TheCat

Perhaps this isn't the thread for it...but this whole sorry affair highlights extreme partisan nature of US politics (echoed in the UK of course along both party and brexit lines more recently)...does the Republican party have a future in its current form? Which also raises the question on the democrats as well...which also raises the broader question of party politics in places like the UK, where both major parties are plagued by factionalism within their respective parties. It's seems in our modern world, when narrow interest groups (at all ends of the political spectrum) often make the most noise, there is little room for 'moderates' with broad appeal when it comes to almost any issue.... (As I say, perhaps off topic a bit, but I can't be bothered starting a new thread right now!)

PS..with regards to the Post Script discussion on 'woke'. I think this article by Kenan Malik (I 'presume' he is more acceptable to you as a commentator?:)) is a great outline of the bigotry and divisiveness on display from both the 'woke' and the 'unwoke' alike... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/14/those-who-use-woke-as-an-insult-forget-the-point-of-a-real-debate

More delectable prose from Jay today to satisfy my base middle-class instincts. While reading this I've found that I've managed to slip an entire roast chicken in the front of my trousers, without even realising it.... https://www.theguardian.com/food/2021/feb/14/jay-rayner-cooks-recipes-from-roast-chicken-and-other-stories-by-simon-hopkinson

I agree that the last para is hyperbolic and unnecessarily provocative. As I similarly disagree with the notion that a desire to improve certain aspects of various organisations (-e. In the NCVO exam?ple) is evidence of a desire to tear down the whole organisation and everything they stand for. However, I do find concerning, what I see as the knee jerk reactions of some activists to specific situations, as irrefutable evidence of their broadly held position (in this case 'structural racism). I.e. the NCVO appoints a white man for their top job, so we must complain irrespective of whether he is a well qualified candidate with significant achievements in the sector or not. I also find it appallingly hypocritical, the treatment which conervative minority ethnic politics suffer by many proclaimed 'anti-racists'. Roundly calling them race-traitors and uncle toms, or with 'internalized racism'. This makes a mockery of the whole desire to listen to minority voices and place importance of "lived experience'. You can see why many people are cynical that for many activist groups, 'lived experience' is only important if it is the lived experience which suits their narrative..... I also agree with his comments about the 'weaponisation' of the word 'white'. The now ubiquitous use of the word 'white' to imply something negative is divisive and counter-productive. As pointed in the article, if the word 'black' were used in its place - in most of these contexts the terms would be quickly derided as offensive and unacceptable. Further, i's quite extraordinary really that there is large support for this type of (offsenive?) language from the same groups of activists who will support someone being publicly hounded out of a job for the smallest slip of the tongue or poor choice of words, while using phrases like 'words matter' or 'words can be violence'..... Just finally, on your own comment....."Just like neo-nazis using superficially un-contestable statements like ?all lives matter? or ?blue lives matter? to appear reasonable when opposing the BLM protests, I would be suspect he had an ulterior motive".... It seems that's a common tactic at both ends of the spectrum. Terms like 'anti-rascist' and 'stop funding hate' sound similarly superficially un-contestable, but often cover up much more divisive, prejudiced and bigoted (in some cases) ideas and positions.....

If Nigel Farage turned around and said 'murder is wrong' would you question it becuase Nigel Farage said it? Do you believe that if someone has said things you disagree with or find offensive, therefore everything his says must be disagreeable or offensive? Look, I have no particular affinity for Charles Moore, I don't 'look to him for support', I have no idea what his views on other issues are, and I frankly couldnt care less. I don't even agree with everything he's said in this specific article, but some of it I do..and I happen to think that some of what is said in this article is worthy of discussion. People don't just fall into nice little buckets where you can extrapolate all their views on every issue from (for example) the author of an article they link to. So you can presume what you like my friend - but it will most likely be quite a flimsy presumption. Any comment on what was actually in the article above? Or just on who wrote it? PS. It's notable that it was the 'woke' who first started calling themselves 'woke'..go back trawl through guardian articles from 3-4 years ago, and you'll find many call to arms on how to be 'woke'. But since everyone else started also calling them the woke (and perhaps not in the most complimentary manner), it's suddenly now dismissed as a right wing generated slur.

While equality and racism activists often do good work in certain areas...when one reads articles like this, it does seem like many of them let themselves down with their narrowmindedness with regards to how to achieve their equitable goals.... THE DIVISIVE AGENDA OF WOKE ACTIVISTS IS THE VERY OPPOSITE OF ?ANTI-RACISM? Every time one of our institutions gives room to performative wokery, it denies space to genuine opportunity for ethnic minorities CHARLES MOORE 12 February 2021 ? 9:30pm Charles Moore The subject of today?s column furnishes so many examples that I am spoilt for choice. I think I?ll start with Winston Churchill, because everyone has heard of him. On Thursday, a conference was held on the ?racial consequences? of Churchill. Its speakers condemned him. Kehinde Andrews, professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, said Churchill was the ?perfect embodiment of white supremacy?. ?The British Empire was far worse than the Nazis?, he added. No one defended Churchill. The conference was held at Churchill College, Cambridge, at that college?s instigation. The college was founded in 1964, with the great man?s blessing. It is also the home of the Churchill Archives, by far the most important collection of his papers. Here is my second example. In 2019, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO), the charity which looks after charities, chose the experienced Karl Wilding, already on the staff, as its new chief executive. It was criticised for picking ?another white man?. Once appointed, Mr Wilding announced his urgent priority to improve the NCVO?s Diversity and Inclusion. He and the board commissioned ?independent consultants? to report on the situation. He also met ?#CharitySoWhite?, a campaign group devoted to attacking white dominance of charities. It was a pre-requisite for the consultants that NCVO should admit to institutional racism, so the eventual report was a foregone conclusion. ADVERTISING In the course of its inquiries, the leading consultant claimed she had been shocked by a meeting with Mr Wilding. He was the oppressor, she judged, and had exhibited the sin of ?white fragility?. During Covid, Mr Wilding had scored an extraordinary hit for the charity sector ? securing ?750 million from the Government to save it from collapse. This did not save him. He recently left his post at the NCVO. A leak of the consultants? report this week claimed there had been ?bullying and harassment? on the basis of race. The new-ish chairman of the NCVO, Priya Singh, grovellingly acknowledged it was ?a structurally racist organisation? (and equally dreadful about homophobia, transphobia etc). Both these stories reveal organisations which are unfair and ungrateful to those who help them and indulgent to those who hate them. Churchill College could never have raised the money to exist at all without the respect in which the statesman himself was held. The NCVO would have precious few charities to oversee if Mr Wilding had not obtained that huge subvention from the Government. The question, then, is, why did Churchill College and why did the NCVO (including poor Mr Wilding) and why do bodies such as the National Trust or Historic England or the British Museum give room to those who detest what these organisations do and try to oust the people who run them? Simple fear is part of it. No one wants to be accused of racism, harassment and ?microaggressions?. Most realise that, if they are, their colleagues will not dare defend them. It feels easier to give in ? though it isn?t. But I think there must be another feeling in the minds of the institutions blowing with this gale. They half-believe that people like Pror Andrews and organisations such as #CharitySoWhite are right ? a bit hot-headed, perhaps, but on the right track. It is true, as a general proposition about human nature, that people who dominate tend to exploit the rest. Western nations have dominated most of the world for more than 200 years, so there is a history of (among many other, better things) exploitation. It should be told, and that tale will involve Churchill, if only because he was the last globally powerful Englishman. Any painful consequences of the past (along with many more beneficial ones such as the spread of Christianity, the rule of law and modern medicine) for minority-ethnic people alive today should not be hidden. Wrongs that persist must be righted. But it is a mistake ? indeed, for the institutions involved, a potentially fatal mistake ? to accept all ?anti-racists? at their own valuation. What is emerging as this attempted Cultural Revolution spools out is that Martin Luther King?s ideal that people be judged by ?the content of their character? not by the colour of their skin has been rejected by organisations such as Black Lives Matter. Instead, they have set up doctrines uncommonly like those of apartheid South Africa, except that the racial hierarchy is reversed. Whereas apartheid demeaned blacks people above all, woke ?anti-racism? demeans white people. It does this explicitly. The very name #CharitySoWhite is a small example. (You can prove it by imagining how people would rightly abhor an organisation called #CharitySoBlack designed to stop black people running charities.) Whiteness is seen as badness: so it must be extirpated. This is a racist doctrine. It is pretty much as simple as that. When our institutions accept such critiques, they are not only digging their own graves; they also ignorantly and patronisingly accepting the unwarranted claim that the authors of these critiques speak for most ethnic minority people. Surely anyone who wants BAME people to prosper would favour greater opportunity. And surely opportunity is less likely to open up if they are taught (literally taught, as happens in some schools) that society is against them. Every time one of our institutions gives room to this performative wokery, it denies space to genuine opportunity for ethnic minorities. There are millions of ethnic minority people in this country doing jobs well and, as a result, often getting better jobs. Some of them, funnily enough, are Conservative MPs, elected mostly by the votes of supposedly racist whites. Several have reached Cabinet level. One, Rishi Sunak, is even Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are no BAME politicians of comparable importance in the Labour Party. A more junior minister, Kemi Badenoch, eloquently defends British culture against Critical Race Theory, speaking in a language ? English ? which is not her first. She is also active trying to overcome minorities? suspicion of Covid vaccines. Like Priti Patel, she suffers a flood of social-media abuse as a result, some mentioning her other ?race-traitor? sins, such as being married to a white man. Despite the BBC?s strengthened impartiality policy, Emily Maitlis approvingly retweets the editor whose reporter seemingly attacks Mrs Badenoch at every turn. In BLM-style woke ideology, the rise of ethnic minorities is seen as a positively bad thing. The ineffable Professor Andrews puts it thus: ?Do not be fooled: a cabinet packed with ministers with brown skin wearing Tory masks represents the opposite of racial progress.? He would seem to prefer an all-white Cabinet, then. Within government today, discussion is inconclusive. There are strong voices, such as that of the No 10 Policy Unit head, Munira Mirza, which understand exactly how wokery can intimidate BAME people who not agree with its doctrines. Dr Tony Sewell?s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, expected next month, is likely to show reasons other than ubiquitous racism for some disparities. Why, for example, are young black males and young white males, doing worse academically than all other ethnic groups? Might it have something to do with weak family structures? Also within government and officialdom, however, are nervous voices daunted by the task of turning round the oil tanker of nonsense. They need urgently to understand that if they accept the essential woke premise that Britain is a racist state, they must accept the implied conclusion ? that Britain must be destroyed.

You keep dreaming your best dreams Spartacus....don't listen to us....:)

Fair enough Spartacus...how many other situations is this sort of trope used in advertising I wonder? The whitening toothpaste for someone already with gleaming white teeth? The shampoo advert for the woman with already glorious hair? The magical cleaning product for that already spotless showroom kitchen? The food delivery service for someone with perfectly functioning legs?

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has anyone got any Heroin, or tamazepam or > anything to knock me out from this spreadsheet > tedium? > Perhaps deliveroo can be persuaded to branch out....

When I started a thread this morning entitled 'a pub with no beer', I knew straight away it would inevitably lead to discussions on the specs of different spreadsheet software....

Foxy....as a spreadhseet nerd from way back...I truly hope its rammed full of Vlookups, array functions, pivot tables, and even some VB Macros...

Honestly trolley....this is getting seriously tedious now. You don't have to ruin every thread on here....maybe just pick 1 or 2... In anycase, perhaps you should just leave us middle class tw@ts alone to chatter amongst ourselves, while you go off and do real things, in the real world, with real people...

This idea of pubs opening in April/May, but not being able to serve alchohol.....to quote sue....WTF? Im assuming that they are intending on letting restaurants open, but wanted to avoid a backlash from the pub/bar industry, but saying they can technically open as well In anycase, while I've been prepared to accept all the curbs on our civil liberties the past year, the government basically saying 'we dont trust the Britsh public to follow the rules we put in place if they've been drinking' seems like a step too far with regard to Big Brother controlling our lives... Sure, enforce social distancing rules, and there will always be people who break the rules....but surely its incumbent upon people to follow those rules when drinking, just as we follow all other rules when drinking.....i.e. most of us remember after a few pints that we're not supposed to murder people.... with that, I'll let my late countryman, Slim Dusty, sing you this tale of woe....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bIJV8gaBK4

Bob Buzzard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > During lockdown I have bashed down my front garden > wall with a sledgehammer and made a car parking > space for my Saab 95 estate. Should I reverse rear > end in or just go straight in front ways? Is this all just a euphemism to describe what was happening over on the 'severe goose green park incident' thread? /forum/read.php?20,2185194

I'm not a fan of Trolley's slightly antagonistic class baiting, But to be fair, it wasn't trolley who shoehorned this 'brexit thing' into this thread.....

"Anyone who has any general details on the matter, please do not hesitate to contact me on 07786251525" Im happy to give you a buzz to fill you in (pun intended) on all the details....but it will cost you ?3/minute.....

So to combine two recent threads Trolley...I guess you wont be looking forward to Jay's review of the new local, upscale, Indian restaurant 'Heritage'?

This older thread looks like a good spot to leave this...some of the Graun's best work.... https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/10/the-guardians-hottest-takes/

Or....what perhaps other people would say is, best of luck on your new venture. Its tough time to be doing so, but hopefully your hard work will pay off. Yes, the prices are at the premium end; but Babur over in Forest Hill charges similar prices for a premium product, and has been going strong for 35-odd years. Whether there's room for two such premium Indian restaurants in such close proximity remains to be seen, but I can attest to Babur being one of my local favourites (even as a takeaway), so I'd be keen to try Heritage down the track. Sure, I dont want to pay these sort of prices for every Friday night takeaway, but more for a fancier/special occasion occasion; but in anycase, the Heritage guys are not wildly without precedent, so perhaps don't rush to dismiss them just yet.

I really wish that journalists would learn that 'efficiency' and 'efficacy' are two different words that mean two different things. I know there's lots of 'F' and 'S' sounds...but FFS....

Topical article today illustrating what I was talking about previously on this thread, that the currency issue makes this a very different proposition from brexit.... https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/scotland-s-next-financial-crisis People may well vote with their hearts...but with a massive fiscal deficit, and no ability to issue your own currency... a vote for Scottish independence is a vote for Scottish austerity (even the snp acknowledge this in their own economic reports). Those opposed may argue that sensible economic forecast were similarly ignored in the brexit process....but the as I've said, the currency issue means it's chalk and cheese I'm afraid....

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > like I keep saying - Cat knows. He KNOWS he's > @#$%& it. I'll bet he has friends and family who > tell him exactly that as well. But easier to come > on here and fight with people like me > > Years we've been saying Northern Ireland is a > problem. Years we have been saying trade, farming > and fishing will be screwed. Not a care in the > world from Cat- oh but now it's actually real and > actually happening??? "It's the nasty EU punishing > us! We need a better deal!!!!" > > 4 years of brexit, 2 subsequent elections, 2 > subsequent Tory leaders, several extensions - all > to prepare and hammer out a better deal - amounted > to zilch > > No self-awareness. No responsibility. Still thinks > it'll be worth it > > Where is this better deal going to come from? What > will it look like? What form will it take? What > will UK give up to get better terms and access? > Who holds all the cards? Not the UK Change the record mate. The only one on here 'fighting' is you. I'm discussing an issue. It seems you spend quite a lot of your time discussing me.

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cat can you point to anywhere where the EU is > breaking the agreement? If they are then I hope > our government is bringing this to the dispute > resolution process. If you?re just complaining > that member states are enforcing the agreement as > specified, then that?s the fault of this > government for negotiating such a terrible deal > based on their own stupid red lines and refusal to > request an extension. I'm not saying anyone is breaking any agreements. Go back on to the previous page where, the discussion was on rumours of some 'petty officialdom' and perhaps spiteful interpretation of the rules in some cases. Sephiroth replied saying this is all the 'UK's choice'....I simply asked if it was reasonable to expect punitive or spiteful behaviour..and at what stage would he judge the line between good faith rule interpretation and spiteful nitpicking to be crossed? It is of course naive in the extreme to suggest a deal is signed then everything is 'sorted'. There will be ongoing interpretation and enforcement of the terms from both sides. Some of that will be fair and some it won't be, where it isn't, the UK should fight it's corner (just as the EU should do the same) rather than just glibly accepting any unesseary harsh interpretation as just the 'UKs choice' and 'what brexiteers voted for'..... As an aside, I agree that an extension of transition period would probably have been sensible after signing the deal, to give businesses more clarity and time to adjust...as opposed to the 7 days or so that they did get.

I think you know very well what I mean. Do you never tire of trying to pick holes (and pick arguments) in anything someone who thinks differently from you has said? The general consensus is that the deal is 'thin', and that there will be ongoing negotiation as to standards and resultant tariff or not in specific areas. It's not about 'seeking a better deal' it about pushing the envelope within the parameters of the one we have. Im not saying anything wildly controversial when I say that there are clearly elements within the EU who want to 'punish' Britain for leaving the club. And, yes, we do know what they give to other countries, and by knowing this, some of the demands they have made of the UK are clearly unreasonable in that context. For example, farm produce is subject to more stringent sanitary checks than the EU demands from New Zealand..... https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1591/pdf/&ved=2ahUKEwjsv5W--dXuAhWtQkEAHQC7AxoQFjACegQIDRAC&usg=AOvVaw22srVCdfA4bHxLelfCbx4B But what I do I know...I lack understanding apparently....

" Nobody (apart from you) mentioned ?thick, racist or hoodwinked? and I was very careful to be more rounded in my phrasing." Wasn't referring to any specific comments. Mean the dominant public narrative of the 'typical' leaver as seen by most 'typical' remainers. But I'm pretty sure a quick search of this forum would unearth a bountiful list of comments which characterise leave voters in this way. I've posted this one before, but Jonathan Pie describes it well... Anyway.....I'm getting off topic now, so I'll stop!