Politics in General

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8920
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:15 pm

Peter Mabey wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 6:55 pm
That was why Clegg made the disastrous mistake of thinking he could get a referendum on voting reform by joining the coalition, even though it meant going back on the manifesto commitment to oppose university fees, which destroyed the credibility of the party. Of course, although he got the referendum, the big parties got together to ensure that the first-past-the-post system (which is heavily to their advantage) was not going to be replaced, Consequently when in coalition we did succeed in tempering many of the Tory proposals we were given no credit for our success.
"we"? You are a member of the Lib Dems? :o The austerity the coalition government imposed on the country was still pretty bad, and while it might have been worse under a purely Tory government, there wasn't really a comparison point, because we didn't get to see the alternate universe.

The Lib Dems made a really bad mistake agreeing to a referendum on the miserable little compromise that was AV anyway. It should have been PR or no coalition.
Marc Meakin wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 7:15 pm
Voting reforms would see around fifty Brexit Party MPs.
Just let that sink in for a bit before you realise it's not the answer.
Not that I have a scooby doo what is 😀
I still think PR is preferable to what we have now. And we'd also have a decent number of Greens etc. I don't think it would be a problem having a more representative parliament even if there would be a few more nutters that got in. (Lots of the MPs in mainstream parties are actually nutters anyway but they've learnt how not to come across as a nutter on TV.)

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2777
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:39 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:15 pm
I still think PR is preferable to what we have now. And we'd also have a decent number of Greens etc. I don't think it would be a problem having a more representative parliament even if there would be a few more nutters that got in. (Lots of the MPs in mainstream parties are actually nutters anyway but they've learnt how not to come across as a nutter on TV.)
I can't agree more with this. We've been over this ground before (multiple times, probably) but FPTP is the stupidest possible system. Sure, proportional representation might deliver some far-right weirdos but as Gavin says, we've already got quite a few of them as elected Conservative members anyway. The whole Brexit shit has really made a few Tories go into full-on nutjob mode.

No voting system will ever be perfect but PR is about as good as it can get, isn't it? I absolutely cannot stand UKIP or the Brexit Party, I must make that clear. But if those parties get, say, 15-20% of the collective vote at the next election and no seats (or single figures at most, they have fairly few seats in which they can win), that's just gives them another thing to bang on about. PR would give them representation but no power, which is ideal.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8920
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:25 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:15 pm

I still think PR is preferable to what we have now. And we'd also have a decent number of Greens etc.
However, you have to watch out for nonsense like this.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1604
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Graeme Cole » Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:08 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:25 am
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:15 pm

I still think PR is preferable to what we have now. And we'd also have a decent number of Greens etc.
However, you have to watch out for nonsense like this.
I still think Caroline Lucas' proposed cabinet is preferable to what we have now.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8920
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:21 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:08 am
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:25 am
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:15 pm

I still think PR is preferable to what we have now. And we'd also have a decent number of Greens etc.
However, you have to watch out for nonsense like this.
I still think Caroline Lucas' proposed cabinet is preferable to what we have now.
It would be hard not to be.

But on further reflection, it's not just nonsense - it's unacceptable. It's just sexism. It doesn't matter whether it's against males or females. If some male politician had suggested an all-male cabinet it would probably escalate to a resignation pretty quickly.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3540
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:30 am

Anyway , proroguing is it a good thing ?.
It seems a little undemocratic but I am getting so fed up with Brexit dragging on , if this is the only way to GUARANTEE we leave on Halloween then so be it.
I think the Queen probably agrees
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3394
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante » Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:57 am

Marc Meakin wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:30 am
Anyway , proroguing is it a good thing ?.
It seems a little undemocratic but I am getting so fed up with Brexit dragging on , if this is the only way to GUARANTEE we leave on Halloween then so be it.
I think the Queen probably agrees
Not clear that that's why he's doing it, or if he is, that it's a guarantee.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3540
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:15 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:57 am
Marc Meakin wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:30 am
Anyway , proroguing is it a good thing ?.
It seems a little undemocratic but I am getting so fed up with Brexit dragging on , if this is the only way to GUARANTEE we leave on Halloween then so be it.
I think the Queen probably agrees
Not clear that that's why he's doing it, or if he is, that it's a guarantee.
It seems quite clear that although there was a majority of 53 % or whatever it was after the referendum , there is no majority for Brexit amongst the house of commons so it was either to go back to the people with a general election or stop the majority of MPs scuppering Brexit
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3394
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante » Fri Aug 30, 2019 12:34 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:15 pm
Ian Volante wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:57 am
Marc Meakin wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:30 am
Anyway , proroguing is it a good thing ?.
It seems a little undemocratic but I am getting so fed up with Brexit dragging on , if this is the only way to GUARANTEE we leave on Halloween then so be it.
I think the Queen probably agrees
Not clear that that's why he's doing it, or if he is, that it's a guarantee.
It seems quite clear that although there was a majority of 53 % or whatever it was after the referendum , there is no majority for Brexit amongst the house of commons so it was either to go back to the people with a general election or stop the majority of MPs scuppering Brexit
And not to force the commons to agree to a new deal, or for other more arcane reasons that I can't be bothered dreaming up right now?
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8920
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:27 pm

Is "brownface" or "blackface" intrinsically racist, or does intent and context matter?

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3540
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:14 pm

I though Morris dancing was so old it couldn't be racist in origin.
The Black and White Minstrel show is a different kettle of fish.
All fake tanning should be considered racist.
Think of the amount of odious people in the public eye that would be shunned
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8920
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:53 pm

I thought I might have posted about this before but I can't find it. Anyway I read this about whether vaccinations should be made compulsory. Obviously it makes sense that parents with anti-scientific views shouldn't be able to stop their children from being vaccinated, since vaccination would help their children and indeed the rest of the population through herd immunity. So that's settled, right?
Religious objections would have to be respected.
:shock:

User avatar
L'oisleatch McGraw
Acolyte
Posts: 199
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
Location: Waterford
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by L'oisleatch McGraw » Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:13 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:27 pm
Is "brownface" or "blackface" intrinsically racist, or does intent and context matter?
That shit is not racist...
Certainly not on this side of the Atlantic.

Minstrel shows, segregation, blackface etc etc etc... These are american problems. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and the civil rights movement... all happened in the USA, because it was necessary there at that time.

If one of the impacts of globalisation is that all 'civilised' countries feel compelled to take on the social baggage of the US, even when there are no local historical examples that justify taking on such baggage... then fuck globalisation.
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: S:778-ochamp

User avatar
Thomas Carey
Kiloposter
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:17 pm
Location: North-West of Bradford
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Thomas Carey » Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:24 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:27 pm
Is "brownface" or "blackface" intrinsically racist, or does intent and context matter?
Let's ask this community of almost exclusively white people!
cheers maus

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8920
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:36 am

Thomas Carey wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:24 am
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:27 pm
Is "brownface" or "blackface" intrinsically racist, or does intent and context matter?
Let's ask this community of almost exclusively white people!
Well it can be put as a more general question of whether someone's intent makes something -ist or whether it's someone taking offence from it.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3540
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:16 am

I have strong views on the ' right to be offended ' generation.
Any comedian or public speaker who charge money for you to see them because you want to see them.
Should not be pilloried for the things they say on stage.
This would be different if they were on the TV , without s prior warning at least
Equally if someone posts something on their own timeline on Facebook, they should not be sacked from your jobs, be removed from their positions etc.
Craig Beavers is an Islamaphobe amongst over things but was removed from his position at WESPA for his own private views which I believe is wrong , regardless of it being racist or not.
I do feel sorry for some people who lose their jobs or positions for a tweet posted years ago, but that is s risk as Twitter is very public.
As for black face , brown face.
It's all about context.
If you watch Breakfast at Tiffany's, the Japanese role played by Mickey Rooney is cringey beyond belief but Americans at the time we're still sensitive , at the time , about the War and were loathe to use Japanese actors.
Trudeau's black face faux Pas are not an act of a racist any more than Prince Harry dressing up as Hitler makes him a Nazi.
Going into people's past to denigrate them really irks me.
What next.
Greta Thunberg shits her pants in IKEA 15 years ago , probably.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Fiona T
Acolyte
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:02 am

Blackface/brownface was always racist. But the general awareness of that fact that it's racist, and why, has only come to light relatively recently. I think Trudeau was absolutely right in his handling of it - he acknowledged it was offensive, said he hadn't realised at the time and apologised genuinely.

Intent does matter - if there was no intent to be racist, then it is forgiveable. But ignorance is not always an excuse, and people need to be more aware and think about whether language and actions might be offensive - not treading on eggshells, but just applying a bit of common sense.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3540
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:03 am

Fiona T wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:02 am
Blackface/brownface was always racist. But the general awareness of that fact that it's racist, and why, has only come to light relatively recently. I think Trudeau was absolutely right in his handling of it - he acknowledged it was offensive, said he hadn't realised at the time and apologised genuinely.

Intent does matter - if there was no intent to be racist, then it is forgiveable. But ignorance is not always an excuse, and people need to be more aware and think about whether language and actions might be offensive - not treading on eggshells, but just applying a bit of common sense.
I like to use a more common sense approach.
If someone told a funny story about death or a funeral you may laugh if it's funny but if you have recently been bereaved it naturally would be upsetting.
If racism and bigotry is mocked and laughed at and ridiculed for what it is then it is ok.
I once watched a one man show where Warren Mitchell was playing Alf Garnett ( you may need to Google it )
on the stage ,well he is ,racist sexist ,a right wing bigot.
The Audience was largely Afro Caribbean , they could see that the character was one to laugh at , not with.
Which bears no comparison to someone like say Roy 'Chubby ' Brown.
It's all about context and intent in my opinion.
Look at what happened to Danny Baker to see how it's the world going mad at not giving someone the benefit of the doubt and get on their high horses.

Maybe as someone from a Jewish heritage I have developed a thick skin and am not averse to a little self depreciation, means my opinions are skewed.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8920
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:00 pm

I'm not sure that something can really be described as racist if there is no intent. You can call it offensive, but even then nothing is offensive in a vacuum. If someone decides to paint their face black in their own room alone and dance about a bit, and then wash their face before anyone sees them, then if their motivation isn't malign (they might just be a little bit crazy) then I don't think it's racist or offensive.

Is Papa Lazarou from The League of Gentlemen racist? I would say not. Is it offensive? Well I'm not sure things are objectively offensive as offensiveness is largely in the eye of the beholder, but I don't think most viewers would have been offended by it.
Marc Meakin wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:16 am
Any comedian or public speaker who charge money for you to see them because you want to see them.
Should not be pilloried for the things they say on stage.
I'm not sure I'd go this far though. They could be inciting violence etc. Plus even within the realms of what would be allowed under freedom of speech (inciting violence would be a crime), they can say what they want, sure, but people can also say what they want about what they've just heard.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3540
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:05 am

I did mean their jokes rather than inciting violence.
Critics obviously can diss the performance.
But don't call out ,say , Jimmy Carr , for being bear the knuckle when it's part of his act.
Obviously if repeated on twitter then that's a different matter
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8920
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:38 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:53 pm
I thought I might have posted about this before but I can't find it. Anyway I read this about whether vaccinations should be made compulsory. Obviously it makes sense that parents with anti-scientific views shouldn't be able to stop their children from being vaccinated, since vaccination would help their children and indeed the rest of the population through herd immunity. So that's settled, right?
Religious objections would have to be respected.
:shock:
I can imagine two excuse scenarios.

"I can't have my children vaccinated because it might cause them to get autism."

"No. This has been debunked. The vaccination is compulsory."

And:

"I can't have my children vaccinated because I think there is this magic guy in the sky who doesn't want me to."

"Oh, of course that's completely fine. This is definitely a valid concern that you have."

People could just lie about the reason anyway:

"I can't have my children vaccinated because it might cause them to get autism."

"No. This has been debunked. The vaccination is compulsory."

"Sorry, you didn't let me finish. It might cause them to get autism - in the afterlife."

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3540
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:12 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:38 am
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:53 pm
I thought I might have posted about this before but I can't find it. Anyway I read this about whether vaccinations should be made compulsory. Obviously it makes sense that parents with anti-scientific views shouldn't be able to stop their children from being vaccinated, since vaccination would help their children and indeed the rest of the population through herd immunity. So that's settled, right?
Religious objections would have to be respected.
:shock:
I can imagine two excuse scenarios.

"I can't have my children vaccinated because it might cause them to get autism."

"No. This has been debunked. The vaccination is compulsory."

And:

"I can't have my children vaccinated because I think there is this magic guy in the sky who doesn't want me to."

"Oh, of course that's completely fine. This is definitely a valid concern that you have."

People could just lie about the reason anyway:

"I can't have my children vaccinated because it might cause them to get autism."

"No. This has been debunked. The vaccination is compulsory."

"Sorry, you didn't let me finish. It might cause them to get autism - in the afterlife."
It's a slippery slope.
If compulsory vaccinations become law then it won't be long before people get chipped.
It's all about civil liberties in the end.
How would you feel about compulsory circumcisions because it s healthier
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3394
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante » Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:21 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:12 am
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:38 am
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:53 pm
I thought I might have posted about this before but I can't find it. Anyway I read this about whether vaccinations should be made compulsory. Obviously it makes sense that parents with anti-scientific views shouldn't be able to stop their children from being vaccinated, since vaccination would help their children and indeed the rest of the population through herd immunity. So that's settled, right?



:shock:
I can imagine two excuse scenarios.

"I can't have my children vaccinated because it might cause them to get autism."

"No. This has been debunked. The vaccination is compulsory."

And:

"I can't have my children vaccinated because I think there is this magic guy in the sky who doesn't want me to."

"Oh, of course that's completely fine. This is definitely a valid concern that you have."

People could just lie about the reason anyway:

"I can't have my children vaccinated because it might cause them to get autism."

"No. This has been debunked. The vaccination is compulsory."

"Sorry, you didn't let me finish. It might cause them to get autism - in the afterlife."
It's a slippery slope.
If compulsory vaccinations become law then it won't be long before people get chipped.
It's all about civil liberties in the end.
How would you feel about compulsory circumcisions because it s healthier
Fine, same as for vaccinations. I quite like not losing friends and family regularly to disease.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8920
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:46 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:12 am

It's a slippery slope.
If compulsory vaccinations become law then it won't be long before people get chipped.
It's all about civil liberties in the end.
How would you feel about compulsory circumcisions because it s healthier
I think this is a bit silly really. You have to take things on their own merits rather than just saying that this would lead to that or the other.

And if we're talking about vaccinating children, then the only "civil liberties" you might be infringing is the parents', but it's not them that really matter here. The children don't get to decide anyway. And I'm all for overriding parents for the good of the child. In fact the opposite could happen with circumcision. I would make it illegal for parents to have their children circumcised (except in pressing medical cases), so this would be the state overriding parents again for the good of the child. (The evidence for circumcision being healthier is limited at best and is easily outweighed by the fact that you're performing a fucking amputation.)

Edit - But my main point originally was not really specifically that vaccinations should be compulsory, but that religious beliefs should not be treated with any more importance than any other beliefs or opinions that people hold. And while this is the case, people can just claim religious beliefs for anything anyway - such as believing that a vaccine causes autism in the afterlife, which would be a valid get-out the way things are. It's completely insane.

Fiona T
Acolyte
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T » Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:40 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:00 pm
I'm not sure that something can really be described as racist if there is no intent. You can call it offensive, but even then nothing is offensive in a vacuum. If someone decides to paint their face black in their own room alone and dance about a bit, and then wash their face before anyone sees them, then if their motivation isn't malign (they might just be a little bit crazy) then I don't think it's racist or offensive.
When reading this, the (fictitious) example that came to mind was from the excellent read "The Book Thief" where Hitler Youth Nico Liersch applies blackface to be like his sporting hero Jesse Owens - clearly admiration and imitation.

But I suspect such innocent examples are few and far between, and anyone choosing to do so today should be very aware of the wider implications.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3540
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:01 pm

Fiona T wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:40 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:00 pm
I'm not sure that something can really be described as racist if there is no intent. You can call it offensive, but even then nothing is offensive in a vacuum. If someone decides to paint their face black in their own room alone and dance about a bit, and then wash their face before anyone sees them, then if their motivation isn't malign (they might just be a little bit crazy) then I don't think it's racist or offensive.
When reading this, the (fictitious) example that came to mind was from the excellent read "The Book Thief" where Hitler Youth Nico Liersch applies blackface to be like his sporting hero Jesse Owens - clearly admiration and imitation.

But I suspect such innocent examples are few and far between, and anyone choosing to do so today should be very aware of the wider implications.
I remember my big sisters gollywog doll.
There was nothing racist about a child's plaything , from the child's perspective at least
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Fiona T
Acolyte
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T » Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:57 am

Marc Meakin wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:01 pm
Fiona T wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:40 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:00 pm
I'm not sure that something can really be described as racist if there is no intent. You can call it offensive, but even then nothing is offensive in a vacuum. If someone decides to paint their face black in their own room alone and dance about a bit, and then wash their face before anyone sees them, then if their motivation isn't malign (they might just be a little bit crazy) then I don't think it's racist or offensive.
When reading this, the (fictitious) example that came to mind was from the excellent read "The Book Thief" where Hitler Youth Nico Liersch applies blackface to be like his sporting hero Jesse Owens - clearly admiration and imitation.

But I suspect such innocent examples are few and far between, and anyone choosing to do so today should be very aware of the wider implications.
I remember my big sisters gollywog doll.
There was nothing racist about a child's plaything , from the child's perspective at least
The child's plaything was a racist trope. The child playing with it was not. Again one of those things where the realisation of how and why it's racist has only infiltrated the public awareness over the last few decades. I'm sure those of us who are old enough remember collecting the gollys on Robinson's Jam.

Was pretty shocked to see a toy shop in Australia still selling them!

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8920
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:43 am

I always think it's weird when hospitals try to stop people from being taken to other countries for treatment such as the case outlined here and here.

In this case the court has ruled that the girl can go abroad, but I've seen other cases where they've ruled against.

A hospital might argue that further treatment would be futile and a waste of the NHS's money, but then if the parents then want to take the child abroad as a response to this, then that's just out of their jurisdiction. It's nothing to do with them and they shouldn't try to prevent it.

To argue that a treatment would be futile is irrelevant to whether someone else can try to treat them because it's not their problem. To argue that it's not in the child's best interests seems a bit of a strange argument. What does it mean to be in someone's best interests? If someone isn't on life support and could breathe for themselves, then I don't think it would be a question regardless of any quality of life. Does being on life support really make all the difference? I don't see why it should.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3540
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:35 am

Fiona T wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:57 am
Marc Meakin wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:01 pm
Fiona T wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:40 pm


When reading this, the (fictitious) example that came to mind was from the excellent read "The Book Thief" where Hitler Youth Nico Liersch applies blackface to be like his sporting hero Jesse Owens - clearly admiration and imitation.

But I suspect such innocent examples are few and far between, and anyone choosing to do so today should be very aware of the wider implications.
I remember my big sisters gollywog doll.
There was nothing racist about a child's plaything , from the child's perspective at least
The child's plaything was a racist trope. The child playing with it was not. Again one of those things where the realisation of how and why it's racist has only infiltrated the public awareness over the last few decades. I'm sure those of us who are old enough remember collecting the gollys on Robinson's Jam.

Was pretty shocked to see a toy shop in Australia still selling them!
I went to the set of Heartbeat recently in Yorkshire and Gollywog merchandise was sold in all the giftshops
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3540
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:37 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:43 am
I always think it's weird when hospitals try to stop people from being taken to other countries for treatment such as the case outlined here and here.

In this case the court has ruled that the girl can go abroad, but I've seen other cases where they've ruled against.

A hospital might argue that further treatment would be futile and a waste of the NHS's money, but then if the parents then want to take the child abroad as a response to this, then that's just out of their jurisdiction. It's nothing to do with them and they shouldn't try to prevent it.

To argue that a treatment would be futile is irrelevant to whether someone else can try to treat them because it's not their problem. To argue that it's not in the child's best interests seems a bit of a strange argument. What does it mean to be in someone's best interests? If someone isn't on life support and could breathe for themselves, then I don't think it would be a question regardless of any quality of life. Does being on life support really make all the difference? I don't see why it should.
Surely , the cost versus the benefits must be a factor.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8920
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:47 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:37 am
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:43 am
I always think it's weird when hospitals try to stop people from being taken to other countries for treatment such as the case outlined here and here.

In this case the court has ruled that the girl can go abroad, but I've seen other cases where they've ruled against.

A hospital might argue that further treatment would be futile and a waste of the NHS's money, but then if the parents then want to take the child abroad as a response to this, then that's just out of their jurisdiction. It's nothing to do with them and they shouldn't try to prevent it.

To argue that a treatment would be futile is irrelevant to whether someone else can try to treat them because it's not their problem. To argue that it's not in the child's best interests seems a bit of a strange argument. What does it mean to be in someone's best interests? If someone isn't on life support and could breathe for themselves, then I don't think it would be a question regardless of any quality of life. Does being on life support really make all the difference? I don't see why it should.
Surely , the cost versus the benefits must be a factor.
But what are the costs? If the parents want to take the child abroad then from the NHS and hospital's point of view it's not financial.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3540
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:50 pm

But surely if she is an NHS patient then any medical costs would have to be paid by the the NHS.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Fiona T
Acolyte
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T » Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:57 pm

I think there are two issues here -

1) Hospitals/doctors abroad that prey on the desperation of vulnerable parents and promise unproven treatments, often without having even seen the child.
2) Cost to the NHS of picking up the pieces when things don't go to plan, which can be significant.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8920
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:16 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:50 pm
But surely if she is an NHS patient then any medical costs would have to be paid by the the NHS.
Fiona T wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:57 pm
I think there are two issues here -

1) Hospitals/doctors abroad that prey on the desperation of vulnerable parents and promise unproven treatments, often without having even seen the child.
2) Cost to the NHS of picking up the pieces when things don't go to plan, which can be significant.
I know in some cases, private money has been raised for treatment abroad and they've still been prevented from going. And I'm sure in such cases some sort of legal agreement can be made regarding the NHS's financial responsibility. In any case, the cost to the NHS doesn't appear to have been an issue raised in court.

It just seems like the hospital are saying "We can't treat this person any more. Oh and by the way, just to spite you, we're going to try and stop anyone else from doing so either."

The way I see it, they're a hospital. It's completely outside of their role and beyond their jurisdiction to be trying to stop someone going somewhere else for treatment.

Paul Worsley
Acolyte
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Paul Worsley » Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:08 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:16 pm
The way I see it, they're a hospital. It's completely outside of their role and beyond their jurisdiction to be trying to stop someone going somewhere else for treatment.
The doctor's duty of care is to the patient, not to the parents/next of kin. If the doctor believes that a procedure or transferal would cause unnecessary distress to the patient, then he/she should refuse to do it. Doctors have to deal with decisions like this all the time. If you were to check notes on patients on a typical geriatric ward you would almost always find someone with a DNR (do not resuscitate). Often the cases where patients are refused treatment are ones where there is virtually zero chance of success, and yet considerable chance of increased suffering for the patient.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3540
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:21 pm

Looking for the like button
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8920
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:25 pm

Paul Worsley wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:08 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:16 pm
The way I see it, they're a hospital. It's completely outside of their role and beyond their jurisdiction to be trying to stop someone going somewhere else for treatment.
The doctor's duty of care is to the patient, not to the parents/next of kin. If the doctor believes that a procedure or transferal would cause unnecessary distress to the patient, then he/she should refuse to do it. Doctors have to deal with decisions like this all the time. If you were to check notes on patients on a typical geriatric ward you would almost always find someone with a DNR (do not resuscitate). Often the cases where patients are refused treatment are ones where there is virtually zero chance of success, and yet considerable chance of increased suffering for the patient.
I think in most of the cases of transferring to another country, the patient is generally quite brain-damaged or otherwise not consciously aware, so there is unlikely to be any distress. I've heard in the past people using the word "dignity", but really that's nothing to do with the patient and their interests anyway, but more that people on the outside want things to conform to their nice view of the world.

So basically, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't think distress to the patient was used in this case as a reason (I certainly don't think it came up in the BBC articles I linked to).

I also think that in most cases like this, nothing good is likely to come from the treatment, but on the other hand, I don't think anything bad probably will either (other than the waste of money). But if the money has been privately raised, and there aren't genuine pressing medical reasons to stop the transfer, I say let them do it.

Fiona T
Acolyte
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T » Sat Oct 05, 2019 4:00 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:00 pm
I'm not sure that something can really be described as racist if there is no intent. You can call it offensive, but even then nothing is offensive in a vacuum. If someone decides to paint their face black in their own room alone and dance about a bit, and then wash their face before anyone sees them, then if their motivation isn't malign (they might just be a little bit crazy) then I don't think it's racist or offensive.
Haha - This thread just reminded me of my Simon Mayo Confession; "Flora" being my confessor alter-ego.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6HWo5 ... MwcGVuNklV

As a 7 year old, the obvious solution to the "JONE" problem, was to paint her face black - done for entirely practical reasons without any racist intent. Needless to say, it wasn't entirely successful...

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8920
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:41 pm

Fiona T wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 4:00 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:00 pm
I'm not sure that something can really be described as racist if there is no intent. You can call it offensive, but even then nothing is offensive in a vacuum. If someone decides to paint their face black in their own room alone and dance about a bit, and then wash their face before anyone sees them, then if their motivation isn't malign (they might just be a little bit crazy) then I don't think it's racist or offensive.
Haha - This thread just reminded me of my Simon Mayo Confession; "Flora" being my confessor alter-ego.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6HWo5 ... MwcGVuNklV

As a 7 year old, the obvious solution to the "JONE" problem, was to paint her face black - done for entirely practical reasons without any racist intent. Needless to say, it wasn't entirely successful...
Just listened to that. So that was you?

Fiona T
Acolyte
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T » Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:20 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:41 pm
Fiona T wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 4:00 pm

Haha - This thread just reminded me of my Simon Mayo Confession; "Flora" being my confessor alter-ego.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6HWo5 ... MwcGVuNklV

As a 7 year old, the obvious solution to the "JONE" problem, was to paint her face black - done for entirely practical reasons without any racist intent. Needless to say, it wasn't entirely successful...
Just listened to that. So that was you?
It was. :)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests