of the cultural appropriation police. Singer Ellie Goulding was accused of racism after tweeting a picture of herself wearing one. ‘Don’t mock a dying race, you insensitive and ignorant excuse of a person,’ screeched one virtue-signalling critic.
David Beckham’s son Brooklyn was the target of similar howls of PC anger over his tattoo of a Native American Indian. Actor Colin Firth’s wife Livia faced online abuse for wearing a Native American headdress at the Isle of Wight Festival.

O is for ‘Land of Opportunity’
This phrase — often used to refer to America — is said to constitute verbal micro-aggression because it ‘asserts that race or gender does not play a role in life’s successes’.

P is for party costumes
LAST year, a senior professor at a college at Yale University had to resign after he and his wife were accused of downplaying concerns over ‘inappropriate’ Halloween costumes. He was accused of ‘creating space for violence’ and of trivialising students’ concerns because he suggested people could turn away if they felt offended by students in ‘culturally inappropriate’ fancy dress such as Mexican or Native American outfits.

P is also for pronouns
Sussex University Students’ Union warned members against using the pronouns ‘he’ and ‘she’ to avoid assumptions about identity. ‘They’ and ‘Them’ are said to be the correct, gender-neutral terms.

Q is for queens
Drag queens were banned from a Gay Pride event in Glasgow in 2015 in case they caused offence to transgender people.

R is for ‘real men’ and ‘real women’
Jenni Murray, presenter of Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, upset transgender lobbyists when she said men who had undergone sex-change operations could not claim to be ‘real women’ since they did not have ‘the experience of growing up female’.

S is for Sombreros
The Students’ Union at the University of East Anglia in Norwich banned a local Mexican-themed restaurant (Pedro’s Tex Mex Cantina) from handing out sombreros to students in 2015 as part of a marketing drive. Union officials claimed the hats breached a policy forbidding stall-holders from handing out materials including ‘discriminatory or stereotypical imagery’.

S is also for ‘sensitivity readers’ increasingly employed by publishers to check manuscripts for ‘racist, sexist or otherwise offensive content’.

T is for ‘trigger’
This refers to anything the hyper-sensitive might find upsetting. Universities now widely use ‘trigger warnings’ to advise students that something may cause them distress.
This kind of alarmism even extends to classic literature such as F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby, which is said to feature ‘gory, abusive and misogynistic violence’. Virginia Woolf’s Mrs Dalloway needs to be treated with caution because of the ‘suicidal inclinations’ in the text — a warning that would rather ruin the book if you have never read it.

T is also for ‘twerking’
THE provocative, rump-grinding dance style which singer Miley Cyrus has been accused of culturally appropriating from black musicians. Lily Allen, too, has been criticised for using black women dancers twerking in a pop video — ironic, as she sees herself as a cheerleader for right-on behaviour.

U is for Uniforms
In an attempt to appease the transgender lobby, some police forces are scrapping traditional men’s and women’s uniforms. In response to its ‘Gender Identity Working Group’, Dyfed Powys constabulary in Wales switched to ‘gender-neutral’ outfits, including a unisex hat and neckwear.
‘We have learnt there may have been times when practices and procedures have adversely impacted our trans communities and their engagement with us,’ said Dyfed Assistant Chief Constable Liane James.
Northamptonshire Police now issues U.S.-style baseball caps which they think will somehow encourage transgender recruits.

V is for ‘violate’
A lecturer at Harvard Law School (whose alumni include Barack Obama) was urged by a student not to use this word — as in the phrase ‘does this conduct violate the law?’ — as it might trigger traumatic fears about rape.
It was even suggested that rape law should not be taught to protect students from ‘distress’.

W is for ‘Where are you from?’
Even the most innocent verbal exchange can become a minefield. Guidance from the University of California, Berkeley, has decreed that asking ‘where are you from?’ or ‘where were you born?’ could be racist micro-aggression — because the phrases are ‘a covert way to say you don’t belong here’.

X is for X Factor
On the ITV talent show last year, Saara Aalto from Finland was accused of cultural appropriation for dressing in a Japanese kimono and a long wig, like a geisha. With the pious relish that typifies Twitter comments, one viewer said: ‘I found Saara’s performance very offensive. A culture is not a dress up costume.’

Y is for Yoga
Another victim of the appropriation puritans: in 2015, the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa banned yoga sessions. The teacher was told it amounted to Western ‘cultural appropriation’ of a practice with its origins in Indian Hinduism. She was told: ‘There are cultural issues involved in the practice’ because of ‘oppression, cultural genocide and diasporas due to colonialism and western supremacy’.

Z is for Zero Tolerance
Defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as the ‘act of punishing all criminal or unacceptable behaviour severely, even if it is not very serious’.
It is the key policy of many lobby groups in their drive to outlaw language and behaviour they decree insensitive. The ultimate irony is that in the name of tolerance for minorities, all concept of essential and hard-won freedoms enjoyed by the majority are in danger of being lost.

The most important of these losses is, of course, freedom of expression.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 18th November 2017, 04:33 PM

Oh God, stating the bloody obvious, half of the Mail BS references America as the source (while you claim "we" are a laughing stock in America), most of them quote one person (which does not constitute anything of anyone, just a crank), loads have no references and is certainly nothing anyone has ever heard anywhere on the planet, and many of them are used by Tories.

So, in other word, a useless made-up article to get click-bait advertising.

The remainder, BTW, are just being considerate of peoples feelings (like calling someone fat).

Posted by: vidcapper 18th November 2017, 05:28 PM

Glad I use ad-blocker then.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th November 2017, 07:36 AM

Another example - thought it might just be extreme naivety, rather than PC...

https://aeon.co/ideas/stop-labelling-people-who-commit-crime-criminals

Debates about people who have committed crimes are littered with epithets. We brand people as offenders, criminals, crooks, felons, convicts, lawbreakers, outlaws and delinquents. We label those who spend time in prison jailbirds and yardbirds. And we call those who’ve completed their sentences ex-offenders, ex-convicts and ex-cons. We also apply more specific epithets to people for particular offences, such as thief, murderer, rapist, sex offender, paedophile and serial killer. Even conscientious newspapers such as The New York Times and The Guardian use these labels liberally, with headlines such as: ‘Prison Nurse Accused of Sexually Assaulting Convicted Rapist’, ‘To Catch a Rapist’, ‘How Not to Raise a Rapist’, ‘Sex Offender Village’, ‘Sex Offenders Gain Right To Appeal Against Registration’, and ‘Why Giving Polygraph Tests To Sex Offenders Is A Terrible Idea’.

In many other social areas, we have moved away from this kind of labelling. We’ve largely abandoned labels such as the autistic, the handicapped, the retarded, the disabled, the blind, the poor, and the undeserving poor. We now see just how prejudiced these labels are. We recognise that giving people such labels hides the real complexity of their situation, and limits their ability to shape their own lives. Instead, we speak now of ‘people who have autism’, ‘people who are living in poverty’, ‘people with visual impairments’, and ‘people with disabilities’.

So why use epithets in the area of crime?

[article continues]

***************

Because having a disability is not voluntary, whereas committing crime *is*!

Posted by: vidsanta 7th December 2017, 09:13 AM

Another 'you couldn't make it up' article...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/06/dont-call-us-snowflakes-damages-mental-health-say-young-people/

Posted by: Popchartfreak 7th December 2017, 12:34 PM

young people may be prone to depression. I was VERY depressed in my younger life (and periodically since). WE aren't talking feeling a bit sorry for oneself here, we are talking "not getting any medical help, uncontrollable crying for weeks on end and feeling like a zombie going through the motions, what is wrong with me, brain chemistry depression.
"

Anything that adds to the helplessness is not helpful, and this just shows more awareness amongst the younger generation and sympathy for fellow human beings' situations, rather than a generation that falls into a frothing at the mouth at the slightest comment.

That is left entirely to Brexiters who have no understanding of the concept of sympathy and concern for fellow human beings.

So, speaking as a snowflake, any articles mocking serious subjects for petty anti-PC can go f*** themselves.

PS you can call me snowflake all you like as long as you don't object to being called selfish and unsympathetic, based on general life philosophies as expressed on Buzzjack. Or you can just accept people are different. Your choice. Personally I don't care either way, I'd rather be a snowflake.

Posted by: vidsanta 7th December 2017, 03:17 PM

But there is a difference between clinical depression, a medically recognised condition for which I have sympathy for - and mere unwillingness to accept criticism, which closely resembles a toddlers tantrum. Schools & and universities may be prepared to accommodate such behaviour, but when people enter the working world, I'm afraid the only advice they will get for such conduct would be directions to the nearest job centre.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 7th December 2017, 05:22 PM

The article quotes people think it MAY cause people problems. If you think you have a surefire way of telling the difference between someone suffering severe depression and someone who isn't please contact the medical profession with your amazing gift. The rest if the world, who can't tell, prefers to err on the side of caution. Or as you call it, be a snowflake.

If you don't have the God given gift to tell at a glance who has depression then stop whingeing endlessly about those who take more care with other people's lives and wellbeing.

Posted by: vidsanta 9th December 2017, 10:50 AM

An excellent p1ss-take on PC...

http://www.radionowhere.org.uk/wordpress/index.php/2012/01/britains-new-navy/

Posted by: Oliver 9th December 2017, 01:30 PM

It’s really not excellent.

Posted by: vidsanta 9th December 2017, 02:56 PM

I can change 'excellent' to 'amusing' if that'll help?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 9th December 2017, 07:45 PM

Only if you find 1970s John Inman jokes funny.homophobic insulting racist and religiously intolerant. I can see why you like it.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 9th December 2017, 10:31 PM

It's not amusing either

Posted by: vidsanta 10th December 2017, 06:52 AM

I'd say a majority of people of my generation knew not to take those kind of jokes too seriously.

I would describe it as a parody of that style anyway - but Iperhaps I should have guessed that people raised in an era when PC is close to a religion, would consider jokes at its expense as close to 'blasphemy'.



I dare say you don't like the Carry On movies, or Benny Hill either, then?

If not, then what form of comedy do you like (genuine question)?

Posted by: Oliver 10th December 2017, 08:48 AM

I love some of the Carry On films (Carry On Screaming is my favourite), but I just felt that this was just trying to shoehorn anything and everything into the article rather than actually be clever with it. I'll admit that whilst there is a need for people to have a bit more empathy for others rather than just call them out, I'm also under the impression that PC has went a tad far in recent years.

I mean he mentions human rights laws as if they are a bad thing? And the bit about compensation has nothing to do with PC, it's the "where there's blame, there's a claim" ideology brought across from our GREAT FRIENDS, the USA long before millennials were even a thing.

Posted by: vidsanta 10th December 2017, 10:18 AM

You can't force people to be empathetic (is that a real word?) though - and given human nature, telling people what they should/shouldn't be doing is likely to have precisely the opposite effect to the one intended.

Posted by: vidsanta 10th December 2017, 10:32 AM

I wish I was eloquent enough to write an article like this...

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/students_are_behaving_like_victorian_censors/14161#.Wi0MANSLTCM

Posted by: Oliver 10th December 2017, 10:43 AM

Oh I'm not saying to force people to be empathetic, it just seems like common sense out of the options of 1. show more empathy to minorities or 2. shore more hate to minorities.

Posted by: vidsanta 10th December 2017, 11:31 AM

Not just to minorities of course - empathy to everyone is even better.

Posted by: Oliver 10th December 2017, 01:07 PM

Definitely!!! It just seems like minorities get the raw end of the deal more times than not.

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 10th December 2017, 01:59 PM

How is 'snowflake' criticism? It's just a cheap right wing slur.

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 10th December 2017, 02:01 PM

That is awful
Surely satire should provoke a laugh, rather than be a pithy right wing piss poor pot shot?

Posted by: vidsanta 10th December 2017, 02:36 PM

Given that Brexiters appear to be fair game to you, perhaps you could provide a list of legitimate targets for right-wingers?

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 10th December 2017, 03:12 PM

Even anything that remotely PASSES for satire would be a start. That article was one of the worst pieces I have ever seen.

Posted by: vidsanta 10th December 2017, 05:09 PM

I found it an hilarious piss-take.

Or to be more precise, it highlighted the impracticalities & contradictions of applying political correctness to a real world situation.

Posted by: Snow❄Diploughmat 10th December 2017, 06:38 PM

Was that Richard Littlejohn doing that article, certainly sounds like his sort of style! Although it is a bit more offensive than his articles tbh, being homophobic, anti-Muslim and possibly racist too. I don't find it amusing either.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 10th December 2017, 08:43 PM

NO it's not a parody. It's offensive to the Navy, using recent events that the anti-PC brigade are all over as an excuse to bring them all up in one go.

I love Carry On's, there's no maliciousness in them, it's an in-joke that includes everyone, and the main targets of the humour is The British, The British Empire, the Upper Class, etc etc

I adore Family Guy and American Dad, two of the biggest un-pc shows of all-time, because again, there is a point to the humour (and they showcase all sections of society, the world, religion, you name it). Occasionally they go too far in their personal attacks - Amy Winehouse springs to mind - but for general comments on every aspect of the world (including rednecks Nazis as much as peace-loving hippies) there is none better.

On the other hand I hate South Park, never made me laugh a single time, and I hated the movie. To me, it's just being "controversial" for the sake of it, without a point.

Most comics in the UK do not lean to the right or support Brexit. So the idea that those who are PC have no sense of humour is just ridiculous. It's the Far Right that doesn't. They only laugh at jokes if they are attacking minorities in the same way that loathesome "comics" like Bernard Manning used to. I always hated him, nasty material with a nasty racist, homophobic aim, to belittle anyone that wasn't a fat white racist. That kind of humour is dead and buried and good riddance. I hated it at 14 and I hate it still, because even as a child I could tell the difference between playful comedy and hate-based comedy.

PS I am of your generation, more or less, and if anyone our age said anything quoting that article at work we would be fired if someone took offence and reported it. I'm sure racists and homphobes shit their pants laughing at it though. There's banter, and there's trying to offend. That wasn't banter.

If you like I can rewrite that "article" to take the piss out of Brexiters and I could probably make it just as offensive, prob take me about 10 minutes, tops..

Posted by: Brett-Butler 10th December 2017, 09:23 PM

I thought that about South Park when it started (although as I was a kid at the time, I absolutely loved all the sweariness and saying stuff you shouldn't say), but after about the 5th season it's satirical edge really started to come to the forefront, and given that they write/record an episode in 3 days, they can parody events within days of the event happening. They've satirized almost every major event of the last 15 years to some extent, and there's hardly any targets that they haven't aimed their sights at by this point.

Posted by: vidsanta 11th December 2017, 07:35 AM

That would be called observational humour if done by a stand-up comedian.

But that extreme kind of 'humour' was only ever practiced by a tiny minority, and mostly in private clubs before the 'PC police' monitored all such events 24/7, like a latterday Big Brother.



That seems like an overreaction to me.



Go right ahead - I just laugh off 'offensive' articles, provided they are not personal attacks.

*****************************

For me, one of the more insidious aspects of political correctness is the emergence of 'professional offence-takers'. They see themselves as moral guardians, but who appear to me to be little different from internet trolls - nasty little snitches who get their kicks from stirring up trouble where none need exist.

It's like an update of the old proverb : If a tree falls in the woods, but no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?' - e.g. if an 'offensive' comment is made, but no-one who it is targeted at hears it, then is it actually a case of no-harm, no-foul'?

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 11th December 2017, 06:17 PM

No, an offensive joke is an offensive joke no matter who's around to hear it! If your 'jokes' are different because black or gay or whatever people are around, maybe reevaluate your 'jokes'...

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 11th December 2017, 06:27 PM

Both of those are before my time so I’ve never really seen them.

As you’ve asked a genuine question I’ll give you a genuine and complete answer. So you know for future reference what one looks like

I have a really wide taste in comedy. I’ve quite a dark sense of humour and I’m very sarcastic so I do enjoy sarcasm in my comedy. Programmes wise I watch a huge range of things from the quite millennial friendly Brooklyn 99 to run of the mill Big Bang Theory. I love 2 Broke Girls, even if their portrayals are more problematic than not. Will & Grace is a huge favourite of mine. Satire wise I adore Veep and The Thick of It. Love Parks and Rec and 30 Rock a hella lot too. From the U.K. I loved Raised By Wolves and IT Crowd. Fawlty Towers is a classic and Keeping Up Appearances is hilarious.

I genuinely have problems with that “satire” because it read more like a deluded racist, homophobic rant than anything. It wasn’t funny. There was no humour there. It took cheap potshots at the millennial generation for being genuinely considerate of others and their beliefs and feelings. It’s no hard. Just dae be a dick. Pretty simple life philosophy really.

The irony here is that while we millennial are being smacked with the snowflakes label and battered with articles about how awful we are for wanting safe spaces and deciding that allowing a racist a platform is probably no the best idea, we’re not the ones so wound up about it that were writing articles and mouthing off in the media. Who’s really the generation throwing a tantrum here. The one that says “I’d rather not platform a bigot” or the one that goes apocalyptic at the hint of the phrase “trigger/content warning”?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 11th December 2017, 06:30 PM

Nail on the head. They don’t have to be the one you’re telling the joke to to be offended. A racist joke is still racist even if you’re surrounded by a sea of white people

Posted by: Popchartfreak 11th December 2017, 06:44 PM

1. Stand ups wouldn't do racist jokes or anti gay jokes. That is dead and gone.

2. Manning was on prime time and there were many like him.

3. It's the law. You offend you get sacked or at least a written warning after garden leave. How long since you last worked?

4. Trolls are the ones spreading hate pretending it's just a joke and deliberately getting off on winding up those who don't share their bollocksy views. Context is everything. If the aim is to dehumanize parts of society, say by stereotyping gay men serving their country as effeminate drug taking co**su**ers then it's perfectly reasonable to equally portray brexiteers as troglodyte knuckle dragging cavemen who hit everything they don't understand with a club. No offence meant its just a joke! It's true though. Just kidding! Or am I? Ho ho ho. LOLS.

Fair enough?

5. The reply above this one is spot on 're jokes on minorities. If u don't have the guts to say it in front of the minorities and aren't prepared to get fired - a la Nazi demo Mob in the USA - then being a chicken shit coward hiding behind a pseudonym shows a lack of belief in what you are saying...

Its called two faced backstabbing.

Posted by: vidsanta 12th December 2017, 07:11 AM

Very droll

You may be surprised to hear that I am a fan of Will & Grace, too.



That it was overblown was the whole point - deliberate exaggeration is the whole basis of parody. Somehow I doubt you'd have a problem with a parody of, say, Donald Trump...




But does that mean that people should need to carefully consider every word they speak, just in case they are overheard by someone who might possibly take offence? That is how people live under dictatorships, not democracies...

Posted by: vidsanta 12th December 2017, 07:50 AM

1. So what *are* legitimate targets for stand-ups, nowadays?

2. TV's had 'off' switches - in fact they still do...

3. What happens if the people you complain to, also don't consider it a big deal?

4. I take the 'water off a ducks back' line to such insults - you must know that letting trolls know they're getting to you, only encourages them.

5. That's a fair comment, as long as it works both ways.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 12th December 2017, 10:13 AM

1. Anything that doesnt show you hold repulsive and illegal beliefs. Try watching tv..
2. Hate speech is illegal. It wasnt then.
3. Then you get situations like the bbc and jimmy saville. Im sure you approve of how that was handled...
4. No, YOU constantly say people have the right to troll. Replying to a troll with a "get what you give" remark doesnt make you a troll, its making a point which you miss entirely.
5. Works for me. I express my opinions on every topic to everyone with no regard to who they are. That includes my managers employers and politicians who i work for. People know they will always get an honest and accurate answer, with the risk of uncomfortable truths and a dose of cynicism. My opinion is, if you express your opinion to me, i can express mine back. There is no ambiguity with me and no deceit. I say what i think, tempered with a regard to peoples feelings, which i always give a priority. As long as that person isnt hurting other people. Then they get both barrels.

Posted by: vidsanta 12th December 2017, 11:52 AM

1. Technically, holding any kind of belief isn't illegal - only expressing/acting on it. As for TV the subject doesn't seem to come up in the Snooker/Natural History documentaries/Sitcoms that are my preferred viewing.
2. That still doesn't mean you are compelled to report it
3. I suspect you had that example prepared for a long while - just waiting to be used.
4. Not quite accurate - there is a difference between expressing opinions you genuinely believe in (however repugnant they might be), and simply saying whatever you want in order to deliberately upset/offend.
5. That is exactly my position, too - but it is a lot safer to do if your opinions are not controversial in the first place.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 12th December 2017, 08:15 PM

1. Its still repulsive either way and modern comedians are not.
2. Irrelevant comment
3, no i didnt. I dont need to prepare anything in advance. I speak what i think when i thunk it and it takes me seconds.
4. How do you know i didnt believe what i said anymore than you know what anyone else believes when they post something that you agree with or what their motives are. Claiming to be telepathic again i see....
5. So you want to be free to voice offensive opinions but be free of any consequences of holding them. Thats why we have laws protecting people from people who dont care about the consequences of their selfish actions.

3 minutes to reply. I can go on forever because i have logic on my side and concerns about other people....

Posted by: vidsanta 13th December 2017, 07:08 AM

1. I've never been keen on stand-up comedy, and my liking has grown ever less over the years
2. I don;t think it was - few people like snitches/whistleblowers
3. I wish i had that luxury - I have to carefully construct my comments to avoid misinterpretation (*) - unfortunately it often doesn't work.

(*) I can only go so far in this without losing the whole point, though.

4. Are you suggesting you can't tell the difference between trolls and sincere (if offensive) posters, then?

5. Only the first part of your above sentence applies. I've *never* suggested that posting offensively should be consequence-free. In fact I've always maintained that overt prejudice is easier to deal with, since it is out in the open, so you know who to be wary of.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 13th December 2017, 05:31 PM

2. Blaming the victim not the one breaking the law. Sounds about (far) right...
4. No, i'm staying the fact that you can't. Half of them are bots...
5. Yes Hitler held the same view that overt prejudice was the best way to bring about freedom of speech and democracy. As do all dictators in history. Nothing discourages racists more than being allowed to spread lies and hate freely. Guaranteed to put them off. Definitely doesnt encoursge them to gather together, go out in hate groups with torches and murder the nearest anowflake and beat up the first black man they come across. I think we can safely be sure that could never happen.

I assume you would be happy then with calls to hang brexiters from lamp posts, and deleriously content that they start with you? After all, its just expressing an opinion and the best way to fight this sort of thing is for all of us who didnt vote for brexit to be exposed as brexit-lamp-post-hangers. Just geting out of our system and in no way intent on gathering to commit brexitocide.

Im being facetious, just to be clear, no misunderstanding. Its easy to hold extreme views when you feel securely safe from smart non violent people. Not so secure if you are the target of extreme nut jobs. You are promoting the causes of the latter by fatuous arguments for freedom of expression. We arent stupid, seen it all before. Its the start of the END of democracy not the ultimate climax.

Posted by: vidsanta 14th December 2017, 07:07 AM

IMO the victims would be those accused of 'Thoughtcrime'

We both seem to consider each other's views as being the 'slippery slope' to dictatorship - but America has had a free-speech amendment for over 200 years without becoming a dictatorship...

Posted by: vidsanta 14th December 2017, 08:12 AM

Another storm in a teacup...

'Dreaming of a white campus?': 'Snowflake students' force University College London to apologise for 'racist' Tweet warning of wintery weather

University College London posted a tweet to let its students know it was open
It chose to reference the famous festive song 'White Christmas' by Bing Crosby
UCL was forced to apologise for the tweet and said it 'chose words very poorly'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5176183/Snowflake-students-force-UCL-apologise.html

**************

OK, the wording may have been clumsy, but anyone with even an ounce of common sense could tell they were were referring to snow, not skin colour!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 14th December 2017, 09:41 AM

How the far right choose to highlight trivia and appwarance of reasonability to promote hatred and nazi styled propaganda

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/daily-stormer-nazi-style-guide_us_5a2ece19e4b0ce3b344492f2

Posted by: vidsanta 14th December 2017, 10:56 AM

Unless you are accusing the Mail of being extreme-right, I don't see the relevance?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 14th December 2017, 11:42 AM

Same technique. Seen the front page of the mail today? Ps they dont support nazis overtly since they got caught out last time round.

Covertly, though?

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th December 2017, 12:03 PM

Where would you place it? It can hardly be described as somewhere near the political centre.

Posted by: vidsanta 14th December 2017, 12:15 PM

I would say right-wing, but not as far from the centre as Thatcherism.

Posted by: vidsanta 14th December 2017, 12:22 PM

The on-line Mail's lead article is 'Royals remember the victims of Grenfell Tower' - I have no idea what article you refer to in the printed version?

Personally though, I am appalled at the suggestion I might be a Nazi sympathiser, simply because my views are a little paraochial, and I read the Daily Mail!

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th December 2017, 01:09 PM

The front page follows the lead of their "Smash the saboteurs" and "Enemies of the People" front pages in recent months. Essentially, they accuse the eleven Tory MPs who had the courage of their convictions yesterday of treachery.

Posted by: vidsanta 14th December 2017, 04:04 PM

Thanks for that - the headline in the online version was nothing like so eye-catching : MPs `take back control´ as Tory rebels help inflict Brexit vote defeat on May

Posted by: Popchartfreak 14th December 2017, 07:18 PM

Re read what i said. I said no such thing. Sounds like a dsily mail fan.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 14th December 2017, 07:22 PM

It wasnt a brexit defeat at all. It was a victory for parliamentary democracy. Queen may wasnt on the referendum ballot. You are a hypocrite uf you fail to recognise british parliamentary democracy after whingeing endlessly on about it as a reason for brexit.

Posted by: vidsanta 15th December 2017, 06:56 AM

OK, maybe my comment was a little OTT, but I'm still made to feel like a pariah, simply because my political beliefs & choice of newspaper are in the minority here.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 15th December 2017, 11:38 AM

Maybe change your buzzjack name to Pariah Carey in protest? Fab name!

Posted by: vidsanta 15th December 2017, 12:27 PM

Yes, that *is* good.

VidPariah might be more easily recognisable though.

Maybe even DailyMailLover.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 15th December 2017, 07:20 PM

Im not entirely sold on Vid as when i dont have my glasses on the i blurs out and its a bit unfortunate!

Posted by: vidsanta 22nd December 2017, 10:48 AM

Going off at a tangent :

Should controversial issues be openly discussed, or suppressed?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd December 2017, 12:52 PM

difficult issues need to be discussed, controversial or otherwise. Part of a stable democracy is being able to discuss issues.

Posted by: vidsanta 22nd December 2017, 02:17 PM

Unless they're raised in a certain newspaper?

Seriously though, what happens if issues are *so* controversial that its impossible to do so in terms that don't cause offence?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd December 2017, 09:13 PM

Discussions take place within the law. Spreading headlines of hate and inequality is not a discussion in any sense of the word. It's propaganda. If there were a discussion about there would be dissenting voices being asked about the headlines. We are having this discussion here and now about it because the Daily Mail won't.

Posted by: vidsanta 23rd December 2017, 06:37 AM

Surely it's impossible to report terrorist acts and/or hate crimes *without* it having the potential of generating hate?

But what's the alternative - hushing it up, and therefore leaving the public at risk through lack of awareness? e.g. if there's a serial killer on the loose, wouldn't it be irresponsible to conceal info that might lead to their identification & capture, just to avoid giving offence to others of a similar profile?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd December 2017, 09:56 AM

No, it wouldn't. Hushing up information on criminals is not a suggestion and is not relevant to what I said.

I said the Daily Mail writes headlines and then doesn't discuss anything. It preaches it's own point of view and charges anyone who doesn't agree as a traitor. That is not a discussion, that is propaganda.

This is a discussion.

Posted by: vidsanta 23rd December 2017, 10:23 AM

Surely they have a right to at least the first part of the above, though? I would say 'publish' rather than 'preach' though...

Posted by: vidsanta 23rd December 2017, 04:40 PM

Princess Michael apologies for wearing a racist brooch.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/22/princess-michael-apologises-wearing-racist-jewellery-meghan-markle-christmas-lunch

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd never even *heard* of such brooches before - so what this article has actually done has vastly increased the number of people who've heard of this racist item. It's a similar situation to Jeremy Clarkson's 'slope on the bridge' comment - another apparently racist term I'd never heard of.

The point being - surely it's sometimes better *not* to spread around the knowledge of obscure racist terms?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd December 2017, 05:51 PM

...as long as they are happy being labelled front page traitors to British people too, and they are equally happy becoming targets of nutty murdering nationalists, so let's start it here then. It's as fair as targeting our democratically elected and appointed MP's and Judges and anyone they hate for being decent human beings.

"Rothermere family, Daily Mail
A Lady Rothermere trust is recorded in Jersey. It appears to refer to the late Lord Rothermere's second wife, Maiko Lee, of Korean nationality. She did not respond to our invitations to comment. Rothermere's son Jonathan by his first wife inherited the Daily Mail, also through a Jersey trust, and a Bermuda-registered offshore entity. Jonathan is estimated to be worth £760m. He has not denied claiming tax concessions as a "non-dom", on the grounds that his father lived in Paris. He resides at Ferne Park, a stately home in Wiltshire built for him by architect Quinlan Terry."

Source: The Guardian. Note, not elected to represent the British people at all, just mega-rich right-wing individuals descended from Nazi supporters. Note also, may be potentially liable to pay taxes by EU legislation on tax haven money in the near future unless the UK leaves the EU.

Fair enough then?

Posted by: vidsanta 24th December 2017, 07:15 AM

But you know that their have *always* been a tiny hard care of extreme nationalists - Oswald Mosely's 'Blackshirts' for example. However, to most people, even ardent Brexiters, they are just criminal thugs. Perhaps Brexit has emboldened existing racists, but I see very little evidence it is created any new ones.

[

What does 'being descended from Nazi supporters' have to do with anything? Probably half of Germany's current population share that dubious distinction, but it means nothing since political ideology is not genetic.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 24th December 2017, 10:30 AM

1. "Existing" racists is not a fixed eternal thing. People die. There are new ones being born all the time, and they are influenced by what is around them. Duuuuh!

2. You're right. It does however tend to run in families, if you're dad is a racist Nazi (Hi Trumps' dad) it increases the likelihood the kids will be too. Especially if they are closeted billionaires with no experience or idea of the real world and they feel as if they are somehow important and special compared to the riffraff. Evidence from The Mail is that they arent exactly liberal lovers of liberal equality. Front pages scream out every day what they believe. And it ain't democracy.

Posted by: vidsanta 24th December 2017, 11:41 AM

But the overall numbers have not really changed, that was my point - there are no more BNP/NF etc supporters now, than there were supporters of the British Union of Fascists' in the 1930's.

That's a tautology



That is not in dispute



You've pretty much described the whole of the Establishment there.

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th December 2017, 12:14 PM

There's a big difference. Germans in the 1930s and '40s knew they were risking their lives if they opposed Nazism. Rothermere had more freedom to make his own choice.

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 24th December 2017, 12:23 PM

Exactly right there was a feeling by the British establishment that the nazis were an extention of the pre democratic age establishment fighting back against democracy!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 24th December 2017, 08:21 PM

I had no idea there had been surveys both then and now! What a fool I've been! Please educate me and point to the surveys where Nazis have proudly declared their fascism, so I can confirm your obviously-true fact. Just so I know better, of course....

Posted by: vidsanta 25th December 2017, 06:55 AM

There were elections/by-elections which the BUF contested, just as the BNP do.

You seem to be challenging for my sarcasm title.

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th December 2017, 10:48 AM

Has anyone on this side of the pond ever been wished "Happy holidays" at this time of year? The number of people taking the mick out of claims that we are somehow not allowed to say Happy Christmas any more seems to have reached new heights this year.

Posted by: vidsanta 25th December 2017, 11:30 AM

I must admit that I've never actually heard of any non-Christian claiming offence at having 'Happy Christmas' said to them...

Posted by: vidsanta 26th December 2017, 06:48 AM

This is a Guardian article that seems to have been ignored (at least while I've been here)...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/19/trevor-phillips-i-dont-care-about-offending-people-has-political-correctness-gone-mad-channel-4

Posted by: vidsanta 26th December 2017, 07:03 AM

Office for Students

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

Hadn't heard of this before.

Bet you can guess where these headlines come from, though.

Universities must 'protect free speech or pay the price': Minister gives institutions four months to clamp down on students who 'stifle those they don't agree with'

Universities minister Jo Johnson will warn today that University's have four months to clamp down on student zealots that restrict free speech

He will say there are ‘worrying’ incidents of groups trying to ‘stifle' free speech

A new regulator, the Office for Students, will come into being in April 2018

The OfS will have the power to punish universities which limit free speech

Posted by: Suedehead2 26th December 2017, 08:54 AM

I assume the Office for Students will be known as OffStud.

Posted by: Suedehead2 26th December 2017, 09:14 AM

I'm on my way to see family so I don't have to the chance to check this out. There is a tweet circulating purporting to show tweets sent yesterday by Trump and Obama. Trump's wishes people happy holidays, Obama's happy Christmas. Anyone know if they are genuine?

Posted by: ►▲NT▲ CL▲ 26th December 2017, 09:18 AM

They are genuine but Trump's tweet is from 2010. Trump indeed did say 'merry Christmas' this year.

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Wishing everyone a very Happy Holiday season!
4:26 PM - Dec 23, 2010
2,190 2,190 Replies 9,099 9,099 Retweets 7,672 7,672 likes

✔
@BarackObama
On behalf of the Obama family, Merry Christmas! We wish you joy and peace this holiday season.
4:05 PM - Dec 25, 2017
32,337 32,337 Replies 216,487 216,487 Retweets 1,115,147 1,115,147 likes


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
1:36 PM - Dec 25, 2017
29,588 29,588 Replies 43,322 43,322 Retweets 167,853 167,853 likes

Posted by: Suedehead2 26th December 2017, 09:48 AM

Someone is being a little mischievous then!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th December 2017, 09:33 AM

I understand their is to be a new watchdog for Brexit Ministers spurious claims. It's to be known as OffTwat.

True fact.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th December 2017, 07:21 AM

Dennis The Menace emasculated.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5216731/Dennis-Menace-gets-change-ahead-new-TV-series.html

Dennis is no longer a Menace: Children's favourite gets a name change for new more politically-correct times

Dennis the Menace will be known as simply Dennis in weekly comic and annual

Publishers DC Thomson said the character had 'made mistakes in the past'

*****

Needless to say, the Guardian sees it differently...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/dec/03/dennis-the-menace-beano-dandy-minnie-the-minx

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th December 2017, 10:58 AM

The Guardian's more factual approach is the better. Times change. I always hated Dennis The Menace, just a bully with no appealing features. That said I used to read The Sparky, a long-gone sister comic who's title character was what I childishly thought was some sort of alien, but was actually a very very racist depiction of an African living in the UK, right down to the grass skirts and hoops in lips and distorted features. Quite rightly forgotten in the scale of things. Though I was sorry to see it also do in The Moonsters (actual Moon aliens), Keyhole Kate (likes to look through keyholes) and Hungry Horace. The latter one is still relevant to some kids, if a little judgemental...

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 28th December 2017, 11:01 AM

I used to read those comics. Hard not to in this part of the world. There’s a bunch of statues of them all in Dundee city centre!!!

Daily Mail is nothing but selectively quoted sensationalist shite

Posted by: Brett-Butler 28th December 2017, 11:40 AM

Hey, Buzzjack's biggest Beano fan here (as people who remember me from CHC Media will attest to). And this story is ball cocks - the strip has been known as Dennis & Gnasher officially since 2009 in the comics, and the cartoon series from 1996 was also known as "Dennis & Gnasher" for its second season, so the Daily Mail's getting hot & bothered about something that happened more than 20 years ago, so no changes there.

Although I do have gripes about the direction The Beano's going in - I've been visiting their website recently and they appear to have turned it into a "Buzzfeed for Tweens", focusing more of funny videos than on the antics of Dennis, Minnie, Roger & co. I know that the Beano's circulation has been falling, and the characters have to adapt as the youth changes, but it can be hard to see something you grew up with turn into something very different.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th December 2017, 03:01 PM

When I used to read comics (including the Beano), there was no attempt at social engineering - they merely reflected the realities of the time. Some kids were bullies, some were victims - end of story.

In fact, despite decades of leftish brainwashing (*), that situation hasn't really changed - only the means of it have evolved. Now it happens on-line as much as in person.

FYI, I'm not *defending* bullying, only pointing out it is a reality that can't be dismissed by pretending it isn't happening.

(*) Yes, I consider that equally as insidious as anything the Mail is accused of.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 28th December 2017, 06:05 PM

What the f*** are you on about you ridiculous human?

Posted by: ►▲NT▲ CL▲ 28th December 2017, 06:19 PM

Yes, we shouldn't pretend that bullying isn't happening.
There should be kids shows/comics/whatever about bullying. Just not those where the bully is presented as a positive image to kids.

Posted by: Liаm 28th December 2017, 06:21 PM

If people only got as annoyed at poverty, the deaths going on in the world, as the name of a comic they seldom read as a kid changing slightly.... I guess that's Britain for you.

Dennis The Menace was hardly anything to do with bullying anyway, he was just a naughty child

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th December 2017, 09:42 PM

Violence in cartoons is fine - witness Tom & Jerry, Simpsons, Family Guy etc. - but it has to have a moral point behind it - that being sneakyTom will just rebound on you, that falling off a cliff will hurt, and that bullies are as thick as pig-shit.

If it doesnt have a moral centre then it's time to be rebranded to show that bullying is not a happy thing - you can't make exceptions just because of nostalgia or we'd still be laughing at babies dying a la Victorians who found it darkly hilarious cos it was just like real life.

Posted by: vidcapper 29th December 2017, 06:55 AM

Since you don't quote what you are complaining about, I am left asking the same question, although without the profanity?

Posted by: vidcapper 29th December 2017, 07:02 AM

IIRC bad behaviour in comics *didn't* go unpunished - indeed the threat of corporal punishment was a regular theme!

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 29th December 2017, 10:04 AM

It was quite clearly referring to, and wanting an explanation of, the above. More specifically, the bolded section which is, to be kind, batshitf***ingcrazy. No one denies bullying isn't happening, no one is attempting to claim it isn't and the left have been talking for years about the rise of cyber-bullying and the need to tackle it.

Posted by: vidcapper 29th December 2017, 10:25 AM

I hope you're not suggesting that what the Left do is promotion, while what the Right does is propaganda?

If the Guardian can print editorials with a left-leaning slant, the the Mail can do so with a right-leaning one - to deny either would be an abrogation of freedom of speech.

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th December 2017, 10:34 AM

If the Mail's far-right bias was confined to the opinion columns it wouldn't be quite so bad. However, its front pages are a relentless stream of right-wing propaganda. Those front pages get seen by a lot more people than see the opinion columns.

Posted by: Klampus 29th December 2017, 11:16 AM

Imagine it being Christmas but you're too busy worrying that they changed the name of Dennis the Menace several years ago but you didn't know about it until you were told to be angry about it...

Posted by: vidcapper 29th December 2017, 11:28 AM

Given that very few people vote for extreme-right parties, even despite the Mail, I think you have little to worry about.

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th December 2017, 11:58 AM

How long did it take you to get a PhD in Missing The Point?

Posted by: vidcapper 29th December 2017, 02:42 PM

You assume I am doing it deliberately.

I thought the point *was* that most people here think the Mail turns people into 'knuckle-dragging, KKK supporting, neo-nazis'? If not, then what *were* you trying to say?

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th December 2017, 03:43 PM

They use their front page to promote their right-wing agenda. While most of their readers are not out-and-out racists, racists would approve of many of their front pages.

Posted by: Yuki On Ice~ 29th December 2017, 04:09 PM

Given your propensity to dodge the point to dredge up arguments that have a poorly valid answer on a daily basis in this forum in a manner that would make a Young Earth Creationist jealous, despite no one ever supporting you and what must be a draining existence if you actually believe the crap you spout, yes, I do believe you are doing it deliberately.

Posted by: vidcapper 29th December 2017, 04:36 PM

My lack of support is due to the unrepresentative nature of this forum, not because few others in the country share my opinions.

Posted by: Yuki On Ice~ 29th December 2017, 05:17 PM

But why? I mean, you make for a good strawman for our point of view (not that it's needed, the arguments on differences between any of us that don't involve you are far more interesting to read) but that can't be satisfying for you unless you're just on here to get reactions out of us.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 29th December 2017, 09:09 PM

How about you answer the damn question for a change? Provide some receipts to back up your lunacy claim that leftist propaganda denies the existence of bullying?


Oh wait. You can't because they don't exist.

Yer a wasteman.

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 29th December 2017, 09:30 PM

!!!

Popxhart, can you give me a source for that Victorian baby thing? Not disagreeing just find that morbidly interesting. They were a veeery strange generation.

Posted by: vidcapper 30th December 2017, 06:47 AM

I am not trolling, merely attempting to remind this cosy little enclave that not everyone agrees with them.




I see what happened now - it was a cut/paste mistake.

My post was meant to read something like : When I used to read comics (including the Beano), there was no attempt at social engineering - they merely reflected the realities of the time. Some kids were bullies, some were victims - end of story. Only the means of it have evolved. Now it happens on-line as much as in person.

The 'leftish brainwashing' comment was supposed to be seperate from the bullying one.

Sorry.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 30th December 2017, 05:47 PM

I don't have any sources I can point to, sorry - it's just in previous centuries death was so common, especially infant mortality, that there was a morbid reaction to it in humour. Black humour, I guess. I think it's been around as long as people, but at the turn of the last century there was certainly an attitude towards death (including infants) in literature, silent movies and even Punch and Judy, and various Fairy tales, that we would find troubling these days.

It's not surprising - all the Brontes died young, for instance. Times were tough!

Posted by: vidcapper 11th January 2018, 06:52 AM

Don’t call people who use drugs ‘junkies’

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/10/dont-call-people-use-drugs-junkies-7219516/

Posted by: vidcapper 16th January 2018, 07:11 AM

A thread in The Lounge : Are people too easily offended nowadays?

http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=208849

And believe it or not, it wasn't even I who set it up!

Though you won't be surprised that I've commented on it.

Posted by: vidcapper 24th January 2018, 04:33 PM

Good luck with this idea...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/01/23/headteacher-leading-public-school-says-will-expel-pupils-have/

The headteacher at a leading public school has said he will expel pupils who have a boyfriend or girlfriend as it is a distraction from their studies.

Toby Belfield, principal at £34,500-a-year Ruthin School in north Wales, told staff that he "strongly disapproves" of pupils striking up romances with each other.

He vowed to draw up a list of Year 11 or Lower Sixth students - usually aged between 15 and 17 – who are in relationships and said that they can “expect to find new schools in September”.

Mr Belfield said he will “not hesitate” to expel pupils that have “any sexual contact” in school, and added that he will give worse university references to students with boyfriends or girlfriends.

In an email to staff, he warned teachers to be “more vigilant” about potential student liaisons, adding: "School is not the place for romantic relationships – ever”.

He said: "I strongly disapprove of any boyfriend/girlfriend relationships - and it will always affect any university reference I write (meaning - any student in a relationship will definitely get a worse reference from me).

"Relationships can start at university - not at Ruthin School. I will be talking to staff and, as in previous years, I will put together a list of any student with a boyfriend or girlfriend. These students - if in L6 (lower sixth form) or F5 (year 11) can expect to find new school in September.”

Mr Belfield added: “There are plenty of students that wish to attend Ruthin School without the diversion of romance - and these students can replace those students whose focus is on bf/gf relationships."

Mr Belfield, principal of the 700-year-old Ruthin School, has spoken of his desire to expel students because the school is oversubscribed.

He told The Daily Telegraph that any students who are found to be in a relationship, will not be “summarily expelled”.

Rather, they will “be given the opportunity to review their current romantic situation, and my belief is that they (and their parents) will put their education first”.

Mr Belfield explained why he felt strongly about taking a tough stance on teenage relationships.

“Parents choose Ruthin School because it is a top ranking academic institution,” he said. “In my experience, students who are in a relationship, whilst at school, are at danger of academically underachieving.

“Therefore, if they devote their time to their studies, rather than the emotional turmoil connected with teenage romance, they will achieve higher grades and go to better universities.

“This is the primary objective of the School – to enable them to fulfil their academic potential and go to the best universities in the world.”

Last year, he introduced a raft of new banning students from going to the park or restaurants, ordering takeaways, smoking and drinking - regardless of their age.

Any student caught breaching the tougher policies should not expect to return for the next academic year, he said at the time.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 24th January 2018, 04:41 PM

How is this anything to do with political correctness?

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 24th January 2018, 04:49 PM

"Last year, he introduced a raft of new banning students from going to the park or restaurants, ordering takeaways, smoking and drinking - regardless of their age."

None of these things are politically correct, just power mad.

Posted by: Avicii 24th January 2018, 04:57 PM

Is it not more politically correct to be against the side of the headteacher in this case? Most people are fine with the idea of teenagers having relationships (as long as they're not literally having sex in school, or if the relationship is abusive etc.)

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th January 2018, 04:59 PM

I assume he can get away with these ridiculous rules as it is a public school. I'm less sure whether his threat to give worse university references would survive a legal challenge.

Posted by: vidcapper 25th January 2018, 07:12 AM

I did consider that - but it didn't seem worth starting a whole new thread for it.

The thought occured : what would happen if he expelled pupils who were in same-sex relationships? I dare say he might well fall foul of hate-crime laws in those circumstances?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 25th January 2018, 07:21 AM

Only if students in same sex relationships were the only ones excluded. Obviously.

As others have said this has nothing to do with PC at all. It’s a bit draconian for sure but you don’t pay more than my annual salary to send your kids to a place like this and not be the kind of person who these rules would appeal too

Posted by: vidcapper 25th January 2018, 07:45 AM

Labour hoist by their own petard...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5409589/labour-forced-to-scrap-plans-to-charge-white-people-more-for-corbyn-speech-after-equalities-watchdog-complains/

Posted by: Soy Adrián 25th January 2018, 09:06 AM

Heaven forbid they try and encourage under-represented groups to go to events.

Posted by: vidcapper 25th January 2018, 09:27 AM

No problem with that, as long as they don't break anti-discrimination laws by doing so.

BTW, would you mind changing the title to 'General Complaining' as that's slightly more neutral than 'Whining'?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 25th January 2018, 12:55 PM

I prefer "whingeing" to "whining".

As my friends can vouch...

Posted by: Soy Adrián 26th January 2018, 08:56 AM

Interesting how you're suddenly concerned about anti-discrimination laws as soon as you think white people might have been discriminated against.

Posted by: vidcapper 26th January 2018, 10:00 AM

I guess you're not interested in the above suggested change, then?



My position on this has never varied - it's surely obvious that anti-discrimination laws must protect *everyone* equally?

The easiest way to envision it in cases of anti-white discrimination is to mentally switch the victims to 'non-white' and imagine what your reaction would be then - if your reaction of outrage isn't exactly the same, then you need to ask yourself 'why not'?

Posted by: Soy Adrián 26th January 2018, 10:58 AM

Because that's not how structural discrimination works. Structural discrimination is white people being proportionately better represented in politics than non-white people. Steps to rectify this are positive discrimination. Any attempt to make it worse would be racism.

Posted by: vidcapper 26th January 2018, 11:56 AM

I never mentioned *structural* discrimination.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 26th January 2018, 01:37 PM

Are you denying that it's a reality of our society?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 26th January 2018, 01:53 PM

giving subsidies to encourage inclusiveness is not discrimination. Charging them more to keep them out is discrimination. If you can't see that basic principle then presumably you have problems with businesses (and organisations) giving pensioners, students, disabled people cut-price tickets, and clubs giving women free entry to try and balance the male-female ratio?

Or people who have a membership card getting money off over those who don't. Surely that's discrimination too? How about charging gas guzzling cars more than small engined cars in tax? That's discrimination too.

To use your example, if it were a 95% black organisation in a predominantly black area which wished to see non-blacks better represented when the local non-black population was 10 or 20% which was encouraging it by charging a lower fee, would I be outraged? No, I wouldn't. It's positive action, which is what MP's and local government are required to do by law - to ensure a fair balance. By way of example, Bournemouth Council in the 1980's was virtually 95% or more white, non-white workers were rare. Now they aren't. That isn't racism against whites, it's stopping racism against non-whites.

Posted by: vidcapper 26th January 2018, 02:39 PM

ISTM it's a reality of every society.

Posted by: vidcapper 26th January 2018, 02:42 PM

If I gave examples like this, you'd call them strawmen.



So, to summarise : discrimination is wrong, except where it isn't?

Posted by: Soy Adrián 26th January 2018, 02:53 PM

If you don't engage with other people's arguments, why do you expect us to engage with yours?

Posted by: vidcapper 26th January 2018, 03:07 PM

I *have* done so in the past, but anything I say is not taken seriously here.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 26th January 2018, 09:55 PM

You're the one being selective, not me.

You're the one seeing what is The Law (not to discriminate against minorities) as being discrimination against the majority. The example I gave is the exact reverse of the situation you find annoying, and I gave an honest answer. No I wouldn't find positive assistance for whites in a non-white area where they suffer discrimination offensive or discriminatory. There are areas of the country where it MIGHT be valid, and it's certainly true in other countries. You might recall those countries where the minority rich whites ruled the majority poor black - it's within your living memory, unless your rose-tinted glasses have erased it from your mind. Now, when the rich white farmers were being systematically murdered and removed in one country (which decimated the economy, as a result of various things including UK policy) I was not and would never be in favour of minority oppression (even rich whites part of a community which had formerly done exactly that).

I also gave you a local history lesson and showed exactly how positive action and equality legislation had changed the make-up of local government (for the better). It's just a shame that local Councillors remain elderly white male Tories, with a few elderly white Tory women chucked in. Not remotely ethnically varied.

Is that made-up? Cos it isn't....

Posted by: vidcapper 27th January 2018, 07:12 AM

Affirmative action is OK in principle, as long as it is not overused - if that happens, then it can become seen as an alternative to working for what you want, which encourages laziness.

I assume you refer to Zimbabwe.



Even in Labour areas?

Seriously though, part of that is due to the selection process, but it's always risky for parties to impose an outside candidate on an area, even if that candidate is of the same group as the majority of the electorate. When they are not, as in John Taylor's standing for Cheltenham in the 1992 election, you are just asking for trouble.

http://www.obv.org.uk/news-blogs/rise-and-fall-lord-john-taylor

In reality it wasn't that simple, as the popular and long-standing Tory MP (Charles Irving) (*) had stepped down, taking with him a substantial personal vote - and it's not as if the LD's came from nowhere - they were already in control of Cheltenham Borough Council, and were only 8% behind at the previous GE.

(*) It was an open secret in the town that has was gay, though he never officially came out.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/former-tory-peer-jailed-for-expenses-fraud-2291602.html

So was our decision that misjudged, after all?

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th January 2018, 08:09 AM

Bournemouth is not known for its Labour areas.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th January 2018, 09:19 AM

More so than Cheltenham, though!

Labour got less than 10% in Cheltenham last time, whereas in both Bournemouth seats they scored around 35%...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th January 2018, 10:22 AM

1. the assumption that jobs etc go to less qualified people is very wrong, in Local government certainly. Every job applicant is scored by a panel to ensure fairness and it also gives people an opportunity to challenge results if they want (which is why it needs to be scored). Often, candidates are wafer-thin in differences on paper and those are the occasions where personal prejudices may have had an opportunity to affect the result in the past. If you cant do the job ("be lazy") you won't get it. That is a lazy stereotype.

2. Yes, Zimbabwe

3. Local candidates are chosen largely from the Business community, for Tories, because that is who wants to stand for office and gets involved in local politics to advantage themselves and their interests. That means the large non-white community has no representation, especially those employed to do the cleaning (oddly enough, all non-white-UK on the contracts won to do the Council, what a shock white British people don't like cleaning! Before you comment, it goes to the lowest bidder, which is to save the taxpayer money). A fair proportion of Tory Councillors are also gay businessmen, low-key - which is fair enough because it's not remotely relevant - but I fondly recall one or two back in the day when they were out and shagging about on the scene. Nothing against most Tory councillors personally, and some are quite good. Some are utterly useless and deceitful though and they cause damage.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th January 2018, 11:26 AM

1. Perhaps - but people who come across well in interviews are not necessarily those who will do the best job. After all, how many successful computer companies were founded by social awkward 'nerds' who would have struggled through any job interview...

3. Surely communities with a large non-white presence are likely to vote Labour rather then Conservative anyway?

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th January 2018, 12:29 PM

That 35% vote was something of an exception though. They might maintain that vote or they might fall back again.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th January 2018, 03:11 PM

I was quite surprised to see such a high Labour vote there - I would have expected the LD's to be second.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th January 2018, 05:45 PM

1. True and we live in an imperfect world
2. Most of the cleaners and co don't have the vote and Bournemouth is still overwhelmingly white and /or well off and/or retired.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th January 2018, 06:43 AM

Why don't they have the vote?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th January 2018, 12:18 PM

Immigrant labour. Cheaper. 3 million in the UK from the EU, and presumably the same for non-EU?

Posted by: vidcapper 28th January 2018, 12:27 PM

If *they* can't vote, than where is that 35% Labour vote share coming from?

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th January 2018, 03:29 PM

Labour did very well in a lot of seats along the south coast, including in areas where their vote has been very low for decades. As well as both Bournemouth seats they did relatively well in neighbouring Poole and in one of the Worthing seats. In Brighton and Hove they won two of the seats with large majorities, having gone into the election holding one of them with a small majority.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th January 2018, 03:39 PM

I thought one of the Brighton seats was the only one held by the Greens?

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th January 2018, 04:16 PM

It is. That's why I referred to Brighton & Hove.

Posted by: vidcapper 1st February 2018, 03:12 PM

When did Hove get a seat of its own?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 1st February 2018, 07:28 PM

Housing Estates, both Council and private. Contrary to perception, there are lots of areas with people on low paid jobs in an expensive area in both Poole and Bournemouth. There is also the most valuable piece of real-estate outside central London - hello Sandbanks! Very rich and very poor, and lots of middle class well-offs.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 1st February 2018, 09:48 PM

Not that your lovely stereotyping really merits a response, but to build on the earlier point about private tenants - Labour did a lot better in 2017 among socially liberal middle class voters, who didn't mind Cameron too much but thought May was presiding over a nasty government of Little Englanders.


1950.

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st February 2018, 10:32 PM

You beat me to it Having been brought cup in Sussex I can remember Hove being thought o f s ultra-posh. That's why it was such a shock when Labour won the constituency in 1997. The fact that they have held it most of the time since then just shows how much this part of the world has changed.

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd February 2018, 07:23 AM

This is one case where minority rights have not just been equalized, as PC intends, but given preferential status :

'Someone has to make a stand': widow's battle for cohabiting couples

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/27/widows-battle-for-cohabiting-couples-siobhan-mclaughlin-supreme-court-legal-rights

Posted by: Oliver 3rd February 2018, 07:36 AM

Have you linked to the right article Vidcapper? I see nothing wrong with that article and no indication of any "preferential status" in relation to rights?

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd February 2018, 07:40 AM

I assumed this forum would prefer the Guardian version to the Mail one...

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 3rd February 2018, 08:24 AM

I don't see anything wrong with that article. What are you railing against here? That co-habiting couples should be treated as if they were defacto married? That they already are treated properly under Scots Law? The Guardian?

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd February 2018, 10:08 AM

Who has been given preferential status?

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd February 2018, 10:20 AM

I knew I should have posted the Mail version as well...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5345605/Heterosexuals-allowed-civil-partnerships.html

Heterosexual couples could be allowed to have civil partnerships under a law change to end the 'unfair' inequality with gay people

Tim Loughton brought forward bill to extend civil partnerships to all couples
Tory ex minister said this close inequality that currently favours gay couples
Home Office said they will launch onsulttaion on how civil partnership work
Charles Keidan and Rebecca Steinfeld went to court for a civil partnership

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd February 2018, 12:40 PM

What post are you trying to make? This bill and a good chance of becoming law. My own preference would have been to scrap civil partnerships altogether, but extending CPs to all couples is OK by me. However, the suggestion that existing law is discriminatory is typical right-wing Daily Mail nonsense.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 3rd February 2018, 01:24 PM

The existing law was a way to attempt to recognise same sex unions without giving them equal rights. That it was left over or not extended to all after equal marriage was attained is sloppy legislating by the Tory/LibDem coalition. It's not a conspiracy against heterosexual couples.

You couldn't make this shit up

Posted by: vidcapper 5th February 2018, 06:35 AM

It's an ill wind...

Protests against a pair of Churchill-themed cafes have backfired after the publicity propelled it to the top 20 London cafes on TripAdvisor.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/protest-against-churchillthemed-coffee-shop-backfires-as-online-reviews-boost-blighty-uk-cafe-to-top-a3757581.html

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 5th February 2018, 07:10 AM

Exactly right.

Those were separate but equal, pandering ro the 4 million Christian base, many i whom don't even have a problem with gay people marrying, this is not America, no matter how much the BBT tried to make it a controversial narrative. I think they shoild be extended to everyone. It is unfair that they aren't ... but it was even MRE unfair that gay people had to hide in secret, then be denied all rifhrs, for hundreds of years, so, you know, not a whole heaping of marma on heterosexual couples in the grand scheme o' things...

Posted by: vidcapper 27th February 2018, 08:09 AM

Landlords who say 'no DSS' breaking equality laws

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42979242

ISTM this could be easily resolved by having HB paid directly to the landlords, as used to be the case..

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th February 2018, 12:44 PM

We agree! It's hard to believe I know...

Tories can resolve the problem in one quick minor drafting, supported by all parties.....

Funny they choose not to...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th February 2018, 12:58 PM

OK, local government observation.

Dorset has just (at long last, a year late) been given the go-ahead to merge into 2 councils:

Poole, Bournemouth, Christchurch into one urban council, the rest of Dorset into a large rural-leaning council.

This is to cut jobs and make savings based on the economy of scale.

Residents of Christchurch demanded (or rather their Tory Councillors and Tory MP demanded) a local referendum so they can go independent (they can't because it small council can't financially provide for anything much). 80% of those who bothered to vote, voted to refuse the joining with Bournemouth & Poole (as they would become a small fish in a bigger pond), but most people didn't bother to vote, presumably because they weren't fussed about the idea, whereas public opinion generally in Dorset seems in favour.

Now what's hilarious is the same EU-haters constantly slagging off the leavers for not not submitting to a wafer-thin referendum, and demanding that it is undemocratic for Christchurch to be ignored in its wishes - don't seem to have a problem with Scotland, N. Ireland, London, and many parts of the country being forced out of the EU, and that affects future well-being far more than a minor local government reorganisation does from forced savings from a government they voted for in droves.

Loons and hypocrites.

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th February 2018, 01:49 PM

Paying HB to individuals was a pretty stupid idea. It's hardly a surprise that the result was a lot of landlords (for understandable reasons) choosing not to take tenants receiving HB.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th February 2018, 02:55 PM

Which forces people into B&B, which I would guess is an even more expensive option?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th February 2018, 08:35 PM

Yes it is, if basic needs for children are taking into account. A single person, not so much, but then single people are usually the homeless ones. There were 3 sleeping rough in the car park I use last night in sub zero temperatures. I contacted the organisation dealing with it to make sure they have overnight accomodation available - turns out they do. The church floor next door, as long as they get in by 10pm.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th February 2018, 08:12 AM

An interesting article I found in the Guardian from 2011 :

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/06/dailymail-oswald-mosley

Don't damn the Daily Mail for its fascist flirtation 80 years ago
Roy Greenslade

Posted by: Soy Adrián 28th February 2018, 04:26 PM

How long did it take you to find that?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 28th February 2018, 04:28 PM

It’s a culmination of his life’s work

Posted by: vidcapper 28th February 2018, 04:35 PM

Not long - I just Googled 'Has the Mail ever apologised for supporting the nazis'



Very droll.

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd March 2018, 07:26 AM

I notice that nobody commented in the actual article.

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd March 2018, 07:27 AM

Is this misuse of police power?

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/van-driver-arrested-terror-offences-filming-police-officers-bad-parking/

Man arrested for terror offences after filming police officer’s bad parking

Posted by: vidcapper 13th May 2018, 06:47 AM

Why do they give people who spout nonsense like this, publicity?

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/permission-nappy-change-consent-sexuality-expert-deanne-carson-a8345581.html

Posted by: Brett-Butler 13th May 2018, 09:50 AM

Because it is the model that online media thrives upon - getting "hate clicks" by writing stories that are divisive, somewhat idiotic, and that confirm people's own cognitive biases about "the other side" in order to keep the advertising revenue going.

And I really dislike that business model, but with money being continuously haemorrhaging from journalism, it's the only way to sustain online media, something which I believe has contributed to the increasing political polarisation in the past few years. The only way it can be solved is if we as a society collectively decided to not pay this clickbait any heed and agreed to start paying for "quality" journalism instead, although at this point I feel we are well beyond the point of no return.

Posted by: vidcapper 13th May 2018, 09:59 AM

Even if mainstream media dropped it, there are plenty of other sources that'd still pick it up, not to mention blogs, etc.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 20th May 2018, 06:55 PM

And The Daily Mail readers online crowd get full on whinging Brexit-quoting "I didn't vote Brexit for non-tax-paying Americans to come over here and bring their culture" moaning racist mode in the comments section about the Royal Wedding: Oh they are SO dumb it's hilarious. Suddenly I love the Royal Family......

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 20th May 2018, 07:04 PM

They had a black minister quote MLK, don’t think I’ve been prouder to have a royal family.

Will, Kate, Meghan & Harry seem like good eggs

Posted by: Suedehead2 20th May 2018, 10:11 PM

Did you see the comments accompanying a picture of Sam Smith getting a peck on the cheek from his boyfriend?

Posted by: vidcapper 21st May 2018, 05:33 AM

I didn't think you read the Mail?

I didn't see those comments either, but then again, I usually stick to the political articles.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 21st May 2018, 07:10 AM

sadly not. I got them from a hilarious mock-up of Daily Mail headlines based on reader quotes...

Posted by: Suedehead2 21st May 2018, 03:25 PM

There's a sucker for punishment on Twitter who posts a selection of comments.

Posted by: vidcapper 29th May 2018, 05:42 AM

I was unable to access the Mail Online briefly this morning, so I was beginning to wonder if any of you guys had anything to do with it

It's back now, though.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 29th May 2018, 12:01 PM

The Power of Prayer, followed by a deal with the Antichrist no doubt - though, can an organisation have a soul to sell?