George Floyd - America so f**ked up

Maybe better to find more of his work, then argue the same points, assuming you still agree of course, rather than just say that the UK is shafted and the diabolical right will never allow change. If you argue well, you'll convince people.

Yes indeed.
Listening to this guy, the only thing that differentiates him on the points he raised from a lot of us who argue the same thing is his skin colour.
He framed the discussion from the outset by defining the underlying causes as poverty, domestic violence and education.
Now tell me the contribution austerity measures made to those three factors since 2010?
Tell me why there appears to be a disproportionate impact of Covid19 on lower income groups?
Tell me why so many children in our school system need basic support like a meal, once a day?
These are not race issues, it's just that ethnic minorities are more impacted by these issues as a % of the population.
What does make me laugh is that this guy is paraded on TV as a "ooh look, an articulate black guy" who at the same time as he trying to explain causal factors and outcomes are not defined by race is being subjected to moronic responses by Piers Morgan, such as "that's really interesting", subsequently echoed on here. As if these same arguments have not been had for years.
What's even more laughable is that the same people who find this "interesting" will, at the next election, vote for a party/policies that excaserbates the very causal factors he highlighted.

Look at Johnson in Parliament over the last week. Starmer points out that the number of children in "relative" child poverty had risen by 600,000 (no need for an ethnic breakdown). Johnson replies "no it hasn't, absolute poverty has decreased by 400,000"
Who knows? At that point. Except that BBC R4 fact checked last Monday. They found Starmers claim came straight from a Government report and were able to quote it. Johnson's? Nowhere, nothing. He made it up, he lied.
This is the same Government that instigated the same policies that are causal factors in the issues that this guy highlighted.

www.gofundme.com/f/ukblm-fund

“We’re guided by a commitment to dismantle imperialism, capitalism...”
Careful what you wish for I guess...

Interestingly they had that Mission statement on their twitter in a 4 panel jpg, it appears to have been removed but it is obviously still on their funding page. I can assure you most strongly that I wasn’t made aware of it through the daily mail either! More a forum that has a spectrum of political opinions- from left to right.



And whilst this is not a game or a point scoring exercise I will gently say it is “good to see” that your reasoning agrees with mine that the number of deaths is low. When people parrot the stats (and sc was guilty of this earlier) relating to the U.K. they never put it in context, number of deaths vs arrests. When you do that, as you saw yourself, complaining about deaths of anyone regardless of skin colour in the U.K. is such a miniscule sample size that it’s pointless.

Oldie thinks squabbling over the minutiae like this is pointless but it actually isn’t because the semantics are important. Otherwise you fall into BLMs emotive trap of thinking *everything* in the U.K. is sh** (which is what they want you to believe) when actually some things are not as bad as they are making out. I try to keep an open mind so for me, yes, it’s important to separate racism from brutality from deaths in custody.

And I guess it depends what the definition of brutality actually is- to me it implies physical harm so police stopping more black people is not brutality, that’s *potentially* racism but what I don’t have is evidence for or against the notion that black people are identified as the suspect for more crimes. If that *were* to be the case then the police have more reason to seek out black people than they would other races, right?

I’d be very interested in a study into what markers the police look for when stopping people on the streets. If a well dressed black guy in a suit was put in a town centre next to a scruffy white lad in a tracksuit who would get stopped more often by the police? Is it skin colour or socio-economic factors the a police look for first? If the police are institutionally racist it should be skin colour, right?

Sure, page 48.

Also, here: 

Fair enough, WW. 

FWIW, I think I've posted 3 times in my entire life on the other forum. I actually logged on for the first time the other week to see what Jung/Bamber had said, he some how thinks I am some ex-poster of another forum name on that forum? I've always been Gassy, Jung  

My comment about Jung was said "So from what Oldie has said" - as I don't read it. But fair point, my apologies to Jung for accusing him of that. 

But these are key points, if we can stop stirring the pot and giving people who have no real interest in addressing the issues ammunition, and focus on what the issues realy are, maybe we can make some progress.

Footballers kneeling, for what exactly, it sounds as if you agree, the slogan on the back of the shirts should read 'Lives adversely affected by poverty, poor educational achievement and domestic instability, regardless of skin colour, matter'.

So why so much noise around BAME when there are more white people living in poverty in the UK?

This is where your argument unravels, you claim that you don't frame these things in terms of race yet you'll dedicate time and effort arguing for a lower absolute number of hungry BAME mouths just because they are a minority group, so in crude terms, to you, 1 hungry BAME child carries more importance than 2 hungry white children. For me, I just see 3 mouths that need feeding.

BLM have zero credibility in America, why is nobody talking about the long history of their members murdering Police officers? A couple of weekends back in Chicago alone, 26 black on black murders, they responded with silence. So it seems that to BLM USA certain black lives matter more than others.

BLM UK have had their agenda laid bare on this forum, they are anti-capitalist and view society as a patriarchy. 

Anti-capitalist, OK then, good luck with that, history suggests it probably won't work out so well. 

We can give the patriarchy argument the mauling it deserves, not sure this is the correct thread for it though.

You conveniently left our the part in their gofundme where it says right after "white-supremacy, patriarchy and the state structures that disproportionately harm black people in Britain and around the world". The key point here, IMO, being 'that disproportionately harm black people'. 

The way its phrase is that they're wanting to dismantle capitalism that disproportionately harms black people. I think thats fair. We need to change the system, because clearly it isn't working. IMO, you've twisted their aims completely to suit your agenda. (although I'll admit I didn't see the twitter post - which may have backed up your point more). I also think it's unfair that BLM mention quite a lot on their page you've linked - in fact, 5 paragraphs. But we're here focusing on literally one point to discredit it? Or am I misunderstanding?

Some things may not be as bad as they're making out, but sometimes we need to make the loudest noise for us to reflect. What ever people's opinions on BLM, they've certainly achieved that. 

Your class stereotyping from police is also a good point though. And tbh, it's just as bad as racism IMO.