Politics in General

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:16 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:44 pm
If she'd stolen a bicycle while she was out there I'd probably say leave her to rot out there.
I'm guessing I touched a nerve
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8588
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:47 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:16 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:44 pm
If she'd stolen a bicycle while she was out there I'd probably say leave her to rot out there.
I'm guessing I touched a nerve
Not at all.

But to get back to the point, I'm not sure she would need a bodyguard for life. If it came to it she could be given a new identity.

I also think the Liam Neeson thing was a massive overreaction. He was admitting to something he did 40 years ago, not giving his current views. It was probably unwise to admit it given what people can be like though.

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Kiloposter
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:58 pm

I thought it was illegal in international law to leave someone stateless; if so, that should be the end of it regardless of the court of public opinion. Sure today it's an ISIS bride, but who will it be next? Given how recent something like Windrush is, I absolutely dread to think what this government (and indeed future ones) might do with the power to make its citizens stateless. Ignoring that elephant in the room, I have pretty mixed feelings.

On the 'bring her home and make her stand trial' front:
- It's unbelievably arrogant to assume that we're too good for our own radicalised citizen to return, but the Netherlands can have her. Why would they want her!? Why should we leave our radicals in refugee camps to put other refugees at risk, and leave them to cause further destruction to a region? (I guess we can just bomb the shit out of those countries when something like this kicks off again!!) She should be a British responsibility.
- She was groomed online at 15. By legal definition, that's a child. If not for the ISIS angle we'd all accept that being groomed at that age makes her a victim and at least complicates her level of agency in the situation. Were there issues going on in her life that pushed her towards this ideology and caused her to make her extreme decision? Understanding the thinking behind this kind of behaviour should inform genuine evidence-based deradicalisation initiatives rather than reactionary/kneejerk ones (Prevent), or funding groups in this area who talk a good game but are largely frauds (Quilliam).
- If she shows no remorse: she's in a refugee camp when ISIS have largely been defeated; who else is in that camp with her and what might they do to her if she's on international news stations slagging off ISIS? More importantly: if she were remorseful, would people believe her or be more likely to forgive her? I don't think so. It's a bit of a non-factor.

On the other hand:
- Her coming back to the UK would be a huge threat to Muslims in the UK (not to mention people mistaken for Muslims). Like, there's been a few discussions in a Facebook group I'm in about this topic and the Muslim women in it (or those who have Muslim families) are terrified about a violent backlash to their community if she returns. This story has been absolutely massive and emotive in a way that few news stories are... it's fertile ground for radicalising people to the far right.
- If she's still privately committed to the ideology, would she begin to radicalise those around her in prison, via the internet, etc? Will she use a court case as a platform for spreading hate?

I don't know which side would be responsible for more violence, but I fully believe people in the UK will die for one reason or another as a consequence of this. I would be amazed if she wasn't assassinated, to be honest.

The truly tragic thing is that her baby (not to mention her 2 dead children) are innocent. They were born into a horrifying situation because of a 15 year old's dreadful choice. I would hope that even people who are vociferously against the mother would have an inkling of compassion for the child :(
mywife is soft nd ilikeher
MY WIFE IS SOF AND I LIKE HER
t

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:09 pm

The thing that I can't get my head round is, 15 year olds are naturally rebellious but leaving her family to join the ISIS cause is a bit of a step up from a piercing or smoking weed.
And more importantly, her parents must have been complicit and paid for her flights along with the other girls parents that went with her.
I would suggest her radicalisation was a bit nearer to home.

Your choice of words , 'grooming' is a bit inflammatory considering the reason the far right and parents of children in vulnerable areas are distrustful of Muslims are the sex grooming gangs .
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:11 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:09 pm
The thing that I can't get my head round is, 15 year olds are naturally rebellious but leaving her family to join the ISIS cause is a bit of a step up from a piercing or smoking weed.
And more importantly, her parents must have been complicit and paid for her flights along with the other girls parents that went with her.
I would suggest her radicalisation was a bit nearer to home.

Your choice of words , 'grooming' is a bit inflammatory considering the reason the far right and parents of children in vulnerable areas are distrustful of Muslims are the sex grooming gangs .
She's as likely to be assassinated here as in Syria.
I still think as the child is half Dutch then that's where she should go .
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Kiloposter
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:27 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:09 pm
The thing that I can't get my head round is, 15 year olds are naturally rebellious but leaving her family to join the ISIS cause is a bit of a step up from a piercing or smoking weed.
And more importantly, her parents must have been complicit and paid for her flights along with the other girls parents that went with her.
I would suggest her radicalisation was a bit nearer to home.

Your choice of words , 'grooming' is a bit inflammatory considering the reason the far right and parents of children in vulnerable areas are distrustful of Muslims are the sex grooming gangs .
I completely agree with the first bit, and it is impossible to sympathise (let alone empathise) with that decision because it's so far removed from the life experience of virtually all of us. Like you, I'd be very keen to know about the parenting and environment in which the girls were brought up in, as I think that's a really important piece of the jigsaw - whether it was a direct or indirect factor. But again, it would be useful to know this so that it can inform preventative approaches to this kind of thing in future.

What phrase do you think is more appropriate for what I've described as grooming? Genuine question - I can't think of an adequate alternative. Personally I feel like you've already distinguished between this kind and the grooming gangs kind by describing it as 'sex grooming'.
mywife is soft nd ilikeher
MY WIFE IS SOF AND I LIKE HER
t

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:29 pm

Radicalised would be more succinct.
I think she genuinely thought she was doing good by going there .
I am curious if the government had stopped her from leaving , in the first place, would the public be up in arms as her liberty would have been infringed.
You could argue that she may not feel free to denounce what she had done, but that's what happens when you leave a country that champions freedom of speech.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

David Williams
Devotee
Posts: 970
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by David Williams » Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:41 pm

JimBentley wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:08 pm
I don't know why you don't comment more, you obviously have strong opinions and you're often quite pithy.
I don't have strong opinions.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8588
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Feb 21, 2019 3:40 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:44 pm
If she'd stolen a bicycle while she was out there I'd probably say leave her to rot out there.
These things can get out of hand.

Judy W
Newbie
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Judy W » Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:34 pm

Given that hundreds of male IS fighters - actively and personally involved in killing - have already returned to the UK without losing their citizenship, it seems a tad misogynistic to make a public example of a young woman (girl) with a newborn baby. She does of course need to be dealt with and be accountable for whatever she has done and that may mean a long jail sentence, but she is our problem, not someone else's. Understanding how she became radicalised might help prevent the same happening to other children. The press involvement and publicity is the real problem here - but that doesn't seem to be something she instigated - more that they found her. She clearly is a danger, but one that needs to be managed, not cut loose.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:38 pm

Judy W wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:34 pm
Given that hundreds of male IS fighters - actively and personally involved in killing - have already returned to the UK without losing their citizenship, it seems a tad misogynistic to make a public example of a young woman (girl) with a newborn baby. She does of course need to be dealt with and be accountable for whatever she has done and that may mean a long jail sentence, but she is our problem, not someone else's. Understanding how she became radicalised might help prevent the same happening to other children. The press involvement and publicity is the real problem here - but that doesn't seem to be something she instigated - more that they found her. She clearly is a danger, but one that needs to be managed, not cut loose.
I think a citation is needed for these make ISIS fighters that have come back to the UK.
I think her parents should be questioned about how she was able to travel to Syria at 15 without their blessing
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1561
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Graeme Cole » Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:43 pm

Jennifer Steadman wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:58 pm
I thought it was illegal in international law to leave someone stateless; if so, that should be the end of it regardless of the court of public opinion. Sure today it's an ISIS bride, but who will it be next? Given how recent something like Windrush is, I absolutely dread to think what this government (and indeed future ones) might do with the power to make its citizens stateless. Ignoring that elephant in the room, I have pretty mixed feelings.
It may be illegal to leave someone stateless, but it didn't stop Theresa May trying to do that anyway as Home Secretary in 2013.

Currently the Home Office's policy on this is to take away her British citizenship and argue that she can go to Bangladesh, even though she grew up in the UK and has never even been to Bangladesh. It's just as absurd as looking in the eye a Windrush migrant who's been living here for 40 years and telling them that their home is in Jamaica.
Jennifer Steadman wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:58 pm
On the 'bring her home and make her stand trial' front:
- It's unbelievably arrogant to assume that we're too good for our own radicalised citizen to return, but the Netherlands can have her. Why would they want her!? Why should we leave our radicals in refugee camps to put other refugees at risk, and leave them to cause further destruction to a region? (I guess we can just bomb the shit out of those countries when something like this kicks off again!!) She should be a British responsibility.
Yes, this. I've seen comments elsewhere of the "she should go back to where she came from" variety. She's British and was born and raised here, so she's the British justice system's responsibility like any other British criminal. Suppose a Bangladeshi national who had never been to the UK left to join IS, committed terrorist acts, and tried to return to Bangladesh, only for Bangladesh to deny them re-entry and send them to the UK because it was believed they could claim British citizenship through a parent. I expect the Home Secretary would take rather a different view if it were that way round.

Judy W
Newbie
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Judy W » Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:00 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:38 pm
Judy W wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:34 pm
Given that hundreds of male IS fighters - actively and personally involved in killing - have already returned to the UK without losing their citizenship, it seems a tad misogynistic to make a public example of a young woman (girl) with a newborn baby. She does of course need to be dealt with and be accountable for whatever she has done and that may mean a long jail sentence, but she is our problem, not someone else's. Understanding how she became radicalised might help prevent the same happening to other children. The press involvement and publicity is the real problem here - but that doesn't seem to be something she instigated - more that they found her. She clearly is a danger, but one that needs to be managed, not cut loose.
I think a citation is needed for these make ISIS fighters that have come back to the UK.
I think her parents should be questioned about how she was able to travel to Syria at 15 without their blessing
Here you go - from well before Begum made the news

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/figh ... lice-chief

"At least 900 British nationals of "national security concern" are estimated to have travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State (IS) group as fighters or in other roles.

About 20 percent of those have been killed while 40 percent have returned to the UK, according to the UK's latest counter-terrorism strategy."


I would be very surprised if her family haven't been under close scrutiny.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8588
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:17 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:43 pm
Suppose a Bangladeshi national who had never been to the UK left to join IS, committed terrorist acts, and tried to return to Bangladesh, only for Bangladesh to deny them re-entry and send them to the UK because it was believed they could claim British citizenship through a parent. I expect the Home Secretary would take rather a different view if it were that way round.
This sums it up quite well I think.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8588
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:28 pm

Jennifer Steadman wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:58 pm
On the other hand:
- Her coming back to the UK would be a huge threat to Muslims in the UK (not to mention people mistaken for Muslims). Like, there's been a few discussions in a Facebook group I'm in about this topic and the Muslim women in it (or those who have Muslim families) are terrified about a violent backlash to their community if she returns. This story has been absolutely massive and emotive in a way that few news stories are... it's fertile ground for radicalising people to the far right.
- If she's still privately committed to the ideology, would she begin to radicalise those around her in prison, via the internet, etc? Will she use a court case as a platform for spreading hate?

I don't know which side would be responsible for more violence, but I fully believe people in the UK will die for one reason or another as a consequence of this. I would be amazed if she wasn't assassinated, to be honest.
On this, the entire situation is likely to have inflamed certain anti-Muslim/anti-brown people, and I wonder how much difference her coming back would actually make, because the hornet's nest has already been stirred. But also, I don't think we should be setting policy based on the potential reaction of lynch mobs. You might argue that not doing so would result in more violence and potential deaths, but over the long term, having this as a general policy is likely to be very detrimental to our laws.

If she goes to prison, presumably they wouldn't put her near other people who would be deemed at risk of becoming radical Islamists (or whatever the term is), so I'm not sure that's a primary concern. Also from what I've seen of her (admittedly not that much), she seems a bit thick and not very charismatic, and is unlikely to be the sort of person that can go round casually radicalising others.

If you would be amazed by her not being assassinated, presumably you think there's at least a 90% chance of it happening, and given that it's more likely to happen sooner rather than later (when people have forgotten about it), we'll say 90% within two years. So we can have a bet, and I'll give you generous odds. If she comes back to the UK, then if she is assassinated within two years of that, I'll give you £10, but if not, you give me £80. Deal?

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Kiloposter
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:00 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:28 pm
So we can have a bet, and I'll give you generous odds. If she comes back to the UK, then if she is assassinated within two years of that, I'll give you £10, but if not, you give me £80. Deal?
Fuck off mate, we haven't all got shares in Bitcoin.
mywife is soft nd ilikeher
MY WIFE IS SOF AND I LIKE HER
t

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:43 am

I see her parents are challenging the decision to deny Miss Begum UK citizenship.
Will they be entitled to legal aid ?
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8588
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:21 am

By the way, I think it's probably inevitable that she will end up back here. Javid doesn't care either - he just wants it out there that he tried to block it. It's just a political move.

Also, not that I think stripping someone of British citizenship should generally be a thing, but in any case it shouldn't be decided by a politician, who is more likely to be acting for their own reasons, rather than in the national interest or in the interests of justice. It should be decided by a judge or judges acting impartially.

Like I was amazed it was a thing that politicians were able to set the minimum sentence for the Bulger killers. Politicians are there to set general legislation, not deal with individual cases. There should be a separation of duties and it's amazing that in the 21st century that this is even a conversation.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:09 am

When she comes back she will probably get a trial and go to prison where she will be put with women of her own community and she can radicalise lots of vulnerable Muslim women
Btw apropos etc.
If you are a prisoner and convert to Islam you get better food, privileges etc.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3342
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante » Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:58 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:43 am
I see her parents are challenging the decision to deny Miss Begum UK citizenship.
Will they be entitled to legal aid ?
I've no idea. If you want to give me details of their earnings and the rules surrounding legal aid provision, I can help you find an answer.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8588
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:02 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:09 am
If you are a prisoner and convert to Islam you get better food, privileges etc.
Is that what you were advised?

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:09 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:02 pm
Marc Meakin wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:09 am
If you are a prisoner and convert to Islam you get better food, privileges etc.
Is that what you were advised?
I'm guessing you consider yourself a wit, well you are halfway there at least.
For the record, I have never been to prison or convicted of any crime
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8588
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:55 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:09 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:02 pm
Marc Meakin wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:09 am
If you are a prisoner and convert to Islam you get better food, privileges etc.
Is that what you were advised?
I'm guessing you consider yourself a wit, well you are halfway there at least.
For the record, I have never been to prison or convicted of any crime
But anyway, how do you know that you get better food, privileges etc. if you convert to Islam?

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:21 pm

GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8588
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:47 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:21 pm
Here
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... perks.html

And more recently

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.inde ... html%3famp

I have watched a few prison dramas too
Thanks. It doesn't exactly sound clear cut though.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:50 pm

No but it wasn't without some foundation
It could also be argued that converting to Judaism would be equally beneficial but doesn't fit the narrative.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:22 am

Do you think we should have another referendum on Brexit ?
What basis would you justify it
Maybe the hidden agenda is that a lot of leavers are dead or too I'll to vote plus a lot more remainers are now elegible to vote.

My take on it would be to have a referendum on having another referendum on the basis that the first referendum was a binary choice on an obvious multiple choice scenario
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8588
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Feb 27, 2019 3:29 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:22 am
Do you think we should have another referendum on Brexit ?
What basis would you justify it
Maybe the hidden agenda is that a lot of leavers are dead or too I'll to vote plus a lot more remainers are now elegible to vote.

My take on it would be to have a referendum on having another referendum on the basis that the first referendum was a binary choice on an obvious multiple choice scenario
Here is a link to what I posted quote recently on the subject of a second referendum. And my it's still my position. I wasn't particularly calling for a second referendum early on, but the longer this has gone on and the more of a mess its become, the more I see it as a reasonable course of action. I'm not sure how likely it is to happen - I'm wondering what course of events could lead it to actually happen - but I think with Labour endorsing the idea, it's at least more likely than it was before.

Edit - Looking at the Betfair odds (take with as many pinches of salt as you want), it seems there's around a 25% - 26% chance of a second referendum before 2020.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8588
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:08 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:21 am
By the way, I think it's probably inevitable that she will end up back here. Javid doesn't care either - he just wants it out there that he tried to block it. It's just a political move.
A political move that might just have backfired.

By the way, what do we think of Amber Rudd talking about coloured people? Personally, I think it's amazing that someone at that level of politics isn't completely aware of such no-go words. But I don't think it shows any racism really (as much as it is nice to stick the boot into a Tory) - it's just a language game really. It's about knowing which words you are allowed to say and which you aren't rather than about your actual outlook and attitudes. You can say "person of colour" but not "coloured". Like knowing you can say "latrine" but not "entrail" on Countdown. (Maybe not exactly the same, but I'm leaving it there. Fight me.)

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:52 am

It is odd , coloured people unacceptable, but people of colour is
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2699
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:48 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:08 pm
By the way, what do we think of Amber Rudd talking about coloured people? Personally, I think it's amazing that someone at that level of politics isn't completely aware of such no-go words. But I don't think it shows any racism really (as much as it is nice to stick the boot into a Tory) - it's just a language game really. It's about knowing which words you are allowed to say and which you aren't rather than about your actual outlook and attitudes. You can say "person of colour" but not "coloured". Like knowing you can say "latrine" but not "entrail" on Countdown. (Maybe not exactly the same, but I'm leaving it there. Fight me.)
I hate to defend Amber Rudd but I kind of agree, the leaps to accusations of racism are a bit hyperbolic. At the very worst she revealed that she has old-fashioned views and still uses old-fashioned language, and you could argue that that means that she's generally out of touch. And of course, as a senior politician she should know better than to do this. I'm sure she's a lot of bad things, but I don't think she's racist.

Benedict Cumberbatch did exactly the same thing a couple of years ago, didn't he? He was trying to say how he thought there should be more opportunities for non-white actors in mainstream films but accidentally said "coloured actors" and got a lot of stick for it, something like that.

Paul Worsley
Acolyte
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Paul Worsley » Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:22 pm

Alan Hansen did the same on MotD.

I think the key is that "coloured" was never meant to be a derogatory term. I seem to remember that back in the early 70s "coloured" was considered more polite than "black".

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3342
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante » Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:42 pm

Paul Worsley wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:22 pm
Alan Hansen did the same on MotD.

I think the key is that "coloured" was never meant to be a derogatory term. I seem to remember that back in the early 70s "coloured" was considered more polite than "black".
Well aye, but things move on. My impression of its usage is that it's a very middle class way of referring to something seen as potentially socially awkward, a euphemism I suppose. In that sense, it's clear to me why many people would be affronted if an important part of their persona was felt to need euphemised.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:41 pm

Brexit.
Wtf is wrong with the people we elected.
All this time and the best they can come up with is please, sir, can we have some more ...... time
I do hope they say bollocks you've made your bed.

I can't believe I'm even saying this but, it would never have happened under Thatcher
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests