Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@terry wrote:
David Dimbleby presents Question Time from Corby as the polls close in the by-election. On the panel are justice secretary Chris Grayling MP, Labour’s deputy leader and shadow culture secretary Harriet Harman, UKIP Leader Nigel Farage, Liberal Democrat Tessa Munt and Moray MacLennan, chief executive of the advertising agency M&C Saatchi
So the answer to your original question is ‘no’.
Or at least ‘not yet’.
I’ve suggested in another thread that there are different degrees of racist belief and racist behaviour: from deep conviction to unconscious, from personal to cultural. from casual/accidental words to malicious physical harm – even murder. Not either/or as these things can co-exist and interplay.
For some people racist language is such a part of their upbringing or environment that they can’t avoid using such language in moments of anger even though they might regret it apologise afterwards.
For others, it’s more important to hang on to racist habits, symbols or relationships than to remove them because they offend someone who they would normally describe as an important friend.
Most areas of human behaviour are complex and I think the key lies in having the will to learn and move on from outdated racist claptrap and the jargon that goes with it.
@kent f OBE wrote:
. . . . . . . Is he a racist? Or an ignorant arsehole who couldn’t get his way and wanted me to feel so small by calling me a name which he probably knew would offend me?
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive . . . . . . .
@terry wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
I have nothing against her personally.
Neither do I, but she makes far too many appearances on the programme than is warranted. There are other people who could make more interesting and varied observations. I blame the BBC for its dependancy on the same panellists week in, week out.
At least she’s invited, if ‘blame’ were to attached for every frequent contributor to a forum, what would happen to these boards? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Still, she’s got an opinion and is articulate, maybe the fact that her imminent presence on Question Time is being discussed shows that we all realise that Qatada’s situation isn’t straightforward: that human rights need to be discussed by people who believe we should have inviolable rights as much as by those who are prepared to sacrifice them on certain issues.
As I’ve said before, comments on here are all very well, but the acid test of our attitude to human rights is whether we’re prepared to sign a document indemnifying the government on behalf of ourselves or our loved ones.
“I ________ promise that I will not defend myself or anyone I really care about against any evidence presented by the government against me that has been gained by torture
Signed ___________”
Because believe me, they wouldn’t have to touch me with that red hot poker before I dobbed in the lot of yer . . . . . . .
@momentaryloss wrote:
@jen_jen wrote:
Well tomorrow in England and Wales we get to vote for our very one Police and Crime Commissioner…are we all excited? Do we know what we’re voting for? Do you know who your candidates are? Will you be voting? Does anyone care?
Oh dear – I think that may be no six times.
Well I kinda know what it is but I really don’t think that a democratic election is the best way to choose these people.
We have councils for that kind of thing. Are we turning into the United States? We will be electing the head of the Crown Prosecution Service next and calling people District Attorneys.
More elections doesn’t mean more democracy if there isn’t an informed choice.
And elections aren’t cheap, but then that would only matter if there was some kind of financial crisis. . . . . .
@panda12 wrote:
. . . . . . It’s actually been mentioned by other people in the media that she appears an awful lot on Question Time so much so somewhat of an industry joke.
Not being in the industry I’m not sure what the joke is, as there are others who appear on the programme a lot.
But then again maybe what’s ‘funny’ is this: Question time set out some years ago to find more qualified women panellists. When it came to industry, media and Parliament, they were limited by the fact that all 3 areas have low proportions of women in senior positions. After all these years it’s still so difficult for them to find female panellists on a par with the better male panellists that they keep coming back to the same one(s).
The fact she looks unlined and symmetrical probably makes it easier too.
If she has lost relatives in 9/11 or 7/11 then she might be interested in spending the odd million catching the people who were actually behind making it happen and making sure any convictions stick when they come to court.
Pursuing a prosecution based on insufficient evidence or evidence gained by applying the same values as terrorists is insulting to their victims and makes condemnation of terrorism hypocritical.
The right to fair trial, if recognised during the investigative process, actually makes it more likely that the guilty are punished and not sent away laughing while the innocent are punished.
While I find Qatada’s view abhorrent and a test to my belief in free speech, I would really like to know that the idea that he was Bin Laden’s Man in Europe is more than just rhetoric on either side.
I’m not sure why someone who openly supports human rights shouldn’t be on Question Time, at least it gives her opponents a chance to demonstrate that their views bear examination.
@panda12 wrote:
I’m with kenty on this. I wouldn’t be happy if a child of mine was held back because political correctness dictates that non English speaking pupils must be educated in the same class.
They should be taught to read, write and speak English before they join their peers in the classroom.
How else is any child going to learn?
I gave up teacher training for secondary school kids because I didn’t believe in the system of teaching all abilities in one class. Kids need to be streamed depending on their ability as I personally think it is more beneficial to all.
I’m still not sure about this Political Correctness thingy, and I should be because I’m told by ‘reliable sources’ that I’m a signed up member of the Brigade. Why is it political correctness to teach all children in one class (the way the Victorians did and many public schools still do) but not political correctness to decide that foreigners should sing christmas carols etc at a time when many British people struggle with the first line of many of them and don’t actually go to church. (workk it out, there aren’t enough church seats in the country to accommodate the 70% of the population who are officially christian, even if they only went once a month)
Why is it divisive if cultural groups ask for their own schools, but ok to suggest that their kids should be educated outside the mainstream ‘until they learn english’. What happens if they don’t learn English? You’d end up with de facto cultural schools.
As for mixed ability classes, I can’t really knock it, because of my kids the one who did worst at school went to one that streamed pupils, the others were educated in mixed ability classes and are all doing really well educationally – (passes the hat round to get another flamin’ genius through university . . . . . ) Maybe you missed out on the chance to teach one of them Panda – they’re lovely people too.
Very well put ML.
Surely if speaking the majority language is so important, then learning the language should be supported in the best way possible.
Of course if we slow down their integration in this way, then in an election or two, candidates will be able to waste hot air blaming social problems on people who ‘haven’t even bothered’ to learn the language.
Why can’t they learn at home like native born English speakers?
Some liberal will be suggesting English language lessons for all schoolchildren next. You’ll be able to get A’levels in it and everything! Ridiculous!
