ALM V BLM

So Patel "believes" that to be the case. No actual substance at this point.

Forgive me all for also not being too invested in anything we hear from Patel.

Yeah - ridiculous. What is she basing those beliefs on? Has she launched an investigation?
 
Leicester sweatshops are an open secret, it seems, and have been for some time:
Not sure why it's a surprise, goes back to the 60s-70s when Subcontinent Asians and African Indians immigrated and went straight to textiles. Many women home worked all night on their sewing machines, whole streets and rows of flats engaged in that 'secret' micro-economy. Will always arise when there's a hungry working and earning ethic with zero education and qualifications and widespread racist barriers to mainstream work. That evolved/devolved into the fast fashion sweatshops.

It exists in many more places and with a variety of communities.
 
Here we go again, dismissing opinions because we don't like the person saying it, or they are on the 'wrong' political side. We're now at the point where we are even ignoring BAME people out of deference to other BAME people.

We have to grow out of this.

We're taking what Priti Patel says with a vast pinch of salt because of past form.
 
We're taking what Priti Patel says with a vast pinch of salt because of past form.

Past form doesn't mean she's wrong on this issue. The linked article suggests she formed that opinion based on the testimony of a local Sikh community leader. And we've been hearing this story for years now; police hamstrung from investigating community problems in order to maintain racial harmony. There's no smoke without fire. Ignore it though, she's a dirty tory so persona no grata in these here parts.
 
Here we go again, dismissing opinions because we don't like the person saying it, or they are on the 'wrong' political side. We're now at the point where we are even ignoring BAME people out of deference to other BAME people.

We have to grow out of this.

No what we have to grow out of is jumping to conclusions. Which is exactly what you have done here. I'm not interested in the "political" side. I actually don't like Patel because she's a terrible politician and her record is a disgrace, and she should not hold the office of Home Secretary. I'm not into rewarding failure.

She is however entitled to believe what she says, but I and everyone else should demand the substance to show that the police did in fact turn a blind eye due to fear of being branded racist.

It's a very serious accusation and one that needs merit.
 
Past form doesn't mean she's wrong on this issue. The linked article suggests she formed that opinion based on the testimony of a local Sikh community leader. And we've been hearing this story for years now; police hamstrung from investigating community problems in order to maintain racial harmony. There's no smoke without fire. Ignore it though, she's a dirty tory so persona no grata in these here parts.

TBH - I think this bolded part of the post says more about your leanings than mine. You could have left this part out, but instead decided to stoke some fires.
 
Taking Patel's words at face value is a tall order based on her appalling record. Still aint told the truth about the Netanyahu meetings. Would wager she's done exactly the same with India's Modi.
 
She is a friggin traitor and everyone knows it.writing cheques that she couldnt cash and stabbing our govt in the back.
And even if she is not wrong in this case, tell the flippin police to do their job properly miss home secretary.
Too many people stayed quiet for too long while the victims of racism, sexism and other isms suffered in almost total silence.
Now that their voices are raised many cant bare it and will have a dig at anything they say or do.
I would have thought that if you dehumanise someone for long enough they might say and do a few irrational things when they are able to speak.
 
She is a friggin traitor and everyone knows it.writing cheques that she couldnt cash and stabbing our govt in the back.
And even if she is not wrong in this case, tell the flippin police to do their job properly miss home secretary.
Too many people stayed quiet for too long while the victims of racism, sexism and other isms suffered in almost total silence.
Now that their voices are raised many cant bare it and will have a dig at anything they say or do.
I would have thought that if you dehumanise someone for long enough they might say and do a few irrational things when they are able to speak.

What are you even talking about?
 
I thought there was discussion on this thread about political correctness in regards to racism having gone too far.
 
Pervs are the same no matter what race and are often protected equally.

But the grooming gangs were supposedly covered up due to political correctness, and the fear of being labeled an "ist" or "phobe" for speaking an inconvenient truth.

I have never been more convinced that we need less political correctness instead of more, and we must be willing to risk offending people, lest a powerful idea go uncontested or an important truth go unspoken.
 

But the grooming gangs were supposedly covered up due to political correctness, and the fear of being labeled an "ist" or "phobe" for speaking an inconvenient truth.

I have never been more convinced that we need less political correctness instead of more, and we must be willing to risk offending people, lest a powerful idea go uncontested or an important truth go unspoken.
That's simply not true. They were covered up due to incompetence, laziness and / or ineptness.
 
I refer you to the earlier post


I'm with Rusty on this one - both woke and virtue signalling used to be deployed to identify extreme cases, now they're just thrown into the conversation as a shorthand way to help shut down any discussion on the slightest hint of any progressiveness. They're the latter day "political correctness gone mad" but tend to be used in a more aggressive manner.
 
That's simply not true. They were covered up due to incompetence, laziness and / or ineptness.
About our ads

You don't think it played a part, at all, in any of the instances uncovered, only incompetence and laziness, across multiple departments in multiple towns? Even though the Rotherham inquiry mentioned the fear of social workers stating the ethnicity of the perpetrators and some of them being ordered not too? If so I'm happy to agree to disagree.

I do agree incompetence and laziness played a significant part aswell. Especially since taking the path of least cultural/political resistance at the expense of correctly doing your job in public service, is both incompetent and lazy. My view of political correctness being a hindrance to the general good still stands.
 
About our ads

You don't think it played a part, at all, in any of the instances uncovered, only incompetence and laziness, across multiple departments in multiple towns? Even though the Rotherham inquiry mentioned the fear of social workers stating the ethnicity of the perpetrators and some of them being ordered not too? If so I'm happy to agree to disagree.

I do agree incompetence and laziness played a significant part aswell. Especially since taking the path of least cultural/political resistance at the expense of correctly doing your job in public service, is both incompetent and lazy. My view of political correctness being a hindrance to the general good still stands.

I think it's an easy way out for people who've not been willing to tackle a potentially difficult issue.

If someone ordered me not to report something because of race (or any reason to be fair), I'd:

A) Ask for it in writing

And

B) Report it anyway

And

C) Report the person who'd told me not to report it in the first place. Anonymously if necessary, on one of the numerous sites I could use

That's what I'm trained to do, and morally I see it as my responsibility to do.
 

But the grooming gangs were supposedly covered up due to political correctness, and the fear of being labeled an "ist" or "phobe" for speaking an inconvenient truth.

I have never been more convinced that we need less political correctness instead of more, and we must be willing to risk offending people, lest a powerful idea go uncontested or an important truth go unspoken.
So can i then ask what the reasons are for all the other cover ups like saville?
I still think punish them all the same regardless of race or religion.
 
So can i then ask what the reasons are for all the other cover ups like saville?
I still think punish them all the same regardless of race or religion.
Similarly the fear of rocking the boat and all the repercussions.

Yep, punish them all according to their crimes. I don't think anybody is saying punish them any more or less because of their race or religion.
 
Because its commercialism pretending to be activism. The bottom line is and always will be the principal concern.

Call me a traditionalist, but I prefer it when altruism is practised for it's own sake, by people with expertise in that area.
People have ethical values. People own and/or manage businesses, maybe some of these people genuinely run their businesses on ethical principles because they believe in those principals. Afterall consumers make decisions on the basis of their ethical concerns so why can't companies?
 
People have ethical values. People own and/or manage businesses, maybe some of these people genuinely run their businesses on ethical principles because they believe in those principals. Afterall consumers make decisions on the basis of their ethical concerns so why can't companies?

I’d been meaning to post something similar so thanks

however even if a company changes its policies to follow societal trends just for commercial reasons then so be it, they are chasing the money and isn’t that what all companies do .

to call it pathetic just seems to be naive
 
Here's a decent video from the BLM protest's in Australia to give you an idea of the mindset of some BLM protesters. The ALM question is raised.


How is that crap a "decent video"?

Edit: I see I should have caught up with the whole thread before posting. Pointing out the racist whatboutery was last week.
 
Last edited:
It could even be said that real change only happens when corporates get on board and add their weight to a particular change , all a bit chicken and egg.

it does seem that the anti progressives Show their true colours when they object to people Or companies showing solidarity to a cause . You could even call it (un)virtuous signalling
 
Last edited:
People have ethical values. People own and/or manage businesses, maybe some of these people genuinely run their businesses on ethical principles because they believe in those principals. Afterall consumers make decisions on the basis of their ethical concerns so why can't companies?
There's a lot of "maybe"s in that. And you're right, maybe they do. Or maybe they're doing it because
(a)they're virtue signalling*
(b)they're afraid that they will face a backlash if they don't make a public statement.

As for A, going back to the previous discussion about the term, I agree that along with woke, snowflake etc it has become diluted through overuse. But that doesn't mean that it is no longer an actual issue.

And for B, this is also a real thing. People in the States have been called out for not being vocal enough in their support for BLM. They didn't criticise it or anything, they just didn't proclaim their righteous support loudly enough.
 
And for B, this is also a real thing. People in the States have been called out for not being vocal enough in their support for BLM. They didn't criticise it or anything, they just didn't proclaim their righteous support loudly en

any examples of this
 
People own and/or manage businesses, maybe some of these people genuinely run their businesses on ethical principles because they believe in those principals. Afterall consumers make decisions on the basis of their ethical concerns so why can't companies?

No doubt, but it's not always easy to tell when they are being sincere and when they are lazily capitalising on the commercial opportunities presented by a passionate current affairs hot topic. Politicians do it constantly for votes, so I dont see why we should suspend our cynicism for corporations. If it's sincere, and more importantly helps its cause, then fine. Good for them.

Not everyone is convinced that corporate support for BLM is of much practical value






It could even be said that real change only happens when corporates get on board and add their weight to a particular change , all a bit chicken and egg.

What 'change' are we talking about? Publically agreeing that 'bad things are bad' isn't adding weight to anything. I'm glad for you that you are impressed by this but dont make out that I'm 'anti-progressive' for not being.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom