TheCat

Perhaps unhinged was a touch strong. But I think best to just leave it, regardless.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not only does Cat ignore the whole point about no > credible economists supporting brexit, he then > professes to be ignorant of DD's > > "''There will be no downside to Brexit, only a > considerable upside'' > > Where is this quote from?" > > How can anyone get through last 5 years and not be > aware of this and other promises (like Dan > Hannan's "no-one is saying we will be outside > Single Market or Customs Union") > > Cat's vacuous, Cummings-lite "we intelligentsia > can see a bright future beyond the ken of mere > mortals" schtick wouldn't muster 5% of a Brexit > vote - it needed 10s of millions of people > believing guff form Davis and Hannan and (still!) > Johnson et al > > The whole thing was and remains a fatal house > built on sand > > Never mind Cat's (slight, qualified, but > nonetheless real) steps backward on the "taking > the knee debate" - should he and I both make it > another couple of decades in this life, he will > never ever ever ever have been more wrong about > any single thing ever > > and as before when "agree to disagree" nonsense > has been proposed, I reject it. Because there is > no disagreeing with the reality. This is too > important to too many lives and livelihoods > > It was a lie, remains a lie and will be a lie for > evermore - and if he (and others) can't see the > poison and lies that sustain the whole thing > (whilst openly ignorant of the lies that led us > here), there can be no "agree to disagree". Blimey. And here I was thought we were getting on. I don't have much to say to this slightly unhinged rant. It's not really worth it I'm afraid.

Sir, please dont sh1t on the bus...

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ''There will be no downside to Brexit, only a > > considerable upside'' > > > > Where is this quote from? > > David "Disappearing" Davis Ha. Well a a very foolish comment. And certainly not one I'd advocate. My bias is to think that there surely can't be that many people who are so gullible as to take an absolutist comment like from a politician as a given. To those people, I could say that I got an email the other day from a Nigerian Prince who has an interesting business proposition for them.... Although to be fair, it's no less ridiculous than some remain supporter constantly claiming that 'there is not one single benefit to brexit, not one'....

''There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside'' Where is this quote from?

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > One can?t argue with a true believer That door swings both ways though doesn't it! On hearing economics that supports remain 'We must listen to the experts' On hearing economics that supports leaving 'high minded theory'

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I dont really get the outrage, like this is a > > surprise ?....leaving the EU meant that it > would > > be harder for EU workers to come here. That is > onel > > thing we can surely agree that everyone, no > matter > > they voted, we're fully aware of pre-vote. > > > > If you question is how can this possibly have a > > positive outcome. Well there are a number of > > possibilities: > > > > 1) fruit picking wages and condition improve, > and > > more locals are incentivsed to pick fruit. The > > corrolorray being that UK fruit and veg becomes > > more expensive of course, but that is the price > > paid for upwards wage pressure. > > 2) farmers will be encouraged to investing in > > other forms of productivity improvements, thus > > reducing the requirement for hordes of low paid > > workers over time. Improving productivity makes > > for a strong economy as a general rule. > > 3) a sensible govt (which we don't have) would > > issue enough visas to ensure the indusrty does > not > > suffer excessively in the short term, but still > at > > level below what it might have been pre-brexit, > so > > as to encourage points 1 and 2 above. > > Oh lorks, seriously. Have you ever done manual > labour, of this nature? > > It?s back breaking , weather dependent and > financially soul destroying. Hence why foreign > ?skills? are bought in to do it, and they?re the > very best at it, because that?s the only way to > make it work out and pay. > > Sometime ago a Cambridge farmer was on the radio, > and basically even if you took every unemployed > person in the county, including the > fat/feeble/down right useless, you?d still not > fill all the seasonal jobs hneeded to pick > everything. > > And the very same voters who voted whatever aren?t > prepared to pay for a ?picked by a local person? > courgette or tomato, because left to their own > devices, they don?t give a fck. I'm not quite sure that the collection of anecdotes above is how we should think about national economic policy. It strikes me that the vocal remainers tend to struggle to see the potential for transformation beyond the immediate negative impacts. Brexit will undoubtedly transform the British economy, and any transition will have losers/challenges at various points in time. So yes, if the farmer wants to continue his or her business in the exact same way as before when there was abundant cheap labour, then that failure to adapt will mean he or she probably goes out of business. But overall, industries adapt and improve - this would be the case with or without brexit - but brexit has certainly accelerated some aspects of economic transition. I personally think that if the country breaks its reliance on a low skilled, low wage labour force (which won't be easy) then that will ultimately be a good thing overall. A reference for anyone not familiar with labour productivity and impact on the economy.... https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5887/economics/uk-labour-productivity As an aside...nice bit of passive xenophobia with this... It?s back breaking , weather dependent and > financially soul destroying. Hence why foreign > ?skills? are bought in to do it, and they?re the > very best at it, because that?s the only way to > make it work out and pay. So what you're saying is it's hard, and we don't pay much for it...so just let the foreigners do it, they should appreciate the scraps we give them for doing our grunt work right?

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > As for your positive outcomes - good luck with > that > Sure. We shall see. But just for clarity, I haven't pulled these points out of my @rse....it's well accepted economic theory as to how an industry that has been reliant on low paid labour should act when that labour supply is crimped...That's not to say it will pan out exactly that way of course...but it's what the textbooks will tell you...

As I've said many times before. I don't speak on behalf of brexiteers or other leave voters. I don't know what they collectively thought or think. I'm just making my points to indicate my own thinking, and illustrate that there were more reasons to vote leave than just racism or ignorance. That's not to say there weren't people for whom they were the driving factors. But equally, many remain voters were similarly ignorant of the important issues in my view and didn't really know why they voted to remain....but that's another story and has been done to death anyway. This govt is making brexit more difficult than it needs to be I think. But the answer to the question asked in 2016 needed to be given without knowing who would form our cabinet 5 years later....having this govt now does not invalidate the reasons for voting one way or the other 5 years ago. For me these are two separate issues..the brexit vote is for a generation (at least), the govt has a term of 5 years. Imagine voting one way or the other in 2016 becuase you either liked or hated George Osbourne and David Cameron...that would feel a bit like a wasted voted today I would think. Seemingly you can't see how they can be separated? If so, then on that we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I dont really get the outrage, like this is a surprise ?....leaving the EU meant that it would be harder for EU workers to come here. That is one thing we can surely agree that everyone, no matter they voted, we're fully aware of pre-vote. If you question is how can this possibly have a positive outcome. Well there are a number of possibilities: 1) fruit picking wages and condition improve, and more locals are incentivsed to pick fruit. The corrolorray being that UK fruit and veg becomes more expensive of course, but that is the price paid for upwards wage pressure. 2) farmers will be encouraged to investing in other forms of productivity improvements, thus reducing the requirement for hordes of low paid workers over time. Improving productivity makes for a strong economy as a general rule. 3) a sensible govt (which we don't have) would issue enough visas to ensure the indusrty does not suffer excessively in the short term, but still at level below what it might have been pre-brexit, so as to encourage points 1 and 2 above.

Surely you should have called the Air Ambulance..... (Im assuming Dad jokes are now acceptable that the bird has been saved:))

yes. sometimes even I need a rest from the heavy issues:) By the looking glass comment im specificly referring to a charity giving money to royalty, rather than the norm which should really see it being the other way around!

This seems like an unnecessarily authoritarian post Seph. I didnt realise we had to limit our reading or dicussion to those 4 approved topics. Whats wrong with using that phrase if it appropriate? Are there any other turns of phrase I am prohibited from using? I thought it was an amusing/interesting/notable story, nothing more. Sometimes some light relief from debates about racism, brexit, Virus etc does us all some good.

I used the term, 'through the looking glass' on another thread yesterday.....little did I know how approriate that was for the world we live in.....with the news (admittedly a few days old) that a UK-registered charity has awarded Harry and Meghan a ?500 prize for the 'enlightened' decision to only have two children for environmental reasons. Yes you read that the correct way around, a charity has given Meghan and Harry a Monetary award.... Think of all those poor 'unenlightened' families around the globe that have more than 2 kids....the fools...if only they could be more like the Sussexes One has to chuckle. https://news.sky.com/story/population-matters-charity-give-harry-and-meghan-award-for-limiting-family-to-two-children-12352738

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "racist adjacent" FFS. > > > > Sorry Alex, you may not have meant much by it, > but > > this need to seemingly 'label' everyone as > > something is infuriating, and realistically any > > label with the word 'racist' in it is just > openly > > antagonistic. > > I was thinking specifically of Patel and other > members of the Tory front bench. I don?t think > they?re racist per se, but I do think they benefit > from playing to a base who are actively racist. It > was also framed in the context of the right wing > culture warriors who I think if not racist are at > best indifferent to the racist effects of clamping > down on talking critically about our history. Fair enough. But again, I think a term like 'right wing culture warrior' can span a very wide gambit, and is often used to label anyone who disagrees with anything written in the Graun (I jest, but you get the point)....so, for example, you probably wouldn't put someone who disagrees with the Glaswegian teacher 'cancelling' To Kill a Mockingbird from his curriculum in the same bucket as someone who pops along to a Britain First meeting....

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > White establishment - taking the knee is a > political statement > Black footballers who have been racially abused - > taking the knee is an anti-racist statement > > > Mmmmmhhh which one should I believe will be the > right side of history, as an anti-racist. Different things can mean different things to different people. Once again trying to overly simplify a complex issue to a binary. Some black footballers like taking the knee, some black footballers dont...they're both black...how will you decide which black man you will cast as being 'right side of history' or not? Perhaps some questions cant be answered by first asking what someone's skin colour is.

"racist adjacent" FFS. Sorry Alex, you may not have meant much by it, but this need to seemingly 'label' everyone as something is infuriating, and realistically any label with the word 'racist' in it is just openly antagonistic.

i'll give myself a 7/10 for trolling the troll.

notimpressed Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > notimpressed Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Poor middle class rich people who managed to > > get > > > tickets because real Danish football fans > > couldnt > > > travel, who were then confronted by normal > > rowdy > > > working class football fans. > > > > > > They probably thought they were off to be > > > pleasantly entertained like an evening at the > > > theatre. Sounds like they found out that > > football > > > is a boisterous sport both on and off the > > pitch, > > > couldn't handle it, and went crying to the > > media. > > > > > > No sympathy at all- stick to Wimbledon. > > > > 0/10 > > > > But i will pick up on one thing....Football is > not > > a boisterous sport at all. It's actually a > rather > > dull, sedate sport....89 minutes of passing to > > each other for 1min of actually shots on > > goal/action....its no wonder you have to be > > rip-roaring drunk to get through it. > > > Jog on mate- your probably a rugby fan, where they > all sit together and discuss each others skiing > trips. Please stick to it and do not try and come > to football matches. I am a Rugby fan, but on the chat, you're not even close mate...we discuss HELI-Skiing...very different from a normal ski trip....much more exclusive...not a pleb in sight. Also...it's spelt 'you're'

notimpressed Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Poor middle class rich people who managed to get > tickets because real Danish football fans couldnt > travel, who were then confronted by normal rowdy > working class football fans. > > They probably thought they were off to be > pleasantly entertained like an evening at the > theatre. Sounds like they found out that football > is a boisterous sport both on and off the pitch, > couldn't handle it, and went crying to the media. > > No sympathy at all- stick to Wimbledon. 0/10 But i will pick up on one thing....Football is not a boisterous sport at all. It's actually a rather dull, sedate sport....89 minutes of passing to each other for 1min of actually shots on goal/action....its no wonder you have to be rip-roaring drunk to get through it.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This thread has been interesting to watch develop > - leaving aside the topic itself, many of The > Usual Suspects (myself included) have been > involved, often saying things one would expect to > hear, sometimes forcefully so > > And yet this time things haven't spilled over into > slanging matches* (again I hold my hand up - in my > defence, I'm usually right ;-) ) and people have > had space to consider and reconsider > > It's better than usual is what I'm saying > > * I'm generalising a bit . Cat, for example has > directly been called a troll - but in fairness to > that poster (j.a., one of my current forum faves) > , it reads to me like they have more direct > involvement in this subject than many of us and I > can see why they would be so upset Agreed. I think we all need to remember that with the exception of some very obvious trolls...most of the usual suspects on here are well intentioned people (yes, even me). These are emotive topics, so trying to understand someone's perspective, rather than assuming or labelling invariably promotes a more fruitful discussion. oh, i've gone all warm and fuzzy. it wont last:)

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cat - I don't think you're a racist or a troll. It > seems like you have put quite a lot of thought > into this, but now seem to be contorting to defend > an entrenched position you don't really believe in > yourself. > > I get thet you don't like the taking of the knee > and don't think it's the best way to protest > against racism. I think that's fair enough - > you're entitled to that view. I also have > reservations about it as the best form of protest, > but for different reasons, and perhaps not so > deeply held as you. For me, it started as a > protest by sports people in the US who were > refusing to stand for their national anthem before > fixtures. As I understand it, players (initially > Kaepernick) felt they couldn't stand for the > anthem of a state that was systemically > brutalising and killing black people. He had > initially remained seated, but an ex marine > suggested to him that just looked lazy/disengaged > and suggested kneeling. > > Thankfully we don't have police regularly killing > black citizens here. We also don't play a national > anthem before matches, so to me it feels a bit > misplaced in some ways. Some black players don't > like it also - Wilf Zaha has declined to do it and > says that he shouldn't have to kneel in order not > to be racially abused. These are all viewpoints of > people who are against racism. They're all valid I > guess. > > But for me, as long as the players themselves feel > this is the way they wish to further their cause > against this vile abuse they are subjected to, as > well as the wider racism in society, they have my > full support. It doesn't matter if I think it's > the best way or not - I don't have agency in the > matter and I don't have skin in the game. I simply > have the binary choice to show support or not. > > Why would you not take the same psoition? A very well articulated and considered post Dunc. And certainly gave me some things to think about when I read it earlier this morning. So...I think its fair to say I've been guilty of conflating various issues myself (i.e. football team knee taking and my broader issues with CRT/BLM) in some of the posts I've made on this thread. My original starting position (which I maintain), is that I wouldn't boo the football team if they wanted to take the knee. They've clarified what they believe it represents and why they're doing it, and while my own personal view probably stops short of 'support' of the action, im supportive of their goals. So all in all...I pretty ambivalent about whether they take the knee or not. The reason I actually started posting on this thread was more to pushback on some of the commentary on here which equated people not liking the knee with automatically being racists. I simply wanted to make the point that just because one might not like taking the knee doesn't nessarily imply that they are racists. I was originally just trying to convey that some people may not view the knee as the simplistic gesture against racisms which the English team obviously believe it represents....and therefore perhaps some people shouldn't be so quick to judge (and brand) those who are not supportive. Probably fair to say from that point, my comments (and the broader discussion) become a little more diluted across various related issues, and that message may have been lost as my views on CRT (which I guininely think is a pernicious, and very dangerous concept, which will achieve the opposite of what many people would hope it does - but more on that another time!) more broadly 'bled' into this specific issue on English football team knee taking. So lets call that half a mea culpa, and half a clarification:)

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The right side of history... > > https://globalnews.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/u > ntitled-design-18.png?w=720 Interesting you should choose to use an image of MLK (as an side lets conveniently ignore the fact that this is well known photo of him leading a prayer, not participating in an act of 'taking the knee' for its own sake).... But here's a man who's most famous quote is now made a mockery of by the modern CRT/Woke-Antiracists movement....not longer should we judge by content of character apparently, we must actively separate people on the basis of their skin colour to achieve to equity according to the modern dogma. To be 'colourblind' in the new mantra is to tacitly support the racists apparently.... We really are through the looking glass these days

snowy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I know I am against racism > > > > I know that I disapprove of CRT as an effective > > method to combat racism, > > > > I know that CRT is at the heart of the BLM > > organisation > > > > I believe that taking the knee is clearly > linked > > to tacit support of BLM (in ADDITION...to being > an > > antiracist gesture) > > > > Accordingly, while I wouldn't boo taking the > knee > > myself. I do choose to express support for > > different anti-racists > > gestures/organisations/efforts.... > > > > I understand that most posters on here believe > > that the Knee is a totally unobjectionable > > gesture...and accept that as a valid > perspective. > > Why is it so impossible for those same people > to > > accept that my position perhaps has some > validity > > also (even if they dont agree with it)? > > > > There is more than one way to skin a cat. There > is > > more than one way to combat racism. I strongly > > object to dog-whistle posts above which > intimate > > that anyone who doesn't follow the 'one true > path' > > is actually just a racist. This shows > astounding > > narrowmindedness, in my view. > > > > I donate money regularly to this organisation > > https://www.theequianoproject.com/ set-up and > run > > by BAME people to discuss and combat racism in > > ways which don't adhere to CRT/BLM orthodoxy. > > > > But I dont like taking the knee, so 'really' im > > just a childish racist troll apparently. > > Just so I understand; to tackle racism, you fund > Equiano - a private company with one shareholder. > A shareholder who is an ?anti woke? (her words) > presenter on GB News who recently said that taking > the knee was ?a way to express your intellectual > and moral superiority?? Yes. I didnt know that when supporting such a group, one should worry about how many 'shareholders' it has. I was more concerned with the discussion they are promoting and the education programmes they are pursuing. What a ridiculous strawman to raise. I'm glad you engaged with the plethora of considered content on their website, from a large range of contributors (mostly from minority groups), some very highly regarded in their respective fields. No?, you didnt?....much easier to just snidely misrepresent the whole thing to score a few points on the EDF isnt it?

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > to be clear Cat I'm not calling you a racist or > even "suggesting" it in an underhand way > > but taking the side of the booers (as Patel and > Johnson - leaders of this country ffs - have done) > against English players is very much dog whistling > to the racists. You must be able to see this much? > If you (not you, but one) if one is a racist, and > you boo players taking the knee and you hear govt > leaders support you, not the players - you are > going to feel emboldened right? > > You (actually you this time) do go to great pains > to construct an elebaborate rationale for > objecting to the knee, but why? you don't need to. > They might even be very good reasons - but no-one > is listening - you have people using a gesture > against racism, and you have a plenty of racists > booing them (and worse). That's what people are > seeing I get what you're saying. And fair enough, no one (well at least not on the EDF!) might be listening to me.....so I should change my message? Surely not wildly dissimilar to if your method of fighting racism is causing all this angst (ant not just from me), then why not change it up? Anyway....i dont think we're going to solve racism today...and I had better do some work at some stage!