|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 20, 2020 10:47:31 GMT
Become hilarious? Jung has come on here, in a sober and reasonable manner, and invited you to defend the position that you took. And, instead, you quote a 14 th century poet. Been at the old Chateau Croesus again? I don`t know what your problem with Jung is. He doesn`t seem to bear you any animus, despite you losing your temper, and resorting to calling him names. Do you prefer the car crash that the Corona virus thread descended into, rather than the civilised exchange of facts that Jung has asked for? You said that you can`t see your original assertion is inflammatory. In this day and age, I`d say that asserting that people are being denied equal opportunity ( at least in the political sphere ) because of skin colour, is as inflammatory as it gets. It`s the sort of rhetoric that demagogues the world over, use to inflame passions. If you believe it what you wrote, then take up Jung`s offer to prove it. If there`s something not right about him, or his argument, I`m sure we`ll all soon see it. Just do it! Precisely. I reckon Jung is Oldie's nemesis. One can imagine that Oldie has lost a debate with Jung on the other forum and maybe felt a bit foolish and so won't engage with him on this forum for fear of it happening again. On here people no longer want to engage with Oldie as to do so means that you are rounded upon by his "gang" in the strange belief that a combination of the greater number of agreeing views coupled with the hounding of dissenting views somehow makes their view more important. Maybe Oldie didn't have the support on the other forum that he does on here. Or maybe he did but Jung won the debate anyway. Jung may be a dark horse but I have read nothing yet that suggests he wants anything other than to debate sensibly. Ok, he did say he was invited on here to challenge Oldie but that is not the same as coming on here to cause trouble. So my advice to Jung is not to get taken in by the deflection tactics, the use of strange quotes to try and change the subject, and to stay calm when others try to turn the tables and make out that you have said something you haven't.
As a regular reader of the other forum, I'd suggest that this is more to do with just not wanting to engage rather than losing a debate or not having support there. |
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 20, 2020 10:58:16 GMT
Precisely. I reckon Jung is Oldie's nemesis. One can imagine that Oldie has lost a debate with Jung on the other forum and maybe felt a bit foolish and so won't engage with him on this forum for fear of it happening again. On here people no longer want to engage with Oldie as to do so means that you are rounded upon by his "gang" in the strange belief that a combination of the greater number of agreeing views coupled with the hounding of dissenting views somehow makes their view more important. Maybe Oldie didn't have the support on the other forum that he does on here. Or maybe he did but Jung won the debate anyway. Jung may be a dark horse but I have read nothing yet that suggests he wants anything other than to debate sensibly. Ok, he did say he was invited on here to challenge Oldie but that is not the same as coming on here to cause trouble. So my advice to Jung is not to get taken in by the deflection tactics, the use of strange quotes to try and change the subject, and to stay calm when others try to turn the tables and make out that you have said something you haven't.
As a regular reader of the other forum, I'd suggest that this is more to do with just not wanting to engage rather than losing a debate or not having support there. And that is fine but it can't be one rule for one and another rule for everyone else. And don't forget how Nobbygas was hounded. Smacks of double standards. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 10:59:25 GMT
This thread has become hilarious, a version of Dante's Divine Comedy. Convoluted distortions based upon personal prejudices and possible inferiority complexes. Dante had it right in his poem when (quote) "In the poem, Hell is depicted as nine concentric circles of torment located within the Earth; it is the "realm ... of those who have rejected spiritual values by yielding to bestial appetites or violence, or by perverting their human intellect to fraud or malice against their fellowmen" Recognise this anyone? 😂😂😂😂🤔🤔 Become hilarious? Jung has come on here, in a sober and reasonable manner, and invited you to defend the position that you took. And, instead, you quote a 14 th century poet. Been at the old Chateau Croesus again? I don`t know what your problem with Jung is. He doesn`t seem to bear you any animus, despite you losing your temper, and resorting to calling him names. Do you prefer the car crash that the Corona virus thread descended into, rather than the civilised exchange of facts that Jung has asked for? You said that you can`t see your original assertion is inflammatory. In this day and age, I`d say that asserting that people are being denied equal opportunity ( at least in the political sphere ) because of skin colour, is as inflammatory as it gets. It`s the sort of rhetoric that demagogues the world over, use to inflame passions. If you believe it what you wrote, then take up Jung`s offer to prove it. If there`s something not right about him, or his argument, I`m sure we`ll all soon see it. Just do it! If you are so upset by what I had previously wrote, why didn't you pick me up on it at the time? I don't recall you being barred from doing so? But now's your opportunity, given that you did not take up that opportunity first time around. Pick up what I said, quote it and show me where I am wrong. Easy peasy and no need to hide behind Bambers skirt. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 11:01:29 GMT
Precisely. I reckon Jung is Oldie's nemesis. One can imagine that Oldie has lost a debate with Jung on the other forum and maybe felt a bit foolish and so won't engage with him on this forum for fear of it happening again. On here people no longer want to engage with Oldie as to do so means that you are rounded upon by his "gang" in the strange belief that a combination of the greater number of agreeing views coupled with the hounding of dissenting views somehow makes their view more important. Maybe Oldie didn't have the support on the other forum that he does on here. Or maybe he did but Jung won the debate anyway. Jung may be a dark horse but I have read nothing yet that suggests he wants anything other than to debate sensibly. Ok, he did say he was invited on here to challenge Oldie but that is not the same as coming on here to cause trouble. So my advice to Jung is not to get taken in by the deflection tactics, the use of strange quotes to try and change the subject, and to stay calm when others try to turn the tables and make out that you have said something you haven't.
As a regular reader of the other forum, I'd suggest that this is more to do with just not wanting to engage rather than losing a debate or not having support there. People who cannot debate, or are incapable, looking for a skirt to hide behind Stuart, it's like kids in a playground. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 11:02:42 GMT
As a regular reader of the other forum, I'd suggest that this is more to do with just not wanting to engage rather than losing a debate or not having support there. And that is fine but it can't be one rule for one and another rule for everyone else. And don't forget how Nobbygas was hounded. Smacks of double standards. Which rule are you referring to? |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 20, 2020 11:18:47 GMT
As a regular reader of the other forum, I'd suggest that this is more to do with just not wanting to engage rather than losing a debate or not having support there. And that is fine but it can't be one rule for one and another rule for everyone else. And don't forget how Nobbygas was hounded. Smacks of double standards. Nobby was willing to debate across multitude of threads about different things, Jung has declined that until Oldie has proved his point which perhaps shows his motivation. For me things got out of hand before and I had called for calm, which was ignored before coming to a head. As far as anything posted on here, I take the view that until there is evidence then it remains an opinion and should be seen in that light regardless of how it is presented. Fwiw I disagree with the premise of institutions being racist/sexist/etc as they are in general neutral, it is the people within them making decisions that are biased for or against certain elements of society. |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jun 20, 2020 11:53:02 GMT
My apologies then for my misunderstanding. What is it youd like to talk about then? Do you have an opinion youd like to share? On what topic? Oh never mind. Clear you're only here for one thing. |
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 20, 2020 11:56:18 GMT
And that is fine but it can't be one rule for one and another rule for everyone else. And don't forget how Nobbygas was hounded. Smacks of double standards. Which rule are you referring to? That one poster must provide evidence to back up a statement (and be hounded for not doing so) but another poster feels that they do not need to provide evidence when challenged to do so. As I've said before, I am offering no opinion on whether any statement made on this forum is correct or not correct, comes with evidence or doesn't come with evidence. I do not wish to get involved in the shittery that comes with it. But I do feel that posters should all be treated the same regardless of what they have posted. If one is challenged, and pursued, for evidence then all should be allowed to be challenged, and pursued, for evidence. You may feel that I am going at you personally but I really am not. It just happens to be you that is the subject of the current furore. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 12:12:43 GMT
Which rule are you referring to? That one poster must provide evidence to back up a statement (and be hounded for not doing so) but another poster feels that they do not need to provide evidence when challenged to do so. As I've said before, I am offering no opinion on whether any statement made on this forum is correct or not correct, comes with evidence or doesn't come with evidence. I do not wish to get involved in the shittery that comes with it. But I do feel that posters should all be treated the same regardless of what they have posted. If one is challenged, and pursued, for evidence then all should be allowed to be challenged, and pursued, for evidence. You may feel that I am going at you personally but I really am not. It just happens to be you that is the subject of the current furore. Ok Scooby, fair enough and for what it's worth I in principle agree with you. The issues here are twofold. The first is I am not going to engage with out new member (Bamber Gasgroin on the other forum) for reasons I have expressed. He is trolling me (as has been pointed out on the other forum) for reasons I know not. I am not going to play. The other is long standing members of this forum have jumped on Bambers question and demanded I justify something I said. Ok,but against what? Allegedly this was written a little while back and if as William claims was so provocative why was I not challenged at the time? Why was the opposing point not made, showing or proving me wrong. I have not looked back so if this was done then why are we readdressing this? This all a bit daft in reality. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 20, 2020 12:31:10 GMT
But you are happy to change. You've changed from Churchill to racism already. Now you're happy to change with OB, but only on your terms. So that's exactly what you're doing. I'm not asking you for your position to defend something, I'm asking for your opinion. Which you conveniently won't give. You claimed that Oldie had said "How about skin colour being a barrier to progress in UK politics, you claimed this was the case, shall we do that?". Firstly, can you please show me where Oldie had said that. Surely if you accuse someone of saying something, you need to show that's what they said? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just don't remember seeing it. Al had said that the UK isn't institutionally racist and that he's offended anyone would suggest that. I've wanted him to back that up, but he refuses to debate me. Funny, I don't see anyone pushing Al for an answer on such a statement. But they're more than happy to call Oldie out because he refuses to debate with someone. Marshy just yesterday had accused me of belittling and insulting him, but couldn't find any evidence of that. Hypocrisy at it's finest in here. You say you're here to learn, but won't enter debate unless you can only post your own articles. How are you supposed to learn from that? You say you're for a debate, but your posts personally attack Oldie stating, " Based on the hate filled diatribe you've turned this thread into". I honestly have no interest in upsetting anybodyWhere is the debate or learning? You've admitted that you came to this forum just to challenge him yet said, " I honestly have no interest in upsetting anybody". Just seems a bit suspicious. You are confusing yourself. I'm replying directly, you are conflating multiple events into single sentences. I'm happy to discuss multiple subjects at the same time, sure, why not, but Oldie still hasn't justified his claim, it started on Page 28 of this thread for your ease of reference. I'm not responsible for your interaction with Al. If he's made a positive assertion then ask him to justify it or withdraw it, that's normal, if he can't or won't, or won't at least re-visit what he's said and qualify it in some way, then it becomes his problem and you've done a good job in recognising and exposing the flaw in his position. If you have a specific question for me which doesn't read as an attempt to move the discussion away from the burden of proof, which it appears Oldie is unable to meet, so by default he's conceding the point and should acknowledge that, then I'll be delighted to reply. This is what happened with OB, he asked a direct question which didn't deflect from Oldie's claim, so I replied. If the burden of proof is on the person who makes the statement, your statement where Oldie said, "skin colour being a barrier to progress in UK politics" is on you to prove it. Saying go read it yourself, isn't proving it. That's the same level of debating from Nobby. 'All the members are commies'. 'Do you have proof?' 'Yes, go find it on the internet. If you can't find it, that's your problem'. I'm also curious as to why, if it is so important to you that any discussion must be on pause until Oldie answers your unproven statement, why you didn't register and say something at the time? You clearly like to follow the rules, why/how does bringing something up from 10 days ago fit into that? The conversation has moved on, yet you've brought it back up and refuse to allow discussion to evolve. You create strange rules, insist everyone follows them, but the rule itself is a contradiction of the very point you're trying to make. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 12:44:09 GMT
You are confusing yourself. I'm replying directly, you are conflating multiple events into single sentences. I'm happy to discuss multiple subjects at the same time, sure, why not, but Oldie still hasn't justified his claim, it started on Page 28 of this thread for your ease of reference. I'm not responsible for your interaction with Al. If he's made a positive assertion then ask him to justify it or withdraw it, that's normal, if he can't or won't, or won't at least re-visit what he's said and qualify it in some way, then it becomes his problem and you've done a good job in recognising and exposing the flaw in his position. If you have a specific question for me which doesn't read as an attempt to move the discussion away from the burden of proof, which it appears Oldie is unable to meet, so by default he's conceding the point and should acknowledge that, then I'll be delighted to reply. This is what happened with OB, he asked a direct question which didn't deflect from Oldie's claim, so I replied. If the burden of proof is on the person who makes the statement, your statement where Oldie said, "skin colour being a barrier to progress in UK politics" is on you to prove it. Saying go read it yourself, isn't proving it. That's the same level of debating from Nobby. 'All the members are commies'. 'Do you have proof?' 'Yes, go find it on the internet. If you can't find it, that's your problem'. I'm also curious as to why, if it is so important to you that any discussion must be on pause until Oldie answers your unproven statement, why you didn't register and say something at the time? You clearly like to follow the rules, why/how does bringing something up from 10 days ago fit into that? The conversation has moved on, yet you've brought it back up and refuse to allow discussion to evolve. You create strange rules, insist everyone follows them, but the rule itself is a contradiction of the very point you're trying to make. Amen |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 17:06:37 GMT
You are confusing yourself. I'm replying directly, you are conflating multiple events into single sentences. I'm happy to discuss multiple subjects at the same time, sure, why not, but Oldie still hasn't justified his claim, it started on Page 28 of this thread for your ease of reference. I'm not responsible for your interaction with Al. If he's made a positive assertion then ask him to justify it or withdraw it, that's normal, if he can't or won't, or won't at least re-visit what he's said and qualify it in some way, then it becomes his problem and you've done a good job in recognising and exposing the flaw in his position. If you have a specific question for me which doesn't read as an attempt to move the discussion away from the burden of proof, which it appears Oldie is unable to meet, so by default he's conceding the point and should acknowledge that, then I'll be delighted to reply. This is what happened with OB, he asked a direct question which didn't deflect from Oldie's claim, so I replied. If the burden of proof is on the person who makes the statement, your statement where Oldie said, "skin colour being a barrier to progress in UK politics" is on you to prove it. Saying go read it yourself, isn't proving it. That's the same level of debating from Nobby. 'All the members are commies'. 'Do you have proof?' 'Yes, go find it on the internet. If you can't find it, that's your problem'. I'm also curious as to why, if it is so important to you that any discussion must be on pause until Oldie answers your unproven statement, why you didn't register and say something at the time? You clearly like to follow the rules, why/how does bringing something up from 10 days ago fit into that? The conversation has moved on, yet you've brought it back up and refuse to allow discussion to evolve. You create strange rules, insist everyone follows them, but the rule itself is a contradiction of the very point you're trying to make. No contradiction at all, I told you where a positive assertion was made. I didn't make that assertion, I'm not responsible for it. I'm not in charge of discussion on this thread, I can't place anything on hold, by all means continue with the conversations you were having before I arrived, everybody can do as they please. These aren't 'strange rules', it's normal for the debates I watch and contribute to. For clarification, the burden of proof doesn't fall to a person making a statement, it falls to a person making a positive assertion, not to somebody questioning that assertion. You can make statements that contain no positive assertions. I hope that's explained well? |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 20, 2020 17:19:54 GMT
If the burden of proof is on the person who makes the statement, your statement where Oldie said, "skin colour being a barrier to progress in UK politics" is on you to prove it. Saying go read it yourself, isn't proving it. That's the same level of debating from Nobby. 'All the members are commies'. 'Do you have proof?' 'Yes, go find it on the internet. If you can't find it, that's your problem'. I'm also curious as to why, if it is so important to you that any discussion must be on pause until Oldie answers your unproven statement, why you didn't register and say something at the time? You clearly like to follow the rules, why/how does bringing something up from 10 days ago fit into that? The conversation has moved on, yet you've brought it back up and refuse to allow discussion to evolve. You create strange rules, insist everyone follows them, but the rule itself is a contradiction of the very point you're trying to make. No contradiction at all, I told you where a positive assertion was made. I didn't make that assertion, I'm not responsible for it. I'm not in charge of discussion on this thread, I can't place anything on hold, by all means continue with the conversations you were having before I arrived, everybody can do as they please. These aren't 'strange rules', it's normal for the debates I watch and contribute to. For clarification, the burden of proof doesn't fall to a person making a statement, it falls to a person making a positive assertion, not to somebody questioning that assertion. You can make statements that contain no positive assertions. I hope that's explained well? I’m still not seeing where Oldie actually said what you’ve claimed he did though. I looked on page 28 as you suggested and there was nothing of the sort? I’m starting to wonder if he actually said what you’ve described tbh. Could you please quote it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 17:43:02 GMT
No contradiction at all, I told you where a positive assertion was made. I didn't make that assertion, I'm not responsible for it. I'm not in charge of discussion on this thread, I can't place anything on hold, by all means continue with the conversations you were having before I arrived, everybody can do as they please. These aren't 'strange rules', it's normal for the debates I watch and contribute to. For clarification, the burden of proof doesn't fall to a person making a statement, it falls to a person making a positive assertion, not to somebody questioning that assertion. You can make statements that contain no positive assertions. I hope that's explained well? I’m still not seeing where Oldie actually said what you’ve claimed he did though. I looked on page 28 as you suggested and there was nothing of the sort? I’m starting to wonder if he actually said what you’ve described tbh. Could you please quote it? Sure; So, he's stated that the number of people from ethnic minorities in Parliament is too low and that minority groups are not represented or empowered. We can look at the demographic of those minority groups and their representatives if you like, but we both know what we'll see. So he's said that skin colour is, somehow, a barrier to representation and empowerment. That's all I've asked him to explain. Of course there are some minority groups, such as Romas who may cloud that issue, but I think we have enough here for him to have a positive statement to defend. If he didn't mean skin colour all he had to do was correct me several days ago, it wouldn't have been difficult, I would have thanked him for the clarification and moved on. But at least we've gone over the burden of proof, but looking at his last post it doesn't appear that Oldie has grasped it yet. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 20, 2020 18:16:26 GMT
I’m still not seeing where Oldie actually said what you’ve claimed he did though. I looked on page 28 as you suggested and there was nothing of the sort? I’m starting to wonder if he actually said what you’ve described tbh. Could you please quote it? Sure; So, he's stated that the number of people from ethnic minorities in Parliament is too low and that minority groups are not represented or empowered. We can look at the demographic of those minority groups and their representatives if you like, but we both know what we'll see. So he's said that skin colour is, somehow, a barrier to representation and empowerment. That's all I've asked him to explain. Of course there are some minority groups, such as Romas who may cloud that issue, but I think we have enough here for him to have a positive statement to defend. If he didn't mean skin colour all he had to do was correct me several days ago, it wouldn't have been difficult, I would have thanked him for the clarification and moved on. But at least we've gone over the burden of proof, but looking at his last post it doesn't appear that Oldie has grasped it yet. Can I ask what you mean by "Romas who may cloud the issue". The bit you quoted states that ethnic minorities are underrepresented, presumably you agree with that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 18:36:42 GMT
Sure; So, he's stated that the number of people from ethnic minorities in Parliament is too low and that minority groups are not represented or empowered. We can look at the demographic of those minority groups and their representatives if you like, but we both know what we'll see. So he's said that skin colour is, somehow, a barrier to representation and empowerment. That's all I've asked him to explain. Of course there are some minority groups, such as Romas who may cloud that issue, but I think we have enough here for him to have a positive statement to defend. If he didn't mean skin colour all he had to do was correct me several days ago, it wouldn't have been difficult, I would have thanked him for the clarification and moved on. But at least we've gone over the burden of proof, but looking at his last post it doesn't appear that Oldie has grasped it yet. Can I ask what you mean by "Romas who may cloud the issue". The bit you quoted states that ethnic minorities are underrepresented, presumably you agree with that. I mean that there may be people who may not have what is usually referred to as 'black' skin but still form part of ethnic minorities. We are back to me being asked to justify something that Oldie said, simply no. It's for him to demonstrate what these community groups are, who monitors them to ensure they are effective, how they are funded, whether people who engage are in fact motivated to serve at a national level or would rather deal with issues more locally, I could go on and on. He's made the statement, it's his responsibility to explain it, if he can, but it's beginning to look like it was just a lazy swipe at the establishment, I think the modern term is 'Virtue signalling' and he's not able to demonstrate that what he wrote has any validity at all. One final point, a question for you if I may? It's probably crudely put and maybe ill formed, but would you need to be from an ethnic minority to represent the interests of that demographic? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 18:42:28 GMT
You are confusing yourself. I'm replying directly, you are conflating multiple events into single sentences. I'm happy to discuss multiple subjects at the same time, sure, why not, but Oldie still hasn't justified his claim, it started on Page 28 of this thread for your ease of reference. I'm not responsible for your interaction with Al. If he's made a positive assertion then ask him to justify it or withdraw it, that's normal, if he can't or won't, or won't at least re-visit what he's said and qualify it in some way, then it becomes his problem and you've done a good job in recognising and exposing the flaw in his position. If you have a specific question for me which doesn't read as an attempt to move the discussion away from the burden of proof, which it appears Oldie is unable to meet, so by default he's conceding the point and should acknowledge that, then I'll be delighted to reply. This is what happened with OB, he asked a direct question which didn't deflect from Oldie's claim, so I replied. If the burden of proof is on the person who makes the statement, your statement where Oldie said, "skin colour being a barrier to progress in UK politics" is on you to prove it. Saying go read it yourself, isn't proving it. That's the same level of debating from Nobby. 'All the members are commies'. 'Do you have proof?' 'Yes, go find it on the internet. If you can't find it, that's your problem'. I'm also curious as to why, if it is so important to you that any discussion must be on pause until Oldie answers your unproven statement, why you didn't register and say something at the time? You clearly like to follow the rules, why/how does bringing something up from 10 days ago fit into that? The conversation has moved on, yet you've brought it back up and refuse to allow discussion to evolve. You create strange rules, insist everyone follows them, but the rule itself is a contradiction of the very point you're trying to make. Which led Nobby to be rounded on and then hounded in a far less polite fashion than Jung has done in trying to pursue a response from Oldie. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 20, 2020 19:13:50 GMT
Can I ask what you mean by "Romas who may cloud the issue". The bit you quoted states that ethnic minorities are underrepresented, presumably you agree with that. I mean that there may be people who may not have what is usually referred to as 'black' skin but still form part of ethnic minorities. We are back to me being asked to justify something that Oldie said, simply no. It's for him to demonstrate what these community groups are, who monitors them to ensure they are effective, how they are funded, whether people who engage are in fact motivated to serve at a national level or would rather deal with issues more locally, I could go on and on. He's made the statement, it's his responsibility to explain it, if he can, but it's beginning to look like it was just a lazy swipe at the establishment, I think the modern term is 'Virtue signalling' and he's not able to demonstrate that what he wrote has any validity at all. One final point, a question for you if I may? It's probably crudely put and maybe ill formed, but would you need to be from an ethnic minority to represent the interests of that demographic? Not asking you to justify anything, just trying to clarify where the discrepancy lies, whether it was the underrepresentation element (which is a fact) or whether people from BAME backgrounds feel unrepresented (something a little more subjective, although anecdotally seems to be the case). Turning to your question to me, MPs are there to represent their constituency so no, in general. However the statement was about whether their constituents feel represented which is a dfferent proposition. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 19:26:55 GMT
And that is fine but it can't be one rule for one and another rule for everyone else. And don't forget how Nobbygas was hounded. Smacks of double standards. his point which perhaps shows his motivation. For me things got out of hand before and I had called for calm, which was ignored before coming to a head. As far as anything posted on here, I take the view that until there is evidence then it remains an opinion and should be seen in that light regardless of how it is presented. Fwiw I disagree with the premise of institutions being racist/sexist/etc as they are in general neutral, it is the people within them making decisions that are biased for or against certain elements of society. That's not quite correct. I've invited OB to nominate a subject for discussion, I'm not sure he's going to accept though and have contributed to the thread about Wael's statement yesterday. I'm up for a natter, all I'm not super keen on is getting dragged off of the simple question that Oldie was asked, or having it turned around somehow into a question for me to answer. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 19:28:56 GMT
At last I am quoted
"Moving along, there are a decent spattering (sic) of ethnic minorities in Parliament (too low). Ask any ethnic minority group whether they feel represented... either locally or nationally, or whether they think their representatives are empowered."
So, in my opinion ethnic minorities are under represented in Parliament.
From the BBC analysis after the last election
"One in ten of the 650 MPs elected this year are non-white.
Ten years ago just one in 40 MPs was non-white, according to research by the independent think tank British Future.
There are 13 more non-white MPs than in the last Parliament, but all represent English seats.
There are no black, Asian and minority ethnic MPs in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland."
So 10%. At the last census ((2011) of the England & Wales population 80% were identified as "White British"
So 20% not. So my (albeit a personal opinion and observation) was reasonably accurate.
Moving along to my question, and it was a question posed within the confines of the discussion at that point, I do feel that the recent demonstrations over "Black Lives Matter", the broader debate over our history, does suggest (I say suggest) that many (and not just ethnic minorities, to add a bit of fuel) do not feel their views,the realities of their lives, are indeed represented.
These are my views which I believe have a reasonable basis.
For the life of me I do not see these views as inflammatory (William Wilson) nor warrant the relentless trolling over two forums by Bamber Gasgroin).
All Gasgroin has done is divert a reasonable discussion into acrimony.
So shoot my views down and that's fair enough.
But can we cut the crap?
Like I said the trolling is not normal behaviour for a grown man.
|
|
