TheCat

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > pk Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > so Cat, what is it that you do to 'defeat > > hate'? > > > > > > who have you engaged with and proved that > their > > > views were foolish, ill informed and > > prejudiced? > > > > So you dont agree with me that PJ Carpet > > Cleaning's views were "foolish, ill informed > and > > prejudiced"? > > > > odd position to take pk. > > > so you've engaged with PJ and explained that have > you? > > to be clear the thing that you've made up as being > my position is something that you've made up > (probably cos you get kicks out of being weirdly > provocative on issues of race) As it happens you're the one being provocative today..... ...your suggestion that im being unreasonable by not going out of my way to reach out to PJ carpet cleaning to engage with them on the issue is quite ridiculous. Im engageing on here...thats a start..what are you doing? other that taking pot shots? The proponent on the facebook screenshots was already engaged with him/her....there was the prime opportunity for en gagement, but instead, another route was chosen. PK....By going down this avenue, you are the one who is distracting from the key issues, and making this about your ongoing vendetta to have a go at me every time i post anything.

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so Cat, what is it that you do to 'defeat hate'? > > who have you engaged with and proved that their > views were foolish, ill informed and prejudiced? So you dont agree with me that PJ Carpet Cleaning's views were "foolish, ill informed and prejudiced"? odd position to take pk.

There are indeed very big issues at play, and I don't believe your posts (while well-intentioned) are particularly useful in addressing them. The person in question (PJ Carpet Cleaning) is unquestionably xenophobic, unquestionably deeply unpleasant (particularly when starting to get threatening), and quite possibly racist. However...2 points.... Firstly, The woman who made the original post had clearly decided he was talking about 'black' people as soon as he made his original post about 'deportation of all', (despite no evidence that he was at that point). While his comments were obviously xenophobic (i.e. if you're not born in dulwich, then you should be deported), I dont see how they constitute 'racial abuse' (plenty of black people have been born in dulwich, no?). IM not excusing xenophobia, or prejudice, and his/her views are clearly unpleasant, but to trumpet this on multiple internet forums as 'racial abuse', I believe is somewhat misrepresentative. BUT...i accept that the above is me throwing nuance and caveats into the issue, and in all likelihood, the person being castigated is indeed just a racist....so lets say we agree on that... Which brings me to my second (and main) point...How is it that destroying his/her business will ensure the racism does not continue? In all likelihood it will make the person even more unpleasant towards 'social justice warriors/snowflakes/BLM/BAME Communities/Immigrants' (or whatever label he/she will associate with the people who ruined his/her business). I don't agree with the zeal with which Tracey has gone straight to 'destruction of the business' as her first instinct, because she believed PJ Carpet Cleaning is racist. Would it not be better to engage this person? Attempt to prove how foolish, ill-informed, and prejudiced these views are through open discussion? I personally think that would be a more constructive solution, rather than trying to use 'hate' to defeat 'hate'... PS: In anticipation of likely replies - Just because i disagree with how this has been dealt with, does not make me an apologist for racism (which I can see someone on here accusing me of). I'd encourage anyone thinking along those lines to actually read what i've said properly, rather than throw labels out as a kneejerk reaction. If we cant have an actual discussion about this stuff (rather than just silencing or 'destroying' dissenting voices), then we really are f#@ked.

Shall we destroy the businesses of the 924 people who havent posted on here, as they are complicit?

j.a. Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > keano77 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You?ve missed several hundreds posts j.a.. > You?ve > > got a lot to catch up on. > > > I?ve read the whole thread. You?re quite the > pompous prick, and you?ve been avoiding questions > for the whole shebang so far. > > Like I say, I see you. If you'd read all the thread, you'd know IM the pompous prick......

You can at least mute the notifications from such chat rooms, so that your phone doesn't buzz when a message hits that specific chatroom, and you have to purposefully open the room to see what's been said. It's in the whatsapp options in the top right. Obviously doesn't solve the problem of trawling through people's chats to find what's relevant to you, but at least saves you constantly being interrupted by such chats

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The problem with Jones' article, and with anyone > with some vague notion of a softer brexit - is > that their softer brexit can't exist in reality > either > > Because it's not remainers like me at fault - if > some softer version of Brexit was defined by > May(or Corbyn) and presented - the very hardcore > nutters who have driven this whole thing for > decades - the very people anyone supporting brexit > has to take responsibility for wouldn't stand for > it. > > If you solve a problem like Ireland by staying a > member of Single Market, you really think Jenkins > and co wouldn't rip everything up? I disagree....its all moot now in anycase, but if the Remainers within Labour and Lib Dems in particular, had accepted the referendum result in the first place (sure...under protest), and made an attempt to come up with a palatable solution, rather than play petty party politics, and fantasise about 'stopping brexit'....then the 'brexit nutters' in the pre-2019 parliament would have been a tiny minority. Had that happened, then Im pretty confident we wouldnt have an tory govt with an 80 seat majority, Boris wouldnt PM, the UK Govt wouldn't be toying with its international reputation by playing chicken around breaking treaties.... To be clear im not just 'blaming all remainers'...its on all sides unfort as to why we are here. You can claim it's 'not remainers like me'...but pages of comments on this forum would suggest you've spent years trying to argue about how how brexit needs to be stopped, I respect your view and right to do exactly that...but the flip side is that this attitude is part of the reason why Boris in the head honcho today. I accept that my Brexit vote played its part in putting Boris in the chair (not my intention), time for you to accept that Remainer's roadblocking post-referendum played its part in that too.

It may well be 'just' a fairly reckless negotiating tactic, and perhaps if we had the impression that this govt really were the 'smartest guys in the room', then I might have more confidence that there was robust thought and game-theory behind it. As it stands I'm more eyes closed and fingers crossed that it 'works' without the UK's reputation being permanently damaged too much.. As an aside, I think enough water has flown under the bridge over the past 4 years, that we can disaggregate people 'in favour of brexit', from people in favour of how this government is handling itself. They are two very different things. Its not often I agree with Mr Owen Jones...but his article today contains a neat summary of why its not just 'brexiteers' to blame for us getting to the position we now find ourselves.... "That doesn?t absolve the [Labour] leadership of its own mistakes, such as not settling on a clearly defined soft Brexit earlier, using the political capital of its 2017 gains to make a passionate and principled case. The conflict-averse Corbyn left a vacuum and the stop Brexit movement filled it. But as Brexit returns to the headlines and there is consensus in the commentariat that the opposition is cleverly sidestepping Johnson?s trap, let us conclude that that should have been everyone?s approach from the very beginning. We could have accepted the referendum, negotiated a close relationship, and pivoted back to the domestic issues that really matter. Instead, we have a hard-right Tory government with an unassailable majority that bungled the pandemic and has set Britain on course for the hardest Brexit possible"

Bob Buzzard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > alice Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But is it double fronted. > > Technically, yes it is double fronted as I bought > the adjoining semi-detached house next door. I > gave the elderly neighbours enough money to move > to Nunhead, and then put in a doorway in the > hallway between the two house, so now it's like > one house. Nunhead? Or Nunhead Village?

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As I pointed out - Corbyn held views unacceptable > to people and was rightly condemned as unfit to > govern because of them. Was that a path to > fascism? Come on Sephiroth.....apple's and organges..... Man with unpopular views gets national platform to attempt to ingratiate himself to the public, then gets democratically voted down, perhaps partially due to those views, but also on his ability to do the broader job he was applying for.... How is that in anyway similar to saying that people with certain views (unrelated to the skills of the job being applied for) cannot hold any role within the public service/government?

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No it isn?t > > The lesson we learned from fighting fascism was to > tolerate people and not tolerate them he views of > people who seek to oppress others. If you are > homophobic, mysoginist etc, go about your day, > maybe educate yourself but keep well away from > government > > Now, you allow people with views like this as a > government? Then you get fascism Australia...that well-known fascist state.....

I think JohnL raises and interesting point, which goes to the heart or this matter....where is the line? And how much does the position of the line depend on the role in question... This isn't black and white issue, it's evidently a nuanced conversation. I'd guess it has much more to do with the profile of the role, than what is actually said... I.e. it evidently wasn't acceptable to have an England Football manager who thinks disabled people are being punished for a previous life, but I imagine there's plenty of faceless public servants who object to gay marriage for example......

Re-read what you just typed Sephiroth... Regardless of their religion, if they personally hold and express those beliefs then yes, they are unfit for government representation. That's not miles away from textbook fascism....

j.a. Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > To be fair, those are views you yourself felt you > had to distance yourself from at the top of this > thread, so I think you can agree they were always > going to be part of the conversation. > Can't agree that they really should be part of the conversation. Perhaps always likely someone would mention, but my whole point at the start of the thread is that they really shouldnt be relevant. > > The whole thing is typical of Johnson?s > governance, where they don?t think through the > whole detail of an issue, and are then surprised > when they don?t entirely control it. Witness the > multiple u-turns over Covid, for example. > > Look, the points Effra makes are good ones - > Abbott may well have a broad strategic view that > can benefit us, certainly we need more brains > where trade is concerned; only time will tell I > guess. However, like so much else, the govt has > been caught out again with the message. Can agree with this though. Perhaps they should have expected such illogical attacks from the left, and been prepared to squash it early. But in anycase, you're right, symptomatic of a lack of thoroughness in decision making it seems....

j.a. Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > However, Abbott is being touted by the UK govt as > an ?expert? (see Matt Hancock et al) - and that > isn?t the case - and I?d say that the govt is > happy to conflate the true role of the Board of > Trade with that of the actual negotiators. I don?t > think that?s healthy, in terms of the wider > debate. To be fair, I don't think the government is reallty on the hook for trying to confuse the public on this one. What should have been a relatively low profile advisory board appointment has turned into a massive hoopla the past week, driven by the media latching on to his potential appointment, and then getting hysterical about his 'homophobic' and 'misogynistic' views (Matt Hancock didn't go on to sky to talk about Tony Abbott, the sky news reporter just cornered him with a bit of sensationalist questioning)...so if anyone has conflated anything is the broader press I'd say....

j.a. Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whatever dude, see what you want to see, ignore > what doesn?t fit your narrative. > > The fact remains that Tony Abbott is not a trade > expert; all those deals you mention were actually > negotiated by Andrew Robb. Abbott is an > ideological soulmate of Johnson, however. If I?d > linked to a tweet from Hannon or Mumford I?m sure > you?d be fine with it. > > Crack on, chum... J.a. seems you're being a bit dismissive...in the second guardian article I posted above, by Abbott's own admission he says he's not an expert in the minutae of trade negotiations, but seemingly has experience in judging when to push or pull (at a higher level) to ensure progress...surely that's worth something? Particularly when we consider that these are unpaid, advisory, trade board roles..he's not being hired as a negotiator who'll be bashing out a deal across a table...

womanofdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As its so hard for us to get a visa to work in > Australia, I think it should work both ways. That > is reasonable isn't it? I've been refused one , as > has a friend from czech republic they have quite a > strict points system. I think it's a moot point in anycase, as I understand the UK Trade Board director positions are unpaid.... No doubt australia has pretty tight rules though. When the possibility of a move back came up recently, it transpired that even as an Australian myself, Mrs Cat (being of Blighty) does not automatically qualify for a work visa despite many years of marriage and producing two australian-citizen mini-cats.....

womanofdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do we really have to recruit from Australia? Can > he get a work visa? Are you opposed to immigrants being employed in the UK?

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not just his problematic views tho, is it? Perhaps not. But all the articles or commentary I've seen objecting to his appointment seem to focus on his views over everything else. They would have been better served focussing on the points you make, to my mind, if they really wanted to garner real support to oppose him (not just soundbites from Gandalf the Grey:)) But perhaps he does bring something other than his brexit credentials....one view... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/03/boris-johnson-tony-abbott-trade-expertise I would add that I don't have a strong view on his ability as a trade envoy or otherwise, I'm more pointing out that focussing on his 'homophobic' or misogynist' views probably doesnt help, and serves as a distraction from about a proper public discussion about his abilities (or lack thereof)...

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > This government seems sensitive at the moment (or > maybe Boris is) Also, pretty hard to argue with this..they seem terrified of their own shadow on nearly every issue, and fold at the first sign of popular resistance....

It's not just the government, it's corporates on the whole as well....I worry about the 'pointy end of the wedge' where we're starting to see people's personal views on a range of topics clash with the 'corporate values' on the same topic...leading to sidelining, workplace bullying, and even loss of employment or 'cancellation' (as I believe it's now called). It used to be the case that people's politics and religious views weren't really topics which an employer could or should be concerned with. Now we are entering a grey area (I believe) where basic workplace respect and appropriate workplace behaviour are not enough, and more and more workplaces are pressuring employees to actively 'champion the values' to ensure corporate success. I get this when the value directly aligns with the job function, but don't get it when they do not...

So as an Australian, I am pretty familiar with Mr Abbott. I'm not much of a fan - I don't like his views on gay marriage or his very 'traditional' views on family... But...I'm not sure what any of that has to do with his ability to be a trade envoy? If people want to pick apart his trade experience, then fair enough; but how is it even logical to say that 'he's got unpopular views on gay marriage, therefore is unfit for the proposed trade role.... As one of the articles below suggests many religious folk (Muslim, Catholic etc) hold similar views (again, which I personally disagree with)....but does that mean we should bar them all from any public office? Two relevant articles below with opposing views so hopefully I can't be randomly accused on lack of balance.... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/04/ian-mckellen-joins-condemnation-of-tony-abbott-trade-role https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/09/04/in-defence-of-tony-abbott/

Just to add....I have actually now found trump versus Trump... https://youtu.be/qwUpNAU-AEU My congrats to whoever put this together.....

Perhaps we could get a real trump versus cgi Trump, just as we got real Arnie versus cgi arnie in terminator genisys.... https://images.app.goo.gl/kGGZv6UVkkPsc6xQ9

Looks lovely...