Black Lives Matter

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Solutions? Some practical ways to ensure equality for all disenfranchised groups? Apart from a government actually insisting that everyone gets the same treatment whatever the situation,might be a start.

There is no simple solution. Not one that can be answered here. We all have different opinions and viewpoints based on our own surroundings and experiences or what we believe based on the type of media we rely on.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Solutions? Some practical ways to ensure equality for all disenfranchised groups? Apart from a government actually insisting that everyone gets the same treatment whatever the situation,might be a start.

Do you think some groups should get better treatment than others ?

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by peanut

Just lately I've seen more racism from black against whites but right now we (white) can't say anything.

If you have proven examples of racism from anyone to anyone else then yes you can say something, and neither BLM or anyone else are trying to stop you.

---------- Post added at 09:25 ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Do you think some groups should get better treatment than others ?

Who is suggesting that currently?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

If you have proven examples of racism from anyone to anyone else then yes you can say something, and neither BLM or anyone else are trying to stop you.

---------- Post added at 09:25 ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 ----------

Who is suggesting that currently?

I was asking Maggy about her post.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Do you think some groups should get better treatment than others ?

I don't believe I even suggested it.That's the usual red herring of those who don't want to engage in a realistic discussion.

[tweetiepooh]

It's still all a heart issue and that's hard to change (impossible) to do just with external changes though improving the external should still happen.

But I was thinking about social and locality and
1)Richer areas until poor families (are) settle(d) there. Then the middle class move out taking the wealth with them - race can be a factor but can just be not like us. It's harder to pull up and pull down. It doesn't even have to be bad behaviour, if say the new comers run a business from the home or other things that "disrupt".
2)Poor areas regardless of race -we encourage kids to do well so they can improve themselves, get educated, get a good job - all good but then in many cases they move out of the area.
3)In some cases wealthier people see "opportunity" in poorer areas, move in, spend money "gentrify" the area and make it more expensive so poorer people may need to move out
4)There are some in the poorer areas who don't want to see the area progress as they lose their control

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

It's still all a heart issue and that's hard to change (impossible) to do just with external changes though improving the external should still happen.

But I was thinking about social and locality and
1)Richer areas until poor families (are) settle(d) there. Then the middle class move out taking the wealth with them - race can be a factor but can just be not like us. It's harder to pull up and pull down. It doesn't even have to be bad behaviour, if say the new comers run a business from the home or other things that "disrupt".
2)Poor areas regardless of race -we encourage kids to do well so they can improve themselves, get educated, get a good job - all good but then in many cases they move out of the area.
3)In some cases wealthier people see "opportunity" in poorer areas, move in, spend money "gentrify" the area and make it more expensive so poorer people may need to move out
4)There are some in the poorer areas who don't want to see the area progress as they lose their control

1) Delusional to say bad behaviour isn't the main factor. If the "poor" behave well, nobody will really notice any effect.
2) Fact of life, that "doing well" means moving away from a "poor" area. Same all around the World.
3) Nice areas become more expensive to live in. If the area becomes "nicer", that must be because the "not nice" people have moved out. Harlem was "nice" until "we're not allowed to say" happened.
4) Control aka Power.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Solutions? Some practical ways to ensure equality for all disenfranchised groups? Apart from a government actually insisting that everyone gets the same treatment whatever the situation,might be a start.

Best of luck with that when Religion rears its ugly head

[tweetiepooh]

Originally Posted by nomadking

1) Delusional to say bad behaviour isn't the main factor. If the "poor" behave well, nobody will really notice any effect.
2) Fact of life, that "doing well" means moving away from a "poor" area. Same all around the World.
3) Nice areas become more expensive to live in. If the area becomes "nicer", that must be because the "not nice" people have moved out. Harlem was "nice" until "we're not allowed to say" happened.
4) Control aka Power.

1)"Bad" behaviour doesn't always mean the same. It could just be having more cars, or less nice cars or driving a motor scooter.
2)Yes fact of life but if they want to improve their area they may need to stay and build up the area from the inside. Make the improvement "organic"
3)Again true but ideally it should happen more slowly and allow the current residents to also build up. The problems really happen when the richer buy don't really move in. Either they buy to rent/holiday home or they use as dorm but spend outside the area.
4)Yup, there are those who do very nicely from poverty. And this is where it can really butt up to the BLM debate. It's unfortunately true that many of these are black and so are their victims (who may have to work for them). If that's true it means the police intelligence will show this and likely target black people because there is a higher chance of a "successful" stop.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

1)"Bad" behaviour doesn't always mean the same. It could just be having more cars, or less nice cars or driving a motor scooter.
2)Yes fact of life but if they want to improve their area they may need to stay and build up the area from the inside. Make the improvement "organic"
3)Again true but ideally it should happen more slowly and allow the current residents to also build up. The problems really happen when the richer buy don't really move in. Either they buy to rent/holiday home or they use as dorm but spend outside the area.
4)Yup, there are those who do very nicely from poverty. And this is where it can really butt up to the BLM debate. It's unfortunately true that many of these are black and so are their victims (who may have to work for them). If that's true it means the police intelligence will show this and likely target black people because there is a higher chance of a "successful" stop.

1) Unless the "poor" cars are that dilapidated, it's unlikely to make much of a difference. If they're that poor they won't have cars to be visible in the first place.
2) The enhanced job opportunities are unlikely to be in that area. Why shouldn't they want to move?
3) The 2nd/holiday home argument is a bit of nonsense. When have the "poor" ever been able to buy properties there? Why should being "poor" give them the automatic right to live there, buy up the properties and then sell them on for a profit, and you're back to square one. The wages and job opportunities are said to be that bad, that no matter what, they couldn't afford to buy a property.

4) If an identifiable group has a higher chance of finding something, then that is exactly the reason they SHOULD be stopped. Eg Several years ago at the Notting Hill Carnival, a group of police decided NOT to search somebody, another group of police weren't so fussy and searched them, finding a gun in the process. Little point stopping little old ladies on the street. Then again if little old ladies on the street were found to be involved in crime, then they too would be stopped.

[Pierre]

I’m officially bored of the BLM Issue, Lisa Nandy and the BBC, with the absolute laughable reaction and reporting Of what Dominic Raab said today about the “taking the knee” action.

I wish Aliens would invade, or Yellowstone erupt or something.

They’re failing to take the country with them.

[richard s]

Uncle Ben's rice to change the box cover image...


https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/18/uncle...ices-12869101/


So do not put any black brothers on any product. The world's gone mad.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by richard s

Uncle Ben's rice to change the box cover image...


https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/18/uncle...ices-12869101/


So do not put any black brothers on any product. The world's gone mad.

Called it.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...&postcount=518

[richard s]

I remember seeing this at the cinema when I was 9...


https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/18/uncle...ices-12869101/


Is this to be banned...

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Solutions? Some practical ways to ensure equality for all disenfranchised groups? Apart from a government actually insisting that everyone gets the same treatment whatever the situation,might be a start.

There's a train of thought that says that treating someone equally isn't the same thing as treating them the same way. This is why you, for example, get different qualifying conditions for job applications from minorities to encourage them to apply where they are under represented and to try to level out injustices of the past.

I think that doing this causes more problems than it solves though; apart from for disabled people who could need special treatment for practical reasons eg if a non disabled person asked a supermarket to carry their shopping for them to their car, they would probably be refused on the grounds that it was a cash & carry outlet. However, someone with a disability that required extra help would be legally entitled to receive this extra help.

This leads to the disabled person obtaining a superior service, but it would be appropriate to do so.

I don't think that race should lead to any more (or less) favourable treatment. It fuels and causes resentment etc and outweighs any positives that arise from such measures.

---------- Post added at 21:09 ---------- Previous post was at 21:05 ----------

Originally Posted by richard s

Uncle Ben's rice to change the box cover image...


https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/18/uncle...ices-12869101/


So do not put any black brothers on any product. The world's gone mad.

We are going to end up in a situation where nobody dare represent black people on their products (in the same way that many are now too afraid to mention them in conversation for fear of saying the 'wrong' thing).

Blanking them out and pretending that they no longer exist is hardly going to help matters.