Oliver Letwin has apologised for the memo he sent to Margaret Thatcher at the time of the Broadwater Farm riots.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35192265
Last edited by: Duncan on Wed 30 Dec 15 at 19:50
|
|
I don't suppose the addressee, to whom Dave gave that disgraceful quasi-state funeral, was appalled by its contents. In any case, Letwin would have been young and timid enough to write what he expected the boss would want to read.
|
>> I don't suppose the addressee, to whom Dave gave that disgraceful quasi-state funeral, was appalled
>> by its contents.
Neither do I. Her reaction to the proposals for campaigns to counter the spread of AIDS speak even more eloquently of her prejudices.
And yet, she was a trained scientist.......
|
And yet...
...former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Trevor Phillips said he did not think Mr Letwin's remarks "would have raised a single eyebrow at the time".
|
|
I listened to that interview this morning. The impression I got that Mr Phillips wanted to punch him.
|
>> >> I don't suppose the addressee, to whom Dave gave that disgraceful quasi-state funeral, was
>> appalled
>> >> by its contents.
>>
>> Neither do I. Her reaction to the proposals for campaigns to counter the spread of
>> AIDS speak even more eloquently of her prejudices.
>>
>> And yet, she was a trained scientist.......
If the unions and left wing hadn't so royally screwed up the country we wouldn't have needed to vote maggie, her vegetables and all the right wing racists into power. Still its a good warning about UKIP init.
|
|
Exactly Zero. UK under labour ripped the heart out of the country in the 70s, conveniently today's lefties forget that, hopefully the public won't !
|
>> Exactly Zero. UK under labour ripped the heart out of the country in the 70s,
>> conveniently today's lefties forget that, hopefully the public won't !
While I'm obviously aware Labour is a minority taste in here I'm genuinely struggling to understand how the 74-9 government 'ripped the heart out of this country'. Really, it was just the closing chapter of the post war consensus. Attempts to control pay leading to the Winter of Discontent were little more than a continuation Heath's policies (once he turned back from his 'Selson Man' phase).
|
>> >> Exactly Zero. UK under labour ripped the heart out of the country in the
>> 70s,
>> >> conveniently today's lefties forget that, hopefully the public won't !
>>
>> While I'm obviously aware Labour is a minority taste in here I'm genuinely struggling to
>> understand how the 74-9 government 'ripped the heart out of this country'. Really, it was
>> just the closing chapter of the post war consensus. Attempts to control pay leading to
>> the Winter of Discontent were little more than a continuation Heath's policies (once he turned
>> back from his 'Selson Man' phase).
I started work during the three days week, power cuts due to striking miners. Sometimes couldn't get to work, train drivers strikes. Union excesses all through the 70s, aided and abetted by successive labour party leaderships. I struggle to understand why you struggle with the root cause. True the Tory Government shared sone of the blame for being week opposition. Thatcher fixed that. We shouldn't have needed her tho. For that your team takes the blame.
|
>> I'm genuinely struggling to
>> understand how the 74-9 government 'ripped the heart out of this country'.
Struggling?! Yes, 1979 was a joyous time for a Government that was not economically discredited - just like 2010.
Much as you struggle to realise that in writing the following you said I was either a racist or a troll:
>>"That's the narrative used 40yrs ago to support the Smith regime and then and later
>>apartheid. I'd guess your intelligent and educated enough not to actually swallow it and
>>that in reality you're trolling."
Do you know, Brompton, I used to think you were just naive.
|
>> >>"That's the narrative used 40yrs ago to support the Smith regime and then and later
>>
>> >>apartheid. I'd guess your intelligent and educated enough not to actually swallow it and
>> >>that in reality you're trolling.
You're determined to portray yourself as some sort of martyr over this.
(1) You asserted that were it not for colonialism South Africans would still live in mud huts. The inference is that would apply to the whole nation not just those Ian refers to whether in traditional lifestyles or shanties.
(2) I suggested that assertion was false and further it was discredited by being used to support white supremacist regimes. I doubted you really believed it and though perhaps you were trolling (ie looking to provoke a response).
It is of course possible to believe it and not be a racist /supremacist though given the lack of any evidence from countries that were not colonised doing so implies a certain lack of scientific application.
|
>> (1) You asserted that were it not for colonialism South Africans would still live in
>> mud huts. The inference is that would apply to the whole nation not just those
>> Ian refers to whether in traditional lifestyles or shanties.
Colonialism has a load of positives to it.. as well as the negatives.
You cannot airbrush out history and pretend the positives didn't exist.
When I look at much of Africa today, are the people really free?.... Many have dictators that are greedy, incredibly corrupt and couldn't give two hoots about the common man... is that system better than the European colonialism of old?
What system is better for the man who just wants to work hard, feed his kids and keep his family healthy?
Many African countries have gone badly backwards after independence, because getting rid of the colonialists for a better system wasn't such a simple task.
I'm not saying that colonialism and having people as 2nd class citizens is right.. but neither is a corrupt thief in charge.... and we should be open about comparing the two, not pretending the latter doesn't exist when sticking the boot in about the former.... which let's face it, was a product of its time and a time when they did live in mud huts...(and so did the people in this country at one point).
Last edited by: Westpig on Fri 1 Jan 16 at 18:31
|
WP,
Sure there's a debate to be had about positive effects of colonialism and another about Africa's post colonial politics.
My point though was simply to refute Mapmaker's suggestion that SA's indigenous population would not have progressed without Rhodes and his ilk.
|
>>My point though was simply to refute Mapmaker's suggestion that SA's indigenous population
>>would not have progressed without Rhodes and his ilk.
I think it's right to say that Africa would still be in the bronze or iron age, were it not for Europe.
Here, the iron age suddenly arrived in the Kruger in the 17th century.
www.krugerpark.co.za/krugerpark-times-2-9-ancient-history-of-mining-19629.html
|
>> I think it's right to say that Africa would still be in the bronze or
>> iron age, were it not for Europe.
Maybe. And Europe would still be in the Neolithic/Neanderthal if it weren't for the Middle East (where our progressive and intelligent genes arrived from). Ironic really as Europe is helping to impose a new Neolithic era upon the Middle East as we speak.
|
>> >> I think it's right to say that Africa would still be in the bronze
>> or
>> >> iron age, were it not for Europe.
>>
>> Maybe. And Europe would still be in the Neolithic/Neanderthal if it weren't for the Middle
>> East (where our progressive and intelligent genes arrived from). Ironic really as Europe is helping
>> to impose a new Neolithic era upon the Middle East as we speak.
>>
To be fair, we are merely unintentionally aiding those in the middle east who are working their little Wudhu socks off trying to drag themselves back into the middle ages.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 4 Jan 16 at 14:45
|
|
The Unions came about because working people where screwed over by the employers.Maggie was a vindictive prime minister maybe needed at the time but not nice.
|
>> The Unions came about because working people where screwed over by the employers.
... and then they became too powerful and thought their ever increasing demands for their members were more important than the company (or even the country) itself. They gave no thought to the long term and the affordability of it all.
In other words, they shot themselves (and their members ) in the foot.
>> Maggie was a
>> vindictive prime minister maybe needed at the time but not nice.
>>
She was a conviction politician, who did what she thought was right, having regard to the bigger picture. If there was 'short term pain for long term gain'..etc.
Thank God she was around when she was.
|
|
Other than the fact that I don't like, or indeed understand, the term "conviction politician" I otherwise entirely agree with Westpig's post.
|
" Her reaction to the proposals for campaigns to counter the spread of AIDS speak even more eloquently of her prejudices.
And yet, she was a trained scientist......."
Sorry, Brompt, what were the proposals and what was her reaction? I genuinely don't remember.
|
I remember seeing a tv interview in OLs constituency around election time one year. After speaking to several voters, the interviewer approached n elderly lady.......upper class, turban and pearls, probably high conservative.
After being asked about the other contenders she was asked what she thought of Letwyn.
She spoke one word, very crisply, turned and walked away......" Twit ! "
It rather tickled me at the time.
|
/> > Sorry, Brompt, what were the proposals and what was her reaction?
It's stuff in same newly released set of papers as Letwin's advice.
At time government scientists up to and including the Chief Medical Officer wanted to tackle the spread of AIDS via a publicity campaign. They wanted it to deal in plain and explicit terms with the types of sexual activity by which AIDS was (or was thought at the time to be) transmitted.
Mrs T opposed it on grounds of 'taste':
www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/30/thatcher-tried-to-block-bad-taste-public-health-warnings-about-aids
|
>> Mrs T opposed it on grounds of 'taste':
Mrs T was a being transplanted to us from another age.
|
|
I don't know this Oliver comes across a bit creepy.Why apologise for what he meant to say and probably with the backing of his superiours.
|
Not a reference to Letwin about what he said / did not say.....
I had my first "summer job" as a student in the 1960s - the world of work was a markedly different place than it is today. How things have changed, some for the better, some worse.
1950/60s - everybody worked - either that of you starved. Even the poorest boy in the school got a job - Butcher's Boy. Clerk/Clerkess in an office if you could count & spell (many would struggle today without a calculator & spellcheck). 5% of the population went to University. Cars rotted away in under 5 years - if it was over 5 years and few signs of rust it had had Ziebarting (rustproofing) or new wings welded on.
Things said & done in the 1960s would now be frowned upon but at that time it could be said to be plain speaking, what a section of the public wanted / did...............
In 40/50 years time people will look back on today & shake their head at many things that are deemed OK today
|
>>1950/60s - everybody worked - either that of you starved. Even the poorest boy in the school got a job - Butcher's Boy. Clerk/Clerkess in an office if you could count & spell
S'right. I had no qualifications at all at all when I applied & landed my first job in '68, decided I didn't fancy it after all, then simply 'walked into' another job within no time. Different world of course these days =
UK pop in 1965: 53m.
Now: 64m +++
|
>> S'right. I had no qualifications at all at all when I applied & landed my
>> first job in '68, decided I didn't fancy it after all, then simply 'walked into'
>> another job within no time. Different world of course these days =
>> UK pop in 1965: 53m.
>> Now: 64m +++
And still full employment. Different world? nah.
|
>>Different world? nah.
Not easy for many young folk to find work these days, edumacated or not, let alone walking out of one job and landing another one in next to no time. Lot of jobs these days are, um, zero hours con-tracts, nuffink like that 'when we were young'. Businesses were more-likely to give yoos a chance 'in the olde days' too.
It's tough out there I tell thee.
|
>>Not easy for many young folk to find work these days,
About 30/35 years ago I was working a contract agency trying to place driving and industrial temps.
It was miserable because every sentient being who wanted a job, had a job. And what was left was the dregs of humanity. Yet in 1982 unemployment was around 3million which, if I recall correctly, was something like 10% of the "working" population.
That may well be true, but we couldn't find them. Most of the unemployed we could find were lousy scumbags. At the time, which may mean something to Pat, we were paying Salserv rates to contract drivers just to get them. Naff all profit, but at least we kept the customer.
I used to go out driving myself for important customers due to the total lack of decent drivers. I even did picking and packing at Black & Decker since there was no sentient labour available.
My wearied point being, that unemployment rates have quite a lot to do with willingness or desire to work. And in the 60s and early 70s it was socially unacceptable to be unemployed. A state of mind which the mid 70s cured.
I have no idea how willing the unemployed of today are to work.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 31 Dec 15 at 15:29
|
>>1950/60s - everybody worked
My first summer job was a messenger boy - carrying letters / invoices etc etc from offices all around the docks. My employer was an extremely successful local employer - some 1,000 employees and mega-wealthy - I was on £3.00 per week age 16!!!
In these days the printed the Highers (AS Level) results in the local paper - probably 1 week after you got them in the post. 16.5 yrs - 5 Highers at first sitting -enough for Uni!
On the Monday, into the office - Mr X wants to speak to you......MD's Office - Congratulations on your exams - his daughter was in my age group but she went to a fee paying school & scored zero & never worked.
That said, she married a chap in the year below me - Grandma bought her the house, Uncle (confirmed bachelor!) furnished it. Company was bought over but she still lives in the BIG house living off her Grandfather's/father's millions in today's money - The grandfather left £1/2 million in 1955 - maybe £20-£30 million these days.
Maxim - you do not need to to well @ school or work hard in life - JUST choose your parents well!!
|
"Mrs T was a being transplanted to us from another age."
Yes indeed - thank goodness we now have wholesome characters like Simon Danczuk in parliament. Labour, isn't he?
|
|
"Spanking Simon" has now been suspended by the Labour Party!
|
>>Mrs T opposed it on grounds of 'taste':
.*********
Fortunately science won and the campaign did go ahead..
Proof that it was a different world back then lies in the Letwin document on the riots. You cannot rewrite history, no matter how distastefully it may be regarded now.
|
|
Of course none of us said, did or wrote anything 30 years ago that we might perhaps be ashamed of today, have we?
|
>>Of course none of us said, did or wrote anything 30 years ago that we might perhaps be ashamed of today
Jeez, two weeks last Thursday is looking a bit dodgy, never mind 30 years ago.
|
>> Neither do I. Her reaction to the proposals for campaigns to counter the spread of
>> AIDS speak even more eloquently of her prejudices.
I don't think they do in the slightest.
You keep posting about chalk and cheese, well this is a good example.
The 1980's compared to now are a totally different ball game. Social attitudes have changed dramatically. Mine certainly have.
Mrs T was a 54 year old woman when she came to power in 1979. That generation would not be at all comfortable talking about anal sex, so querying it or blocking it on the grounds of taste would be a perfectly normal thing to do in that era.
Don't forget that b uggery was illegal then (whether male of female), so it would be no surprise that a lady born in 1925 would not wish a govt advice leaflet to have reference to anal sex, would it?
You are applying 2015 attitudes to a 1980's world.
Last edited by: Westpig on Thu 31 Dec 15 at 15:13
|
I very well remember Branson agreeing to take on the task of making the word "condom" socially acceptable - because if you remember it most certainly wasn't and buying them was a matter of dying in your boots with some old battleaxe at Boots.
So I'm pretty sure that if "condom" wasn't acceptable, "anal sex" would have endangered the space-time continuum on the Home Counties.
|
|
p.s. Westpig, hold back a bit. It wasn't my plan to finish 2015 by agreeing with everything you post.
|
>> p.s. Westpig, hold back a bit. It wasn't my plan to finish 2015 by agreeing
>> with everything you post.
>>
Yeah, fair enough, please accept my humblest.....
|
>> p.s. Westpig, hold back a bit. It wasn't my plan to finish 2015 by agreeing
>> with everything you post.
More than 5 hours to go in 2015 local time, sure you can restore the status quo.
|
>> More than 5 hours to go in 2015 local time, sure you can restore the
>> status quo.
>>
I'm willing to give it a go.
|
>> I very well remember Branson agreeing to take on the task of making the word "condom" socially acceptable
Tee hee! I was so uptight about it all, as a 19-year-old ex-Catholic, that I asked an older friend how to broach the subject with the chemist or worse his female staff. The friend chortled and said, just go in and call for 'a b***** great box of johnnies'.
I went in, waited until the coast was clear and blushingly muttered an inaudible request for some 'contraceptives'. The chemist couldn't hide a contemptuous grin... it was appalling.
|
>>The chemist couldn't hide a contemptuous grin
Weren't they nasty about it!? I'm not a particularly shy person and yet I dreaded the visit to the chemist. I wonder how much unprotected sex occurred just because the boy didn't want to face the appalling, condescending idiots on the counter.
One of many reasons I hope that Karma exists.
|
Amazon is your friend now Lud.
Perhaps a gross of black ribbed knobblys?...... Suit you sir ?
|
>> Perhaps a gross of black ribbed knobblys?...... Suit you sir ?
Tsk... you wicked old copper you...
|
....packaging all in German?
;-)
|
I'm not going to dredge out the report I saw, but i was left with the impression that Thatcher was questioning whether bring the attention of young people to sexual practices they had never contemplated might do more harm than good, rather than saying it was a bit rude.
A poor judgement on that issue maybe, but on that occasion she did what all of us should do - put in her four penn'orth and ultimately left it to the people whose responsibility it was, who made a different decision.
I don't think Thatcher was the sort who would avoid tackling something because it sounded unsavoury, and to use the comments as a stick to beat her with 30 years on is poor sport.
|
>>You are applying 2015 attitudes to a 1980s world.>>
Which was precisely the point that Martin Stanford was making to the hypocrite Labour MP Dianne Abbott on Sky News yesterday afternoon, during the period throughout the day when she popped up on every form of news media to try and score points.
But the sound bites continued, no matter how flummoxed she was for a few seconds at the point being raised by Stanford.
|
No doubt Labour MP Simon Danczuk has all his apologies ready after being suspended by the party...
preview.tinyurl.com/p3j6ll6
Last edited by: Stuartli on Thu 31 Dec 15 at 16:01
|
Hell's bells, the Mail on line sure goes to town on the egregious Mr Danczuk, couple of thousand words and nowhere near the end, despite pneumatic dolly shots to space it out a bit.
When I was a hack you were damn lucky to get 500 words or even 250. Perhaps I need to revive my career using today's technology.
Even saying that makes my heart sink. Sounds far too much like hard work.
|
>> No doubt Labour MP Simon Danczuk has all his apologies ready after being suspended by
>> the party...
>>
>> preview.tinyurl.com/p3j6ll6
>>
>>
Hmm, she was well up for the text exchanges which she enjoyed, said she was attracted to him but then decided he was a dirty old man when she found he had a partner.
Vindictive little bimbo.
|
It never ceases to amaze me how incredibly dumb these politicians can be. Surely the risks to a man in the public eye must be obvious? What a total idiot.
However, seeing that vindictive little liar as any sort of victim is ridiculous.
|
>> It never ceases to amaze me how incredibly dumb these politicians can be. Surely the
>> risks to a man in the public eye must be obvious? What a total idiot.
>>
>>
Even the most intelligent and astute have a blind spot somewhere in their DNA. It is normally triggered by sex or money.
|
>> Vindictive little bimbo.
with £50,000 in the bank from the Daily Mail, do we think?
The man is till an eejit.
It's been suggested that if he hadn't been anti-Corbyn, then he wouldn't have been sacked from the membership.
I'd say Corbyn would have been daft not to have seized the opportunity to eject him; he was an embarrassment before this.
|
Goodness knows what possessed him to engage with the teenager, allegations from his first wife OTOH are egregious barrel scrapings.
Is this just about (Labour in this case) MP and sex or has Danczuk previously got one over on Rothermere and/or Murdoch press in which case it looks like revenge.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 3 Jan 16 at 20:20
|
> Is this just about (Labour in this case) MP and sex or has Danczuk previously got one over on Rothermere and/or Murdoch press in which case it looks like revenge.
>>
>>
The basic story that mps like sex sells well or they wouldn't do it. There is no need for some revenge angle.
Edit i suppose it's possible but unlikely. Unless there is some public case of getting one over on them?
As to why he text her, i would think that pretty obvious.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 3 Jan 16 at 20:30
|
|
Teenage Girl - MP. Its an editors dream, regardless of political allegiance.
|
>> Teenage Girl - MP. Its an editors dream, regardless of political allegiance.
I don't doubt that for a minute.
The Mail though had an unhealthy obsession with his 'selfie queen' second wife. it just made me wonder........
|
>> Which was precisely the point that Martin Stanford was making to the hypocrite Labour MP
>> Dianne Abbott on Sky News yesterday afternoon, during the period throughout the day when she
>> popped up on every form of news media to try and score points.
>>
>> But the sound bites continued, no matter how flummoxed she was for a few seconds
>> at the point being raised by Stanford.
>>
The thing is Diane Abbott preaching on about something is utterly meaningless. If someone of gravitas was on there, the message might mean something.
Oliver Letwin is a tit of the highest order.... I can't work out why the Tories still have him on board. His judgement a few years back should have warned them (the official paperwork he put in a public bin and letting someone into his house who then stole something).
His old comments are just that 'old' and we were in different times then... although some of what he said has resonance e.g. rioters having poor morals... the rest of it though was stupidity and ignorance of the real world, although those sorts of thoughts were more prevalent then.
|
It's all a load of guff, blown out of all proportion by the left wing MP's desperate to divert attention away from themselves. Can't blame them, if I was a Labour MP I would probably do the same given the state of the Party.
Who gives a toss what was said thirty years ago? Attitudes were different then. It would be a different matter if someone held those views today.
|
I had the impression Oliver Letwin was a person of considerable inherited means, and a contributor to the finances of the Conservative Party. Surely I haven't just imagined all that?
Can't be bothered to Google.
|
>> I had the impression Oliver Letwin was a person of considerable inherited means, and a
>> contributor to the finances of the Conservative Party. Surely I haven't just imagined all that?
>>
>>
>> Can't be bothered to Google.
>>
"Letwin is the son of William Letwin (14 December 1922 – 20 February 2013), Emeritus Professor at the London School of Economics, and the Conservative academic Shirley Robin Letwin,[3][4] "Jewish-American intellectuals from Chicago whose parents had fled persecution from Kiev".[5]
He was educated at The Hall School in Hampstead and at Eton College.[6]
Letwin went on to study at Trinity College, Cambridge. "
|
So I was quite seriously wrong. Letwin was raised comfortably but didn't have heaps of money. He was a scholarship boy more or less, and made his own way.
No one should accept judgements from the internet uncritically. I am an embarrassed case in point.
|
>>The thing is Diane Abbott preaching on about something is utterly meaningless. If someone of gravitas was on there, the message might mean something.>>
Which was the point I was trying to convey - she was the only one Labouring the issue...:-)
|
It's natural sometimes to regret things one has said in the past, but absurd to feel the need to apologise.
Presumably the purpose of debate is to try to persuade people to change their views. There's no need to go through life leaving a trail of apologies as testament to one's open-mindedness.
Presumably if Letwin hadn't changed his views then everyone would be perfectly content if didn't apologise for them? :)
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Fri 1 Jan 16 at 12:16
|
>> Mrs T was a 54 year old woman when she came to power in 1979.
>> That generation would not be at all comfortable talking about anal sex, so querying it
>> or blocking it on the grounds of taste would be a perfectly normal thing to
>> do
>>
>> You are applying 2015 attitudes to a 1980's world.
If we were talking about general taste and what was acceptable in say TV drama then I'd say, albeit we might disagree about words or depictions, fair enough. But in this case AIDS was seen as a health threat of potentially endemic proportion; not something over which scientists thought we could mince words.
|
|
Yeah but the fact remains that it wasn't something which was openly discussed back then. And parents back then tried to shield their kids from all the nasty details of life. Whether that's right or wrong is irrelevant, it's how it was.
|
>>the fact remains that it wasn't something which was openly discussed back then.
Absolutely. We faced the same at different times with drugs. unwanted pregnancies, homosexuality, etc. etc. etc.
Other than wanting to score political points, its not really relevant to compare it to today's standards, is it?.
|
>>But in this case AIDS was seen as a health threat of potentially endemic proportion; not something over which scientists thought we could mince words
Hindsight.
One could write books about stuff that scientists thought should be shouted from the rooftops which latterly turned out to be less dramatic.
Or vice versa.
Never mind "potentially". Which is another way of saying, "perhaps not".
Its fairly simple though isn't it? Your view of someone's "rightness", or correctness of action depends on their politics. She was on the right, therefore wrong. I doubt you ever think much further than that.
Thank goodness for your peace of mind that she didn't cycle.
|
>> Thank goodness for your peace of mind that she didn't cycle.
ROFL Very good. I shall be laughing all day thinking of Brompy having to struggle with that anachronism.
|
|
And in any case, the opposing view prevailed. Thatcher was not as dictatorial as she was made out to be; when she no longer had general support from those around her she fell just as they all do.
|
But did she like caravans...?
tinyurl.com/zaeq7xq
;)
|
>> One could write books about stuff that scientists thought should be shouted from the rooftops
>> which latterly turned out to be less dramatic.
Man-made global warming?
|
|
That's just starting - like an oil tanker it keeps going even after you turn the engine off.
|
>> Hindsight.
Not really. It was the advice proffered at the time by government scientists including the Chief Medical Officer. The possibility of a pandemic was considered sufficiently serious that governments around the world took or considered steps similar to those being discussed here. With hindsight the disease, at least in the First World, was contained by a variety of measures not least being development of drug treatments. It didn't look like that at the time. There were also of course changes in behaviour - those of us around after the pill and before AIDS should remember that :-).
>> She was on the right, therefore wrong. I doubt you ever
>> think much further than that.
>>
Happily admit that my first reaction to any mention of her is That B... Woman. But of course nobody here has a similar reaction to Blair or Brown - that's rational argument innit......
In this case though I'm more interested in the fact that, as our only recent PM who was a trained scientist, she took the 'moral' route and seemingly ignored the science. Not the only member of her cabinet to do so, Whitelaw did too. The political advice to steer clear of opening the testing lab and concentrate on being seen with sick children etc is also telling, as is the reference to innocent (for which I suspect read hetero) victims.
The Letwin thing is interesting too. As the commentator mentioned above says the language used wouldn't have raised an eyebrow at the time. Commonplace well into the eighties to assume ladies of Indian origin were insufficiently assertive to be managers. Well remember attending a course on a new staff reporting system c1990 which included a clear instruction that such assumptions were unnacceptable. A significant number of trainees challenged the trainer on the point.
He had of course no option but to apologise. The headlines had he failed to do so would surely have seen him hounded from office.
|
From the article:
"The people of colour who are most bitter about their exclusion are not poorly qualified young black men – they are highly qualified minority doctors, lawyers and academics, who have done all that society has asked of them, yet somehow never make it to become consultants, judges and QCs and professors."
Should people be promoted because of their colour, or their ability? I thought I heard a report this morning saying that 3/4 of doctors who were struck off had been trained overseas, though I can't find it in any on-line papers?
|
"Well this is an old report, but perhaps it helps.."
Thank you - but, as it's an old report, I've no idea why it cropped up on the news this morning.
|
>> Should people be promoted because of their colour, or their ability?
The answer to that is obvious but the question being asked by BME candidates (and women) is whether the current system is doing so. Alternatively, are white male professions appointing in their own image?
Another issue is the length of time it takes for candidates to work their way up to the top of the pool form which senior appointments are made. For judicial appointments, at least to the High Court and above, that pool is the Bar. Even if admission to pupillage and chambers now is wholly on merit (and plenty will say it is not) barristers seeking judicial office in their forties/fifties were appointed in another era.
|
>>BME
Don't think I know that one. British, Middle Class and European? Male? I could Google it, but it's more fun to guess at the meanings of your silly victim-based TLAs.
Danczuk is an idiot and has (repeatedly) done himself and politics in general no favours, but he doesn't seem to have broken any laws. I'm not sure what he's been suspended for, probably being too right wing.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Mon 4 Jan 16 at 12:42
|
>> I'm not sure what he's been
>> suspended for, probably being too right wing.
Being an idiot should be sufficient.
|
>> Don't think I know that one. British, Middle Class and European? Male? I could Google
>> it, but it's more fun to guess at the meanings of your silly victim-based TLAs.
BME = Black and Minority Ethnic. It's in widespread usage and not just in public sector - many businesses will want to look at their employee and or client profile.
I'm inclined to agree with you on Danczuk though if he's really got a drink problem treatment and understanding would be appropriate. But it would be naive to assume that press, particularly Rothermere and Murdoch elements, are not out for revenge on those who've 'got one over' in the context of hacking and Leveson etc.
|
>> >> Should people be promoted because of their colour, or their ability?
>>
>> The answer to that is obvious
Far from obvious.
I don't like it myself, because two wrongs don't make a right, but a strong case can be made for 'positive' discrimination.
|
>> I don't like it myself, because two wrongs don't make a right, but a strong
>> case can be made for 'positive' discrimination.
No it can't, Never. It never achieves what was intended, in fact quite the opposite. Look at it this way, "the old boy network", or "who you know" "or comes from a good family" is positive discrimination and that is indefensible.
|
>>
>> >> a
>> strong
>> >> case can be made for 'positive' discrimination.
>> No it can't, Never.
You might not agree with it, but a strong enough case has been made for it to have been used, a lot.
Currently it is not generally possible to do it legally in the UK and yet we have 'targets' for the proportion of women etc on plc boards. Not sure how that works.
>>It never achieves what was intended, in fact quite the opposite.
It's been used in the US ("affirmative action") and I believe still is in the form of setting lower entry criteria for certain groups rather than quotas, mainly in selection for educational institutions. If what is intended is a greater proportion of the relevant minorities in the school or university, then presumably it has worked.
An example of the strong argument I was thinking of was that typically (e.g.) the black candidates might have on average lower qualifications resulting from poorer opportunities, and adjusting the selection criteria can compensate for that.
>> Look at it this way, "the old boy network", or "who you know" "or comes
>> from a good family" is positive discrimination and that is indefensible.
Interesting analogy, and imperfect. Where a choice has to be made between two otherwise equally appealing candidates for a job, I would tend to pick the one I had personal experience or knowledge of, as they are a known quantity and lower risk. I can never understand why many managers are so eager to pass over internal candidates for promotion in favour of new appointments, of whom a large proportion don't last long or cause a catastrophic balls up IME.
|
>> You might not agree with it, but a strong enough case has been made for
>> it to have been used, a lot.
Its been called for, a lot, but no successful case has ever really been made for it
>> >>It never achieves what was intended, in fact quite the opposite.
>>
>> It's been used in the US ("affirmative action") and I believe still is in the
>> form of setting lower entry criteria for certain groups rather than quotas, mainly in selection
>> for educational institutions. If what is intended is a greater proportion of the relevant minorities
>> in the school or university, then presumably it has worked.
It hasn't, it has however stoked resentment. Resentment from those who have been passed over for quota reasons, resentment from those in situ forced to co-operate with "quota choice", an inferiority complex from those who have been knowingly "quota'd in" and a feeling of exclusion from those who meet the "quota" requirements but were not chosen.
>>
>> An example of the strong argument I was thinking of was that typically (e.g.) the
>> black candidates might have on average lower qualifications resulting from poorer opportunities, and adjusting the
>> selection criteria can compensate for that.
see all my arguments above, this example one of the primary causes.
I know its going to be a long struggle, but we must strive for a society where the ablest, most suitable and best qualified must be chosen for a role, regardless of race, gender or cronyism. Quota selection actually hinders and puts back that process.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 4 Jan 16 at 15:14
|
>> It hasn't, it has however stoked resentment. Resentment from those who have been passed over
>> for quota reasons, resentment from those in situ forced to co-operate with "quota choice", an
>> inferiority complex from those who have been knowingly "quota'd in" and a feeling of exclusion
>> from those who meet the "quota" requirements but were not chosen.
Couldn't agree more Zero.
You missed one out.... resentment from those of a background the quota system is intended to help... but who made it on their own abilities... but now risk being lumped in with those that would not normally have made it.
I have never been able to work out why anyone thinks positive discrimination is a good idea, can't get my head around it. Discrimination is discrimination.
If people are disadvantaged in life...deal with that.
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 4 Jan 16 at 16:33
|
"I have never been able to work out why anyone thinks positive discrimination is a good idea...."
When I'm in hospital awaiting an operation, I like to think that the surgeon is the best person for the job ............. not someone who is there to make up some sort of quota.
Last edited by: Haywain on Mon 4 Jan 16 at 16:52
|
>> "I have never been able to work out why anyone thinks positive discrimination is a
>> good idea...."
>>
>> When I'm in hospital awaiting an operation, I like to think that the surgeon is
>> the best person for the job ............. not someone who is there to make up
>> some sort of quota.
He'll be after your genny, your gas, logs and heating oil. Mark my words.
|
"but a strong case can be made for 'positive' discrimination."
Positive discrimination for one party is negative discrimination for another.
|
It's an unfortunate term, positive discrimination, guaranteed to arouse both mischievous simulated indignation and genuine paranoia.
What it sometimes means in practice though is an attempt by paternalist, well-meaning managers to give a helping hand to one actually disadvantaged by race and foreignness.
Seems to me to be entirely admirable in that sense.
|
Exactly. The strong argument I referred to.
Unfortunately, when systemised, it is likely to do more harm than good for all the reasons above.
|
>> What it sometimes means in practice though is an attempt by paternalist, well-meaning managers to
>> give a helping hand to one actually disadvantaged by race and foreignness.
>>
>> Seems to me to be entirely admirable in that sense.
>>
Well in that case, go back to the root of the cause of the disadvantage and sort that out.. or give them a scholarship to achieve whatever qualifications are needed.
Then line them up with everyone else that wishes to go for that job... and let the best person win.
It is wrong, wrong, wrong to change the eligibility criteria to disadvantage one person because of the previous potential disadvantage of another.
Two disadvantages don't make a right.... how on earth could that ever be so?
If you think about it: "So one person is disadvantaged, how can I help him? I know, i'll disadvantage someone else, that'll do it"...????????
|
>> Well in that case, go back to the root of the cause of the disadvantage and sort that out.. or give them a scholarship to achieve whatever qualifications are needed.
>> Then line them up with everone else that wishes to go for that job... and let the best person win.
That's the sort of thing I meant Wp. A helping hand to newbies who don't know the (very complicated actually) tangle of rules, practices and regulations here.
I didn't mean 'give them someone else's job' or favour them over the natives! Perish the thought... but the natives are quite good at looking after themselves.
|
>> It's an unfortunate term, positive discrimination, guaranteed to arouse both mischievous simulated indignation and genuine
>> paranoia.
I'm a 'genuinely indignant' if you don't mind.
|
Oliver Letwin Apologises - Bromptonaut
