UK & EU Politics Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Da Boss**

I'm curious as to why people are so reluctant to admit that systemic racism exists despite all the evidence?

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Da Boss wrote:
I'm curious as to why people are so reluctant to admit that systemic racism exists despite all the evidence?

Because there are other simpler explanations that should be explored and discounted first instead of immediately jumping to conclusions out of ideological bias.

**MonkeyBallistic**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
I'm curious as to why people are so reluctant to admit that systemic racism exists despite all the evidence?

Because there are other simpler explanations that should be explored and discounted first instead of immediately jumping to conclusions out of ideological bias.

Believing that racism exists is now ideological bias? Or is it that seeing all of the evidence that racism is a real thing that impacts people’s lives and deciding on the basis of that evidence that racism is a real problem, is “jumping to a conclusion”?

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
I'm curious as to why people are so reluctant to admit that systemic racism exists despite all the evidence?

Because there are other simpler explanations that should be explored and discounted first instead of immediately jumping to conclusions out of ideological bias.

Believing that racism exists is now ideological bias? Or is it that seeing all of the evidence that racism is a real thing that impacts people’s lives and deciding on the basis of that evidence that racism is a real problem, is “jumping to a conclusion”?

Immediately jumping to conclusions that there is some racist conspiracy built into the system to oppress non-white people before first investigating and disproving simpler explanations is ideological.

I'm not denying the possibility that there is systemic racism - maybe there is - but I'm saying you shouldn't just disregard all other possibilities out of hand because you believe systemic racism to be true. Thats confirmation bias.

**jouso**

Again speaking about EU laws, just yesterday a law was passed that will force employers of workers recruited in other countries to match the conditions local workers have. A very important first step towards reducing the impact of the famous Polish plumbers etc.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/eu-brexit-uk-labour-laws-migrant-workers-a8375836.html

Guess who voted against that? You're right: Tories and UKIP.

**MonkeyBallistic**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
I'm curious as to why people are so reluctant to admit that systemic racism exists despite all the evidence?

Because there are other simpler explanations that should be explored and discounted first instead of immediately jumping to conclusions out of ideological bias.

Believing that racism exists is now ideological bias? Or is it that seeing all of the evidence that racism is a real thing that impacts people’s lives and deciding on the basis of that evidence that racism is a real problem, is “jumping to a conclusion”?

Immediately jumping to conclusions that there is some racist conspiracy built into the system to oppress non-white people before first investigating and disproving simpler explanations is ideological.

I'm not denying the possibility that there is systemic racism - maybe there is - but I'm saying you shouldn't just disregard all other possibilities out of hand because you believe systemic racism to be true. Thats confirmation bias.

I don’t see any credible person claiming that all incidents of systematic racism are a deliberate conspiracy.

Without talking about specifics though, it’s very hard to interpret what the rest of your point means. I mean, it needs context or examples. You’re saying that you shouldn’t ignore other factors and I totally agree. You can not assess the affects of racism without context. Interestingly, it’s not looking at other factors and seeing somebody as just their race, that is the basis of a lot of racism. This is why people end up tying themselves in knots when they trying to discuss this issue.

**Graphite**

Graphite wrote:
"And now over to David Davis! What's the proposal of the day, Dave?"

"I propose a buffer zone in Northern Ireland four times wider than the DMZ in Korea"

Hooray!

Sorry to self quote, but the shear mind melting insanity of this makes my brain itch. The border is 310 miles long, so a buffer 10 miles deep would be 3100 square miles. The land area in NI is 5460 square miles. So this would cover about 55% of the country, presumably because you don't need to count Lough Neagh.

Absolutely bewildering.

**Kilkrazy**

MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
I'm curious as to why people are so reluctant to admit that systemic racism exists despite all the evidence?

Because there are other simpler explanations that should be explored and discounted first instead of immediately jumping to conclusions out of ideological bias.

Believing that racism exists is now ideological bias? Or is it that seeing all of the evidence that racism is a real thing that impacts people’s lives and deciding on the basis of that evidence that racism is a real problem, is “jumping to a conclusion”?

Immediately jumping to conclusions that there is some racist conspiracy built into the system to oppress non-white people before first investigating and disproving simpler explanations is ideological.

I'm not denying the possibility that there is systemic racism - maybe there is - but I'm saying you shouldn't just disregard all other possibilities out of hand because you believe systemic racism to be true. Thats confirmation bias.

I don’t see any credible person claiming that all incidents of systematic racism are a deliberate conspiracy.

Without talking about specifics though, it’s very hard to interpret what the rest of your point means. I mean, it needs context or examples. You’re saying that you shouldn’t ignore other factors and I totally agree. You can not assess the affects of racism without context. Interestingly, it’s not looking at other factors and seeing somebody as just their race, that is the basis of a lot of racism. This is why people end up tying themselves in knots when they trying to discuss this issue.

So far, two alternative explanations have been put forwards. One is that the black students from Africa have different qualifications which need more examination. This is ruled out by the fact that the report concerns British students.

The second is that since Ucas admissions do not record ethnicity, it's impossible to pick out students t examine by race. This is ruled out by the fact that Ucas allows students to be reported individually by people who might know them.

As well, ethnicity is easily guessable from people's names.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Kilkrazy wrote:
MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
I'm curious as to why people are so reluctant to admit that systemic racism exists despite all the evidence?

Because there are other simpler explanations that should be explored and discounted first instead of immediately jumping to conclusions out of ideological bias.

Believing that racism exists is now ideological bias? Or is it that seeing all of the evidence that racism is a real thing that impacts people’s lives and deciding on the basis of that evidence that racism is a real problem, is “jumping to a conclusion”?

Immediately jumping to conclusions that there is some racist conspiracy built into the system to oppress non-white people before first investigating and disproving simpler explanations is ideological.

I'm not denying the possibility that there is systemic racism - maybe there is - but I'm saying you shouldn't just disregard all other possibilities out of hand because you believe systemic racism to be true. Thats confirmation bias.

I don’t see any credible person claiming that all incidents of systematic racism are a deliberate conspiracy.

Without talking about specifics though, it’s very hard to interpret what the rest of your point means. I mean, it needs context or examples. You’re saying that you shouldn’t ignore other factors and I totally agree. You can not assess the affects of racism without context. Interestingly, it’s not looking at other factors and seeing somebody as just their race, that is the basis of a lot of racism. This is why people end up tying themselves in knots when they trying to discuss this issue.

So far, two alternative explanations have been put forwards. One is that the black students from Africa have different qualifications which need more examination. This is ruled out by the fact that the report concerns British students.

The second is that since Ucas admissions do not record ethnicity, it's impossible to pick out students t examine by race. This is ruled out by the fact that Ucas allows students to be reported individually by people who might know them.

As well, ethnicity is easily guessable from people's names.

Right Thats all I'm arguing for. For alternative explanations to be considered first.

You posted some figures and claimed it was systemic racism.
People suggested there could be simpler explanations.
Those simpler explanations were disproven, which strengthens your case that it is indeed racism.

Da Boss questioned people's motives for not immediately taking it at face value, I responded to explain why. I wasn't taking a position for or against the idea of systemic racism, I was taking a position against blindly trusting a claim out of ideological bias without first considering the alternatives.

Whats so difficult to understand here?

**monarda**

Graphite wrote:
Graphite wrote:
"And now over to David Davis! What's the proposal of the day, Dave?"

"I propose a buffer zone in Northern Ireland four times wider than the DMZ in Korea"

Hooray!

Sorry to self quote, but the shear mind melting insanity of this makes my brain itch. The border is 310 miles long, so a buffer 10 miles deep would be 3100 square miles. The land area in NI is 5460 square miles. So this would cover about 55% of the country, presumably because you don't need to count Lough Neagh.

Absolutely bewildering.

Bewildering?

Here's a map of Northern Ireland's constituencies by party:

Green is Sinn Fein, Red is DUP, and grey is an independent unionist.

Though this second map shows how much trouble a simple presentation / solution can conceal.

Spoiler:

**Kilkrazy**

The difficulty of understanding is the massive amount of scientifically research grounded on empirical facts, cross-referenced with psychological research and historical records, which evidence the existence of structural racism.

At this point structural racism is pretty much proved. Maybe not as well as evolution, but social psychology is in various ways a more complex science.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Perhaps applicants should not be named until their application is short-listed and progressed to the interview phase then?

**reds8n**

Graphite wrote:
"And now over to David Davis! What's the proposal of the day, Dave?"

"I propose a buffer zone in Northern Ireland four times wider than the DMZ in Korea"

Hooray!

remarkable isn't it.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1002304271436664832

Two big developments for the Max Fac option (the only one under real consideration now)
1. DD has been persuaded a technological solution to keep the NI border open won’t work, so has moved to regulatory alignment ideas (1/3)

2. Those alignments are just for NI; and involve the ‘Liechtenstein model’ of dual EU and UK regimes at the same time, plus a 10 mile border zone for local traders (eg dairy farmers) to cross at will. Hence, no need for any border infrastructure at all. (2/3)

This may just win agreement from the whole of the Cabinet Brexit Committee. Phew. But 2 huge further problems with it: the DUP likely to hate it, as a different settlement to rest of UK, and the EU will instantly throw it out. (3/3)

Right. So the Max-Fac solution, which was the technology solution, is having all the technology taken away? And the border issue is fixed by making it ten miles wide instead of six inches wide? And Northern Ireland will be both in and out of the EU?
This is fething ludicrous.

A pithy summary, yes.

in related news :

https://twitter.com/open_britain/status/1002472366629322752?s=21

WATCH: This week, Nigel Farage claimed he never said Brexit would be a 'success'. Brexit's going so badly, he's trying to rewrite history

Farage now showing a truly superb reverse ferret now that -- as was fething said -- things won't work as they said we would,

even by his low standards it's a pretty impressive ...well.. let's be honest : lie.

as the clip shows.

in lighter news :

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/31/posh-royal-expert-exposed-as-tommy-from-upstate-new-york-harry-meghan-duchess-of-sussex

Thomas J Mace-Archer-Mills Esq, the plummy-voiced leader of the British Monarchist Federation, was a regular feature on TV channels during May’s royal wedding, dispensing wisdom on Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s union while wearing a bow tie and tweed jacket.

In one interview for a Norwegian TV channel, he warned Markle that the most important aspect of the union was “keeping integrity, keeping formality and making sure that the traditions and heritage that we have as British people remain at the forefront”.

In another clip, recorded at a five-star hotel with a US broadcaster, he advised the future Duchess of Sussex not to upstage existing members of the royal family “especially when you’re coming in the way you are”. Shortly afterwards Mace-Archer-Mills approvingly tweeted an article describing himself as “the most interviewed man” on the subject of the royal wedding.

Unfortunately for the overseas news outlets who booked him in the belief they were getting an authentic upper-class Englishman, according to the Wall Street Journal, he is actually Thomas “Tommy” Muscatello, a 38-year-old Italian-American who grew up in upstate New York.

...fair play.

**Herbington**

Kilkrazy wrote:
MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
I'm curious as to why people are so reluctant to admit that systemic racism exists despite all the evidence?

Because there are other simpler explanations that should be explored and discounted first instead of immediately jumping to conclusions out of ideological bias.

Believing that racism exists is now ideological bias? Or is it that seeing all of the evidence that racism is a real thing that impacts people’s lives and deciding on the basis of that evidence that racism is a real problem, is “jumping to a conclusion”?

Immediately jumping to conclusions that there is some racist conspiracy built into the system to oppress non-white people before first investigating and disproving simpler explanations is ideological.

I'm not denying the possibility that there is systemic racism - maybe there is - but I'm saying you shouldn't just disregard all other possibilities out of hand because you believe systemic racism to be true. Thats confirmation bias.

I don’t see any credible person claiming that all incidents of systematic racism are a deliberate conspiracy.

Without talking about specifics though, it’s very hard to interpret what the rest of your point means. I mean, it needs context or examples. You’re saying that you shouldn’t ignore other factors and I totally agree. You can not assess the affects of racism without context. Interestingly, it’s not looking at other factors and seeing somebody as just their race, that is the basis of a lot of racism. This is why people end up tying themselves in knots when they trying to discuss this issue.

So far, two alternative explanations have been put forwards. One is that the black students from Africa have different qualifications which need more examination. This is ruled out by the fact that the report concerns British students.

The second is that since Ucas admissions do not record ethnicity, it's impossible to pick out students t examine by race. This is ruled out by the fact that Ucas allows students to be reported individually by people who might know them.

As well, ethnicity is easily guessable from people's names.

UCAS do send ethnicity with application data.

But these investigations are usually triggered by UCAS, not individual universities.

Source: Have worked with university admissions data for 10+ years.

**Howard A Treesong**

I suppose my question is, what proportion of applications are fraudulent compared by race/nationality? Only when you know that, do you know if certain demographics are being targeted disproportionately, or to what extent it’s racism rather than reflecting reality.

It could be racism, sure, but to compare to something else, some people say the police are just being racist for stopping and searching young black men in London, and that white and black people should be stopped equally. But statistically young black men are vastly more likely to be carrying a knife. That doesn’t mean the Met doesn’t have institutionalised racism, but to claim that young black men shouldn’t be searched on a frequency relative to the likelihood of them having a knife flies in the face of strong statistical evidence.

**Kilkrazy**

Do you think black teenagers are 22 times more likely to cheat on their Ucas papers?

**MonkeyBallistic**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
I suppose my question is, what proportion of applications are fraudulent compared by race/nationality? Only when you know that, do you know if certain demographics are being targeted disproportionately, or to what extent it’s racism rather than reflecting reality.

It could be racism, sure, but to compare to something else, some people say the police are just being racist for stopping and searching young black men in London, and that white and black people should be stopped equally. But statistically young black men are vastly more likely to be carrying a knife. That doesn’t mean the Met doesn’t have institutionalised racism, but to claim that young black men shouldn’t be searched on a frequency relative to the likelihood of them having a knife flies in the face of strong statistical evidence.

The problem with racial profiling is that it makes race the defining factor and ignores all others. Old black people aren’t carrying knives. University educated black people aren’t carrying knives. Black doctors, black lawyers, black teachers, none of those people are carrying knives. The people carrying knives are poor, disaffected, uneducated and surrounded by gang culture. Where I live, where’s there’s a much lower black population than in London, it’s poor, disaffected white and Asian kids doing most of the crime. So their blackness isn’t the issue. The question that needs to be asked is, why are young black men disproportionately more likely to be poor, uneducated and disaffected?

The same applies to the UCAS story. It runs the risk of creating the impression that their race is the reason for the fraud.

**Howard A Treesong**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Do you think black teenagers are 22 times more likely to cheat on their Ucas papers?

No, it seems improbably high for any group to be that much higher than the average. But that wasn’t what I asked. If they were twice as likely, then there’s both an identifiable problem with that group but also an issue with a disproportionate response by overestimating the extent of the problem.

**Kilkrazy**

I think it needs to be emphasised that Ucas aren't finding that black youngsters are 22 times more likely to cheat on their applications. Ucas are finding that for some odd reason they are checking 22 times more black applications than white applications.

**Howard A Treesong**

MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
I suppose my question is, what proportion of applications are fraudulent compared by race/nationality? Only when you know that, do you know if certain demographics are being targeted disproportionately, or to what extent it’s racism rather than reflecting reality.

It could be racism, sure, but to compare to something else, some people say the police are just being racist for stopping and searching young black men in London, and that white and black people should be stopped equally. But statistically young black men are vastly more likely to be carrying a knife. That doesn’t mean the Met doesn’t have institutionalised racism, but to claim that young black men shouldn’t be searched on a frequency relative to the likelihood of them having a knife flies in the face of strong statistical evidence.

The problem with racial profiling is that it makes race the defining factor and ignores all others. Old black people aren’t carrying knives. University educated black people aren’t carrying knives. Black doctors, black lawyers, black teachers, none of those people are carrying knives. The people carrying knives are poor, disaffected, uneducated and surrounded by gang culture. Where I live, where’s there’s a much lower black population than in London, it’s poor, disaffected white and Asian kids doing most of the crime. So their blackness isn’t the issue. The question that needs to be asked is, why are young black men disproportionately more likely to be poor, uneducated and disaffected?

The same applies to the UCAS story. It runs the risk of creating the impression that their race is the reason for the fraud.

I agree with this completely. I don’t deny that there is likely a racial prejudice behind the numbers of challenges made over UCAS applications. But in order to understand the situation, you need a fuller background to the statistics presented so far rather than determining it’s all purely a racist issue.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
I think it needs to be emphasised that Ucas aren't finding that black youngsters are 22 times more likely to cheat on their applications. Ucas are finding that for some odd reason they are checking 22 times more black applications than white applications.

I think that’s apparent from the article, what isn’t clear is their false detection rate for white compared to black students. If they are checking black students 22 times more frequently and having 22 times as many unnecessary checks, then there’s an obvious problem.

**Steve steveson**

I can’t help feeling more information is needed, firstly on the reasons why they are more likely to be investigated and secondly the group that is being investigate.

Is there a reason? Is it because of bias in the softwear, bias in people submitting complaints? Is it actually not black students, but students from inner city areas or working class students, groups which black students are much more likely to be in? The reason I have these questions is because it appears to just be black students and not other minorities, which makes you think there is something else going on other than simple racist behaviour. It could be two issues, or perhaps it could be narrower than that and could just be Afro Caribbean students? These are all thoughts I had with no evidence, but to me this is definitely a case where jumping to conclusions is very dangerous and could end up both looking like playing the race card and diverting from understanding the root cause.

**Vaktathi**

Whirlwind wrote:
I see Liam Fox is spouting his usual nonsense, condemning the Trump metal tariffs yet at the same time stating that this won't have nay impact on the Wrexit trade deal with the US.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/liam-fox-donald-trump_uk_5b1031f7e4b0fcd6a834db15?ncid=tweetlnkukhpmg00000001&utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage

It's not a particularly good sign for getting anything useful from the US trade deal that doesn't solely benefit the US.

You'll probably have to wait until at least Jan 2021 before there is a chance at dealing with someone in the US who actually understands international trade

**Kilkrazy**

There is software to screen applications, and people can send in tips, so there are two ways that bias might cause black applications to be disproportionately targetted. Then there is the role of Ucas staff in deciding to investigate individual cases.

It's hard to think why working class applications should be disproportiately targetted. Maybe based on postcode and school attended?

**Steve steveson**

Less support in completing UCAS applications from parents and schools so more likely to make errors or fill out the form incorrectly? More likely to be claimed additional financial support (I don’t know if this looks at that as well).

I don’t know if there is a reason, and whatever the reason it needs to be looked at for any kind of bias.

**Da Boss**

It just seems to me like people are pretending not to know the reason when in other situations they would not look for such a high burden of proof before coming to a conclusion. It's troubling.

As to the NI buffer zone idea, I mean that's so obviously mental I think we can discount it. It'd never fly.

**r_squared**

I'm starting to wonder if there's going to be a media outcry about islamophobia in the conservative party at all?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44311092

I mean the Guardian ran a story on it, and this single article was buried on the BBC website. Surely the press should be full of howls of outrage, demanding that May purge the party of all forms of islamophobia and show leadership in really getting to grips with it.

I'll wait.

**Da Boss**

Even if there was a media outcry (and there won't be) it wouldn't hurt the tories. A fairly large chunk of the population is okay with islamophobia and they're the tories core vote.

**r_squared**

Da Boss wrote:
....As to the NI buffer zone idea, I mean that's so obviously mental I think we can discount it. It'd never fly.

I'm a bit puzzled by the idea myself. I mean, how's it supposed to work? Isn't this just shifting the border ten miles either side? Why not push it back even further, say maybe to the sea?
It's a bit bloody stupid to say the least, and nothing but a fudge. It's hardly encouraging that this appears to be the best that they can come up with.
I did read an article that this idea was the favoured one by Brexit minded cabinet ministers, alongside tech-magic gubbins to supplement it. However, it's not likely to be supported by the DUP and almost certainly will be rejected by the EU.

As an aside, I do wonder how long NI's "special status" regarding abortion will last once Brexit is over and done with and Arlene and chums have burned their bridges with the UK Govt by holding them hostage over it. They'll have to come to an agreement with Sinn Fein and get the Assembly working pronto, otherwise they may find that they won't enjoy direct rule quite as much as they once did.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Difference is we've been suffering waves of terror attacks from radical Muslims over the last two decades. We've had zero terror attacks from radical Jews. Its a lot easier for society and the media to overlook bigotry against a particular community when a radicalised minority of that community regularly carry out acts of violence and mass murder.

I guarantee that this would change in an instant if Jews started detonating bombs in Europe, the media would begin turning a blind eye to anti-Semitism and you'd get the likes of the Daily Mail running the same stores but this time targeting Judaism instead.

**Da Boss**

I agree. I think it's stupid, given that it's a stated aim of those organising and carrying out the attacks to drive a wedge between muslims and the rest of society to aid in their efforts to recruit more terrorists, and the likes of the "patriotic" Daily Mail play right into their hands, basically helping the terrorists to achieve their aims. Same can be said for the likes of the Front National. I guess we shouldn't be so surprised, given the extreme Right has a lot in common with radical islamists in how they think about womens rights and so on.

Edit: I would also point out that for a certain part of the Left, the actions of Israel are seen in a very negative light. Some of these people stray from criticism of Israel into antisemitism, and plenty of antisemites use criticism of Israel as cover for what they are really pushing for.