TheCat

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Apart from one lone brave man. A pudgy white, > comfortable man with no experience of racism on > the receiving end. He might come from a country > which near-wiped out an indigenous population just > a few generations ago and one might think he would > have some self-awareness. But no You make a lot of assumptions here about someone you know nothing about. And on a number of counts you could not be more wrong. Ask yourself why it is that I care about this issue so much? I'm not going to answer that question publically, becuase it's none of your business. But you can kindly keep your character assasinations to yourself, and I'll be reporting your post to admin.

Seph and PK...If both of you can get past your prejudicial dislike of me and my posts and actually re-read my first two posts on this issue, you'll see that nowhere have I said I endorse the report and all its findings. In fact I've actually specifically said at one stage that I don't agree with parts of it. And yes, I have also said that parts of it seem reasonable and sensible, adding a bit of nuance to some aspects of the discussion, in my view. The focus of my posts is very, very clearly asking that people who wish to criticise and discuss the report to please bother reading it, to promote a discussion based on more than just what you've read second or third-hand. I don't think that's an unreasonable ask. But since neither of you can even actually be bothered reading my posts (which are significantly shorter than the report) without bile, loathing and personal insults dripping from your pores....then perhaps it is unreasonable to ask people like the both of you....who seemingly base all your thoughts on what others think, rather than dare to engage your brain for yourselves. Perhaps one of you wants to start a 'We hate TheCat' thread, so you both don't keep hijacking other topics constantly.

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Still nothing to say of any substance then > Brilliant. You are beyond parody PK. Never change.

Oh goody, so pleased that you've decided to return with your 'friendly' posts and 'well informed' posts. No, I don't think I'll provide a link to my friends personal Facebook page. You'll just have to limit embarrassing yourself again to this forum it seems.

With regards to your last point, I think its worth looking at the section starting on page 33 called 'the language of race' which sets the context for how the report is considering various commonly used terms. And the perhaps help frame the discussion around what labels we apply to modern Britain's race relations with a little more nuance than just something is REAL or NOT REAL based of different people's understanding of different terms....which is a gross oversimplification of what is by its nature a subjective discussion..... In anycase....while you, me and others might not agree with everything in the there, or every data comparison, at least you've read a bit of it and can have a discussion about its content, which is more than most people reacting angrily, but being uninformed. This is opposed to most press characterisation, which even in the past 24 hours has lost almost all attempts at any form of nuance....are are often chacatrisiing the report as basically denying racism exists in modern Britain...which any objective read of even a bit of would suggest is very untrue, even if one disagree with the approach taken in certain areas.

It's fascinating to me that many of the people who often protest loudly about the need to 'educate yourself' about racism are the same people who are dismissing the Sewell report without even bothering reading it, on the basis on cherry picked soundbites and mis-represnted excerpts they've read in the Guardian or on social media.... I had a social media 'debate' today with a number of people who are calling it a disgrace. As it happens, Ive actually read most of it....not one of them had even opened it.....

Happy April fools

They spend the rest of the year posting on the EDF....

So....I started this thread 2 months ago, and copped a fairly 'robust' response from various posters (culminating with me being accused of working for the Tory media team!!....which still gives me a chuckle)... I wonder now, with two further months haviong passed of Sir Kier's leadership, Labour sinking in the polls (yes, vaccine bounce for the govt, but it would be foolish to dismiss it as all due to that), and even the Graun increasingly writing about Sir Kier's ineffectiveness....whether the EDF mood music for Sir Kier has changed at all? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/29/keir-starmer-year-labour-poll-ratings

On the angry juice last night SB?:)

I'm no lawyer....but if true, further ammunition that this whole 'war' is just the EU punishing AstraZeneca and the UK as cover for its poor contracting.... https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/

People do love to make storms in teacups don't they. I mean FFS....he's saying capitalism helped accelerate the response to Covid...Which would be relatively dull comment on its own. The greed reference is clearly a clumsy call back to Michael Douglas in Wall Street....awkward? Yes. Worth getting your knickers in a twist over? Not so much Nothing to see here...move along.....

It obviously had the correct paperwork as it crossed the customs border in the Irish sea....

Come now seabag, surely even you can agree that's a pretty amusing analogy (I mean 'Bares TUSKs'...Come onnn)'.......its okay, you can laugh at the EU occasionally, and we'll all still know that you vehemently dislike Brexit. It wont ruin your remainer cred. Or are you just annoyed that you didn't put as much thought into your analogy as Hammy did?:)

Hamletter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The future area of competition will be for these > new manufacturing plants to negotiate licences > from the research labs that produce the most > efficacious vaccines. I wonder how many of the big pharma companies will now choose to invest in new manufacturing capacity within the EU....

Thats all fair. For clarity...im not 'claiming success'......we are indeed a long way off a definitive judgement call on the overall thing (i've said 10 years in previous posts)....just raising this one specific point...which of course exists within a myriad of other considerations, and def not wishing to open up another broad-based how much do we love or hate Brexit discussion!...I think thats been done:)

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Vaccine wars are hilarious, where Britn Inc is > cock-a-hoop at its success, as if this fluke > situation were in were a design default of Brexit. > ? We knew this would happen? > > Somehow it reminds me of a You Tube video, where a > tramp steps up to play a piano and plays a full > recital of Bach. It can?t last, the tramp is a > tramp for a reason. > > *waves plastic Union Jack I think the issue you raise is one of the reasons why supporters of the two sides have trouble seeing eye to eye (amongst many other reasons I'm sure!)..... No, of course this specific situation was not envisaged. But one of the reasons I voted to leave (I assume some others may have also) is becuase of a belief that conceptually being able to make some decisions in a more nimble fashion (as opposed to needing to consider the needs of 27 other nations before a decision can be made) would provide some potential advantages. Now for some that 'concept' is too vague, and they want specifics, so found it hard to take that as a rationale they could get comfortable with. I was comfortable that at some point it would be an advantage, but to be fair at no point did I expect we would get an example of that concept so soon after brexit, and sadly not in such unfortunate circumstances as this pandemic. Similarly it's not possible to definitivley point to where or when the next example might come along (I could list potential areas of focus, but they would just be speculation), and for some that's just a level of uncertainty/lack of clarity that they are uncomfortable with; for others the confidence in the principle/concept is enough.... I've mentioned this quite a few time over the years in the lead up to brexit, only to be invariably mocked. But perhaps, with this unfortuneate vaccine rollout example, some people can at least acknowledge the validity of the concept even if they don't agree with it.

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought they were mocking the escalating > performative and escalating patriotism of > Conservative politicians. They were. But is that appropriate to do on their forum.....?

Interesting. Having not grown up here. I understand the cynicism wrapped up with the flag stuff. But there are so very many things to have a pop at the govt about, this seems very self indulgent.....

I would think the upset here is about the brazeness of the challenge about flags. I mean I agree with the sentiment....who gives a rats arse, and also who gives one about whether people love flags or not. But to feel emboldened enough on national television to mock someone being 'patriotic' (a minister of the realm no less) I think is the issue. It smacks of smugness.....

Totally agreed. And if there's one thing the British know about, its civilised food!

Its notable how the decline in objective truth and need for integrity is perpetuated by tribes of ALL political colours. It seems in both mainstream and social media that tribalism generally trumps the need to avoid outrageous hypocrisy for many people these days.... For those who are typically pro-brexit/pro-tory (the two are of course not one and the same, but im generalising), they are accepting/silent on Boris's lies/inaccurate statements/misleading; but insistent that Nicola must go. For those who are typically anti-brexit/anti-tory (so a generalization of many posters on the EDF perhaps?!), there's a general 'whataboutery'; glossing over the Nicola lies/inaccurate statements/misleading; and pointing the finger at Boris, saying well of he doesn't go, then why should she..? The outcome is a general degrading of a requirement for the truth, and unfort pointing the finger at the 'other side' misses the point and perpetuates the decline...we are all complicit in this race to the bottom unfortunately....

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's a direct correlation between the hard > right Brexit we ended up with and what we're > seeing now and likely to see more of in the coming > years. It's laughable (or else you'll cry) seeing > some Brexit voters express shock at this Bill > passing. You're right, it is laughable...that you have found a way to conflate these two entirely unrelated things.....

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Bill has passed which takes away right to > protest and makes it illegal. > > Where is the outrage ? It doesnt really do that though, does it? I think if one is outraged or not depends on if you think that clauses like 'severe annoyance' are the thin end of the wedge to further limits to protest. It definitely is too vague a term for my liking, and I am not a fan of the protest aspects of the bill. But I imagine the lack of outrage from many people is that tey feel that if used responsibly (a big if of course) then they are supportive of not having groups like XR completely disrupt people's lives while they go about their protest....