Raab's Black Lives Matter 'gaffe' Unusually, the Daily Star leads with politics, criticising Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab's comments about taking a knee to support Black Lives Matter. Mr Raab's remark that he thought it was inspired by the television drama, Game of Thrones, is described by the Star as a "gaffe", just three weeks after the prime minister was embarrassed by his adviser Dominic Cummings. The paper calls the pair "Dom and Dumber". In a stinging letter to the Guardian, the former Labour leader Neil Kinnock suggests the foreign secretary's ignorance comes from, in his words, "the same abyss as his surprise that Dover is important to trade movements".
I actually have a little sympathy for the politicians dealing with the CV situation. They are not words I would ever have thought to type out in the past.
Would like to ask people.
Would you like to be at the forefront of the decision-making when lives are at stake?
Not been fully following Covid-19 Cummings and Goings and in these situations there is a fall guy or gal.
May look into what is happening now over the weekend more and do a bit of catching up with the news on the big story.
One of the disadvantages of social media is that it allows people to express their views on any subject, including those they are not qualified to talk about. If they just stuck to their area of expertise, they wouldn't make themselves look foolish, and cause a distraction.
You could of course argue that Marcus Rashford is an exception to this argument. Although I commend his efforts, and appreciate his concern, I think The Government would have got there anyway, eventually. All they seem to be doing these days is u-turning.
There are much worse things out there than people expressing their views on a subject, even if it can be deemed offensive or foolish to some. It can be distracting of course however we don't need to read or acknowledge.
It's a platform for people to give opinions on subject they want to type about which is fine. Can't give carte blanche of course as certain things are hard to defend. I would agree with education and upbringing being key factors in how best to conduct yourself on social media platforms.
Social Media or anti-social media for the vast amount of users is a bit of a time thief. They can be very useful if used sensibly without overindulging. Can say that about anything really!
The biggest one, Facebook, themselves admit on built-in addictive features to get people hooked on the site while data mining people's private data. There are plenty of articles and videos on this so don't need to go into much detail in this thread.
Much more concerned about the lack of privacy social media sites provide than people I don't have any feelings towards and likely will never meet talk a lot of b*llocks!
If black people followed Anthony Joshuas instructions and boycotted white businesses, it would be likely to create more racism, rather than less. This problem will never be improved by creating more division.
Look Phil, I understand your example, and I don’t need your pity.
My objection to your example was only that it is a simplification, if all else is equal then yes we can credibly determine that the achievement from the Comp is greater than that from Eton. The objection was based all of the factors you need to standardise that you just imply given Eton vs Comp.
Perhaps that’s what they thought in the 1950s, I’ve no idea.
The recruitment process needs to test aptitude, and it’s never going to be decided on a grade here or there. You’re assessing character and potential. One left leaning member of staff told me if he saw another CV from Oxford Uni it was going straight in the bin. He’d decided we had enough of those and that this move was pro-diversity, regardless of background or anything other than the fact they’d studied at Oxford.
Isnt any example of Eton vs Comp more about privilege than racism?
Positive discrimination is fine, provided it is proportionate, i.e is measurable according to advantage.
Let's use a simple example.
Suppose you are a good University, say Nottingham. You have 2 candidates.
Candidate A goes to Eton, and is predicted to get BBB. Candidate B goes to an inner-city Comp. and is predicted BCC.
Which to take? B. Every time.
Because if Candidate A is only a few points better with all those advantages, Candidate B will be far better going forward, when each would have identical teaching. A is below average at Eton, whereas B is probably top 5% at the Comp.
Reject A unless there's a strong argument to consider them. BBB isn't good enough if you're coming from Eton. Invite B to take a course with a foundation year see how they perform with better teaching for a year, let them sink or swim.
If I had to choose one to start a degree in September, I'd pick B but I wouldn't be particularly excited about either.
FWIW, the practice at my Uni is to apply for a reduced offer based on your circumstances, then if you meet two or more of their criteria, they drop two grades from the offer if the candidate passes an assignment set after A-level exams (e.g. an AAB offer would become BBB or ABC).
There's a ton of things that they will accept, like: - Attending below average secondary schools and colleges - Living in an area with low progression to higher education - Being fostered/adopted - Time out of education for various reasons (e.g. having a child, mental/physical health issues) - Household income below a certain threshold - Neither of your parents going to University
I'd imagine most Universities have something similar to help identify disadvantaged candidates during the application process.
It's more likely for a black student to meet those kinds of those criteria than a white student (for obvious reasons). But it doesn't automatically mean "Black = Reduced offer", or any other similar misconceptions that people sometimes have about positive discrimination.
EDIT: Added some stuff and a misplaced full stop was tilting me.
The phrase used in education circles( well, when it was I was in it 7 years ago..) was 'Distance travelled'...
Rather than measure absolute attainment of an A* grade for a middle class, privileged child with all of the support mechanisms in place but
Recognise B for an underprivileged child in 'difficult' home circumstances, where the distance they may have travelled is greater
Look Phil, I understand your example, and I don’t need your pity.
My objection to your example was only that it is a simplification, if all else is equal then yes we can credibly determine that the achievement from the Comp is greater than that from Eton. The objection was based all of the factors you need to standardise that you just imply given Eton vs Comp.
Perhaps that’s what they thought in the 1950s, I’ve no idea.
The recruitment process needs to test aptitude, and it’s never going to be decided on a grade here or there. You’re assessing character and potential. One left leaning member of staff told me if he saw another CV from Oxford Uni it was going straight in the bin. He’d decided we had enough of those and that this move was pro-diversity, regardless of background or anything other than the fact they’d studied at Oxford.
Isnt any example of Eton vs Comp more about privilege than racism?
Racism is more likely to be about Comp vs Comp.
It rather depends on what you mean by racism. There are different types. If institutions continue to ignore the fact that many people are subconsciously racist, then racism continues. "Privilege" relates in considerable part to race.
Take, as an example, the studies about the same person applying for the same jobs, with the same CV, where someone uses their African name or an Anglicised version of it. The difference in the amount of interviews achieved is staggering.
another bugbear relates to many (not all) internships. Plum jobs that shape a career. Deliberately given no salary whatsoever. to ensure that only white, privileged kids, get them.
Look Phil, I understand your example, and I don’t need your pity.
My objection to your example was only that it is a simplification, if all else is equal then yes we can credibly determine that the achievement from the Comp is greater than that from Eton. The objection was based all of the factors you need to standardise that you just imply given Eton vs Comp.
Perhaps that’s what they thought in the 1950s, I’ve no idea.
The recruitment process needs to test aptitude, and it’s never going to be decided on a grade here or there. You’re assessing character and potential. One left leaning member of staff told me if he saw another CV from Oxford Uni it was going straight in the bin. He’d decided we had enough of those and that this move was pro-diversity, regardless of background or anything other than the fact they’d studied at Oxford.
Isnt any example of Eton vs Comp more about privilege than racism?
Racism is more likely to be about Comp vs Comp.
It rather depends on what you mean by racism. There are different types. If institutions continue to ignore the fact that many people are subconsciously racist, then racism continues. "Privilege" relates in considerable part to race.
Take, as an example, the studies about the same person applying for the same jobs, with the same CV, where someone uses their African name or an Anglicised version of it. The difference in the amount of interviews achieved is staggering.
another bugbear relates to many (not all) internships. Plum jobs that shape a career. Deliberately given no salary whatsoever. to ensure that only white, privileged kids, get them.
I don't disagree with any of that.
The point I was making is that Eton is just as unavailable to millions of white kids as it is to anyone else.
So the overwhelming majority of cases where kids are competing will be between kids that will have all attended a Comp.
If you could improve the situation through legislation, we wouldn't be where we are now.
I have been surprised in my working life, by the racism that exists.
I recall an instance where the company that I worked for bought a place in the Lake District.
I had gone there to set things up.
We had difficulty in recruiting sales staff locally, so I decided to recruit from elsewhere, and provide them with accommodation.
I recruited 4 staff from ethnic minorities.
None of them survived for very long, as they couldn't meet their sales targets.
This was at least partly because of the number of racist members of the general public that were not prepared to go through a sales pitch with any of these staff.
They arrived, often refused to shake hands, turned on their heels and left.
A small number also offered abuse.
I was flabbergasted at first, and had I not seen it with my own eyes, probably wouldn't have believed it.
The procedure was we had a phone team that convinced couples living within a 2 hour radius to turn up for a sales pitch, in return for an incentive in the form of a free gift.
I spoke to all these people to ensure that they understood that they would not be receiving the free gift.
So they were prepared to drive a total of 4 hours in many cases, in order to not receive a free gift because they were openly racist.
In 20 years I never once saw this happen to a white member of staff.
This sort of thing does still happen. Although, thankfully, it is a lot rarer now, in part due to things such as social media making it more difficult.
Racism has become more sneaky. Let's use public schools as an example. You are right, of course, that most of us could never aspire to Eton.
But when a job says "public school educated", or "well spoken" they tend to mean "White".
Is this classed as Racism ? The lines are now so blurred does anyone know what's acceptable or not.
Eh?
All the players are wearing "Black Lives Matter"on the back of their shirts rather than their name for the first round of games....
Yes I am aware of that, so the 'eh' was in relation to how on earth anyone would ask if that Twitter post from Linekar, of all people, was racist.
If you care to look at some of the responses to the said 'Twitter joke' then you might understand my comment of "Blurred lines".
Why didn't you post some of the responses then? Or at least a link to the tweet? Or even just mention about responses in your post? We're not mind readers.
All you posted was Linekar's tweet, followed by a bizarre comment about racism and lines being blurred about acceptability, and I responded in kind.
Is this classed as Racism ? The lines are now so blurred does anyone know what's acceptable or not.
Eh?
All the players are wearing "Black Lives Matter"on the back of their shirts rather than their name for the first round of games....
Yes I am aware of that, so the 'eh' was in relation to how on earth anyone would ask if that Twitter post from Linekar, of all people, was racist.
If you care to look at some of the responses to the said 'Twitter joke' then you might understand my comment of "Blurred lines".
Why didn't you post some of the responses then? Or at least a link to the tweet? Or even just mention about responses in your post? We're not mind readers.
All you posted was Linekar's tweet, followed by a bizarre comment about racism and lines being blurred about acceptability, and I responded in kind.
I'm sure that you're more than capable and able to find the responses that you desire without me listing page upon page of quotes from any Tom,**** or Harry.My only reason for the original 'Linekar' post was if a person like Linekar who has stood up against racism all his life,deems it 'funny' to make a joke and then gets attacked for it,where are the lines/boundaries ?
Just shows how thick/eager to be offended people appear to be.
The target of the joke, if it even qualifies as a joke, is not black people or even BLM. There isn't even a target ffs. The mistake he's made is posting a terrible joke, not a racist one.
The lines are not blurred, the line is intact. It's the 'search for racism anywhere you can find it' mob who appear blurred.
Apologies to anyone who is offended by the above whitesplanation.
This sort of thing does still happen. Although, thankfully, it is a lot rarer now, in part due to things such as social media making it more difficult.
Racism has become more sneaky. Let's use public schools as an example. You are right, of course, that most of us could never aspire to Eton.
But when a job says "public school educated", or "well spoken" they tend to mean "White".
Do you really think things have changed?
People have always been sneaky when circumventing legislation.
Some prominent politicians are clearly racist.
I hate to give him a mention, but Nigel Farage, often dubbed the most influential politician in our lifetimes, is undoubtedly a racist.
Both major political parties are regularly accused of racism.
As are the police force, and the army.
One of the disadvantages of social media is that it not only allows people with extreme views to have a voice, it permits them to form groups of people with similar views.
Comments
Raab's Black Lives Matter 'gaffe'
Unusually, the Daily Star leads with politics, criticising Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab's comments about taking a knee to support Black Lives Matter. Mr Raab's remark that he thought it was inspired by the television drama, Game of Thrones, is described by the Star as a "gaffe", just three weeks after the prime minister was embarrassed by his adviser Dominic Cummings. The paper calls the pair "Dom and Dumber".
In a stinging letter to the Guardian, the former Labour leader Neil Kinnock suggests the foreign secretary's ignorance comes from, in his words, "the same abyss as his surprise that Dover is important to trade movements".
I actually have a little sympathy for the politicians dealing with the CV situation. They are not words I would ever have thought to type out in the past.
Would like to ask people.
Would you like to be at the forefront of the decision-making when lives are at stake?
Not been fully following Covid-19 Cummings and Goings and in these situations there is a fall guy or gal.
May look into what is happening now over the weekend more and do a bit of catching up with the news on the big story.
Cammy
If they just stuck to their area of expertise, they wouldn't make themselves look foolish, and cause a distraction.
You could of course argue that Marcus Rashford is an exception to this argument.
Although I commend his efforts, and appreciate his concern, I think The Government would have got there anyway, eventually.
All they seem to be doing these days is u-turning.
There are much worse things out there than people expressing their views on a subject, even if it can be deemed offensive or foolish to some. It can be distracting of course however we don't need to read or acknowledge.
It's a platform for people to give opinions on subject they want to type about which is fine. Can't give carte blanche of course as certain things are hard to defend. I would agree with education and upbringing being key factors in how best to conduct yourself on social media platforms.
Social Media or anti-social media
The biggest one, Facebook, themselves admit on built-in addictive features to get people hooked on the site while data mining people's private data. There are plenty of articles and videos on this so don't need to go into much detail in this thread.
Much more concerned about the lack of privacy social media sites provide than people I don't have any feelings towards and likely will never meet talk a lot of b*llocks!
If black people followed Anthony Joshuas instructions and boycotted white businesses, it would be likely to create more racism, rather than less.
This problem will never be improved by creating more division.
Racism is more likely to be about Comp vs Comp.
'Distance travelled'...
Rather than measure absolute attainment of an A* grade for a middle class, privileged child with all of the support mechanisms in place but
Recognise B for an underprivileged child in 'difficult' home circumstances, where the distance they may have travelled is greater
If institutions continue to ignore the fact that many people are subconsciously racist, then racism continues. "Privilege" relates in considerable part to race.
Take, as an example, the studies about the same person applying for the same jobs, with the same CV, where someone uses their African name or an Anglicised version of it. The difference in the amount of interviews achieved is staggering.
another bugbear relates to many (not all) internships. Plum jobs that shape a career. Deliberately given no salary whatsoever. to ensure that only white, privileged kids, get them.
The point I was making is that Eton is just as unavailable to millions of white kids as it is to anyone else.
So the overwhelming majority of cases where kids are competing will be between kids that will have all attended a Comp.
If you could improve the situation through legislation, we wouldn't be where we are now.
I have been surprised in my working life, by the racism that exists.
I recall an instance where the company that I worked for bought a place in the Lake District.
I had gone there to set things up.
We had difficulty in recruiting sales staff locally, so I decided to recruit from elsewhere, and provide them with accommodation.
I recruited 4 staff from ethnic minorities.
None of them survived for very long, as they couldn't meet their sales targets.
This was at least partly because of the number of racist members of the general public that were not prepared to go through a sales pitch with any of these staff.
They arrived, often refused to shake hands, turned on their heels and left.
A small number also offered abuse.
I was flabbergasted at first, and had I not seen it with my own eyes, probably wouldn't have believed it.
The procedure was we had a phone team that convinced couples living within a 2 hour radius to turn up for a sales pitch, in return for an incentive in the form of a free gift.
I spoke to all these people to ensure that they understood that they would not be receiving the free gift.
So they were prepared to drive a total of 4 hours in many cases, in order to not receive a free gift because they were openly racist.
In 20 years I never once saw this happen to a white member of staff.
Racism has become more sneaky. Let's use public schools as an example. You are right, of course, that most of us could never aspire to Eton.
But when a job says "public school educated", or "well spoken" they tend to mean "White".
All you posted was Linekar's tweet, followed by a bizarre comment about racism and lines being blurred about acceptability, and I responded in kind.
The target of the joke, if it even qualifies as a joke, is not black people or even BLM. There isn't even a target ffs. The mistake he's made is posting a terrible joke, not a racist one.
The lines are not blurred, the line is intact. It's the 'search for racism anywhere you can find it' mob who appear blurred.
Apologies to anyone who is offended by the above whitesplanation.
People have always been sneaky when circumventing legislation.
Some prominent politicians are clearly racist.
I hate to give him a mention, but Nigel Farage, often dubbed the most influential politician in our lifetimes, is undoubtedly a racist.
Both major political parties are regularly accused of racism.
As are the police force, and the army.
One of the disadvantages of social media is that it not only allows people with extreme views to have a voice, it permits them to form groups of people with similar views.
I am a firm believer in leopards and spots.