|
Post by Gassy on Jul 3, 2020 22:21:14 GMT
Calm and polite as ever, always a pleasure. This; Nope 🎣🎣🎣
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 11:30:34 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 12:42:53 GMT
In what was is Starkey an 'establishment' figure?
He's a well read historian, hence his qualifications and associations with academic institutions, but as soon as a view unacceptable to 'institutions' becomes public they've acted quickly to distance themselves from him.
For what it's worth, I've actually spoken with him, and questioned why he acts in the way that he does on programmes like QT, when he could just present facts and leave a mature audience to make their own mind up. He told me that there were discussions before recording with producers during which it was agreed, in broad terms, how far each panellist would go and what was expected of them all to keep the programme lively and interesting. So it seems that QT is all a bit of a pre-determined act.
Of course, that in no way relates to what he said 2 days ago, which was horrific. Hard to see any way back for him from there. And rightly so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 13:10:31 GMT
Most importantly he worked in education as a lecturer in history at the LSE. With views like those expressed it is easy, very easy, to understand the argument put forward by BLM and other groups that there is institutional racism in the UK. He did not, I am sure, dream these views up in the last couple of months.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 13:32:13 GMT
That would suggest that he's had students all these years who haven't noticed that he's subtly subverted the narrative towards his view and nobody has noticed.
You insult the intelligence of students at the LSE.
Anyway, I'm glad you've brought BLM back up again and are saying that their views are valid. It seems that their spokesman, Gary McFarlane, has given a lengthy interview to LBC during which he's confirmed my interpretation of their position on capitalism, he's also given what I regard as an incomprehensible explanation of their position relating to defunding the Police. As an example, all drugs (class A recreational etc) will be state controlled and sold 'over the counter'. This will put an end to drug related violence, turf wars etc, according to Mr McFarlane.
That's that sorted then.
For balance, there are people with far left views in academia, in my opinion that's also harmful, will you join me in hounding them out of their jobs?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 13:50:14 GMT
In what was is Starkey an 'establishment' figure? He's a well read historian, hence his qualifications and associations with academic institutions, but as soon as a view unacceptable to 'institutions' becomes public they've acted quickly to distance themselves from him. For what it's worth, I've actually spoken with him, and questioned why he acts in the way that he does on programmes like QT, when he could just present facts and leave a mature audience to make their own mind up. He told me that there were discussions before recording with producers during which it was agreed, in broad terms, how far each panellist would go and what was expected of them all to keep the programme lively and interesting. So it seems that QT is all a bit of a pre-determined act. Of course, that in no way relates to what he said 2 days ago, which was horrific. Hard to see any way back for him from there. And rightly so. But he’s been at it for years, he could have been canned ages ago for his beliefs which kind of says it all about the morality of this country. Whilst it’s absolutely right that Starkey has been put out to pasture I feel Cambridge have got it wrong with their support for that other posturing idiot they have on their books. Just because you have the right colour skin you shouldn’t abuse it to further antagonise racial issues in this country just as white people shouldn’t.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 13:56:12 GMT
In what was is Starkey an 'establishment' figure? He's a well read historian, hence his qualifications and associations with academic institutions, but as soon as a view unacceptable to 'institutions' becomes public they've acted quickly to distance themselves from him. For what it's worth, I've actually spoken with him, and questioned why he acts in the way that he does on programmes like QT, when he could just present facts and leave a mature audience to make their own mind up. He told me that there were discussions before recording with producers during which it was agreed, in broad terms, how far each panellist would go and what was expected of them all to keep the programme lively and interesting. So it seems that QT is all a bit of a pre-determined act. Of course, that in no way relates to what he said 2 days ago, which was horrific. Hard to see any way back for him from there. And rightly so. But he’s been at it for years, he could have been canned ages ago for his beliefs which kind of says it all about the morality of this country. Whilst it’s absolutely right that Starkey has been put out to pasture I feel Cambridge have got it wrong with their support for that other posturing idiot they have on their books. Just because you have the right colour skin you shouldn’t abuse it to further antagonise racial issues in this country just as white people shouldn’t. Well precisely, the fact that he was not "canned" adds credence to the accusation that institutions tolerate it. That is institutionalised. It's hard to argue against that isn't it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 14:08:39 GMT
But he’s been at it for years, he could have been canned ages ago for his beliefs which kind of says it all about the morality of this country. Whilst it’s absolutely right that Starkey has been put out to pasture I feel Cambridge have got it wrong with their support for that other posturing idiot they have on their books. Just because you have the right colour skin you shouldn’t abuse it to further antagonise racial issues in this country just as white people shouldn’t. Well precisely, the fact that he was not "canned" adds credence to the accusation that institutions tolerate it. That is institutionalised. It's hard to argue against that isn't it? Institutions will usually kow-tow to the public mood as a barometer of what they can get away with. As we are seeing now with the Rhodes statue. So the people shouting loudly about it now tolerated it themselves up until recently, like they tolerated statues and everything else otherwise Starkey would have been struck off the last time he was publicly racist in 2011. Although it’s a sad fact that that other clown can tweet controversial stuff like “Abolish whiteness” and “White lives don’t matter..........as white lives” and because of the colour of her skin (ie her privilege) she actually gets a pat on the back from Cambridge University.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 14:17:36 GMT
But he’s been at it for years, he could have been canned ages ago for his beliefs which kind of says it all about the morality of this country. Whilst it’s absolutely right that Starkey has been put out to pasture I feel Cambridge have got it wrong with their support for that other posturing idiot they have on their books. Just because you have the right colour skin you shouldn’t abuse it to further antagonise racial issues in this country just as white people shouldn’t. Well precisely, the fact that he was not "canned" adds credence to the accusation that institutions tolerate it. That is institutionalised. It's hard to argue against that isn't it? Is it? He used some 'loose words' in 2011, but pretty much everything can be twisted to be regarded as offensive if you are that way inclined in todays culture. If he's said something between then and now can you point it out for me please? Can you point me towards anybody who has evidence that he's acted inappropriately during lectures at LSE please? Provide the evidence and I'm stood shoulder to shoulder with you condemning him still further than we both already are, if that needs doing or is even possible. Meanwhile, BLM actually are anti-capitalist, not just parts of capitalism that, in their opinion oppresses black people and they want to legalise hard drugs and de-fund the Police. Still support them? I find it quite incredible that the PL have had their slogan on shirts. Did they do no due diligence whatsoever before promoting this barmpot group of nutjobs? Work around seeking out and eradicating all forms of racism and discrimination, working towards equality of opportunity, absolutely, all for it, but BLM UK's political agenda is totally insane.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 16:46:13 GMT
Well precisely, the fact that he was not "canned" adds credence to the accusation that institutions tolerate it. That is institutionalised. It's hard to argue against that isn't it? Institutions will usually kow-tow to the public mood as a barometer of what they can get away with. As we are seeing now with the Rhodes statue. So the people shouting loudly about it now tolerated it themselves up until recently, like they tolerated statues and everything else otherwise Starkey would have been struck off the last time he was publicly racist in 2011. Although it’s a sad fact that that other clown can tweet controversial stuff like “Abolish whiteness” and “White lives don’t matter..........as white lives” and because of the colour of her skin (ie her privilege) she actually gets a pat on the back from Cambridge University. To be honest 365 You are ignoring the evidence. You cannot use the public mood when Starkey did not make these views public (unless someone can provide evidence that he did). The public mood may have altered because people are raising racism as an issue and then Starkey just proves it's true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 16:53:55 GMT
Well precisely, the fact that he was not "canned" adds credence to the accusation that institutions tolerate it. That is institutionalised. It's hard to argue against that isn't it? Is it? He used some 'loose words' in 2011, but pretty much everything can be twisted to be regarded as offensive if you are that way inclined in todays culture. If he's said something between then and now can you point it out for me please? Can you point me towards anybody who has evidence that he's acted inappropriately during lectures at LSE please? Provide the evidence and I'm stood shoulder to shoulder with you condemning him still further than we both already are, if that needs doing or is even possible. Meanwhile, BLM actually are anti-capitalist, not just parts of capitalism that, in their opinion oppresses black people and they want to legalise hard drugs and de-fund the Police. Still support them? I find it quite incredible that the PL have had their slogan on shirts. Did they do no due diligence whatsoever before promoting this barmpot group of nutjobs? Work around seeking out and eradicating all forms of racism and discrimination, working towards equality of opportunity, absolutely, all for it, but BLM UK's political agenda is totally insane. None of that is the core issue. The core issues are prejudice and racism. Starkey has come out and used language that exposes his real thinking. Whether I or others can prove he said it in the past is another red herring. If he did, then the institutions who paid him or used him as a front are by association racist. If he did not overtly display his thoughts, the truth, then we have an undeclared racist element in our institutions. Either of those scenarios adds credence to the claim of racism in our institutions. Truth will always out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 17:46:01 GMT
Is it? He used some 'loose words' in 2011, but pretty much everything can be twisted to be regarded as offensive if you are that way inclined in todays culture. If he's said something between then and now can you point it out for me please? Can you point me towards anybody who has evidence that he's acted inappropriately during lectures at LSE please? Provide the evidence and I'm stood shoulder to shoulder with you condemning him still further than we both already are, if that needs doing or is even possible. Meanwhile, BLM actually are anti-capitalist, not just parts of capitalism that, in their opinion oppresses black people and they want to legalise hard drugs and de-fund the Police. Still support them? I find it quite incredible that the PL have had their slogan on shirts. Did they do no due diligence whatsoever before promoting this barmpot group of nutjobs? Work around seeking out and eradicating all forms of racism and discrimination, working towards equality of opportunity, absolutely, all for it, but BLM UK's political agenda is totally insane. None of that is the core issue. The core issues are prejudice and racism. Starkey has come out and used language that exposes his real thinking. Whether I or others can prove he said it in the past is another red herring. If he did, then the institutions who paid him or used him as a front are by association racist. If he did not overtly display his thoughts, the truth, then we have an undeclared racist element in our institutions. Either of those scenarios adds credence to the claim of racism in our institutions. Truth will always out. You what? So every employer is also guilty by association for the misdemeanours of staff? Or, to frame it, as you have, in institutional terms. Dianne Abbott has a history of anti-white racist outbursts, so if I understand you correctly that makes Labour racist, yet you still voted for them with Abbot as a candidate last Dec. I don't understand your logic at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 18:21:39 GMT
None of that is the core issue. The core issues are prejudice and racism. Starkey has come out and used language that exposes his real thinking. Whether I or others can prove he said it in the past is another red herring. If he did, then the institutions who paid him or used him as a front are by association racist. If he did not overtly display his thoughts, the truth, then we have an undeclared racist element in our institutions. Either of those scenarios adds credence to the claim of racism in our institutions. Truth will always out. You what? So every employer is also guilty by association for the misdemeanours of staff? Or, to frame it, as you have, in institutional terms. Dianne Abbott has a history of anti-white racist outbursts, so if I understand you correctly that makes Labour racist, yet you still voted for them with Abbot as a candidate last Dec. I don't understand your logic at all. Well well As a director of any company I have held that position with we, the board, were directly accountable for actions of our employees. Whether that be dereliction or bringing the company into disrepute, to name but two. Now if we had made best efforts, had a verifiable process in place, we were probably covered. So using that, I believe Starkey worked for the LSE for circa 20 years. It stretches credibility to believe that during that period he had never, ever, iterated those views? One would have thought that a renowned institution like the LSE would have had equality at the heart of it's ethos, manifested in its recruitment processes and mission statement. If they did the trustees failed in their management processes and responsibilities and are guilty, leaving the institution open to the charge of racism, if they did not have equality at the heart of everything they do and employ people like Starkey, they are guilty. Some would say it's historical, back then it was custom and practice. Well, exactly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 18:41:09 GMT
You what? So every employer is also guilty by association for the misdemeanours of staff? Or, to frame it, as you have, in institutional terms. Dianne Abbott has a history of anti-white racist outbursts, so if I understand you correctly that makes Labour racist, yet you still voted for them with Abbot as a candidate last Dec. I don't understand your logic at all. Well well As a director of any company I have held that position with we, the board, were directly accountable for actions of our employees. Whether that be dereliction or bringing the company into disrepute, to name but two. Now if we had made best efforts, had a verifiable process in place, we were probably covered. So using that, I believe Starkey worked for the LSE for circa 20 years. It stretches credibility to believe that during that period he had never, ever, iterated those views? One would have thought that a renowned institution like the LSE would have had equality at the heart of it's ethos, manifested in its recruitment processes and mission statement. If they did the trustees failed in their management processes and responsibilities and are guilty, leaving the institution open to the charge of racism, if they did not have equality at the heart of everything they do and employ people like Starkey, they are guilty. Some would say it's historical, back then it was custom and practice. Well, exactly. You may be comfortable assuming that Starkey has done other things and that the LSE are guilty for not knowing about them, but that's not how justice in this great country works. You want to convict people because, in your opinion, something may 'stretch credibility'. This type of justice went out of fashion in the Salem area, somewhere around the 1690s I think. If you would like to make an accusation that he's acted inappropriately in the past then forward it, with your evidence, I'm sure the LSE would respond to that, otherwise it's just posturing. Unlike your vote for Labour, with Abbott as a candidate, which was a calculated act on your part. So you either knew what you were voting for or failed in your due diligence, which was it please? But either way, by the rules you've set up, Abbott's rhetoric gives you a problem. For what it's worth, your rules are rubbish and you are just desperate to shout racist at everybody and everything, it's all the rage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 21:41:28 GMT
Sickening isn't it. Normalised racism. His kind of attitude is the reason for what the right wing call 'political correctness gone mad' too, a testimony to the stupidity of their ideology.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 21:50:35 GMT
Sickening isn't it. Normalised racism. His kind of attitude is the reason for what the right wing call 'political correctness gone mad' too, a testimony to the stupidity of their ideology. What sickened me was linking to The Guardian, founded by John Edward Taylor. Made part of his fortune from cotton farms with slave labour and opposed Lincoln in the Civil War. They were questioned on this in 2011, Martin Kettle, associate editor at the time, tried to explain it away by saying ''The Guardian's stance on the US civil war was of its era''. Odd that the publication didn't put forward the same argument for Edward Colston.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2020 8:14:31 GMT
Sickening isn't it. Normalised racism. His kind of attitude is the reason for what the right wing call 'political correctness gone mad' too, a testimony to the stupidity of their ideology. What sickened me was linking to The Guardian, founded by John Edward Taylor. Made part of his fortune from cotton farms with slave labour and opposed Lincoln in the Civil War. They were questioned on this in 2011, Martin Kettle, associate editor at the time, tried to explain it away by saying ''The Guardian's stance on the US civil war was of its era''. Odd that the publication didn't put forward the same argument for Edward Colston. Yep, proves that change for the better can be made. Right-wing rags next, then the monarchy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2020 13:50:07 GMT
What sickened me was linking to The Guardian, founded by John Edward Taylor. Made part of his fortune from cotton farms with slave labour and opposed Lincoln in the Civil War. They were questioned on this in 2011, Martin Kettle, associate editor at the time, tried to explain it away by saying ''The Guardian's stance on the US civil war was of its era''. Odd that the publication didn't put forward the same argument for Edward Colston. Yep, proves that change for the better can be made. Right-wing rags next, then the monarchy? But The Guardian didn't say that Colston's views were 'of his time', they didn't even suggest it. In fact, every piece I saw was quite rude about him. That was the point.
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Jul 6, 2020 6:30:27 GMT
None of that is the core issue. The core issues are prejudice and racism. Starkey has come out and used language that exposes his real thinking. Whether I or others can prove he said it in the past is another red herring. If he did, then the institutions who paid him or used him as a front are by association racist. If he did not overtly display his thoughts, the truth, then we have an undeclared racist element in our institutions. Either of those scenarios adds credence to the claim of racism in our institutions. Truth will always out. You what? So every employer is also guilty by association for the misdemeanours of staff? Or, to frame it, as you have, in institutional terms. Dianne Abbott has a history of anti-white racist outbursts, so if I understand you correctly that makes Labour racist, yet you still voted for them with Abbot as a candidate last Dec. I don't understand your logic at all. Nor me. Appears to detest the current Conservative administration, ( would like to see every male member of the cabinet punched in the face ) yet readily admits to retaining a soft spot for Andreas Baader and his gorgeous pouting paramour Ulrike. At least they weren`t racist, I suppose. They didn`t much care who they shot or blew up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2020 7:32:27 GMT
You what? So every employer is also guilty by association for the misdemeanours of staff? Or, to frame it, as you have, in institutional terms. Dianne Abbott has a history of anti-white racist outbursts, so if I understand you correctly that makes Labour racist, yet you still voted for them with Abbot as a candidate last Dec. I don't understand your logic at all. Nor me.   Appears to detest the current Conservative administration, ( would like to see every male member of the cabinet punched in the face ) yet readily admits to retaining a soft spot for Andreas Baader and his gorgeous pouting paramour Ulrike. At least they weren`t racist, I suppose. They didn`t much care who they shot or blew up. But but....what about....but but
|
|