peterms

Well it's simple on a moral level, and most people would probably agree with it. In practice, a "colour-blind" approach where people say they treat everyone equally leads in practice to people not being treated equally. Sometimes that's because some people say they are practising equal treatment while knowingly doing the opposite. More often, it's because people unconsciously give preference to people who share similar backgrounds as them, share cultural references and so on. We've all had the experience of the job interview where you find a shared interest with the interviewer and then things go that much better, haven't we? And the more similar the backgrounds, the more likely it is that you share interests, reference points, even friends. I'm sure many of those City boys who recruit their fellow public school boys earnestly believe they are selecting without fear or favour, being totally objective. By comparison, it's been pretty frequently demonstrated that juries are more likely to believe people who are good-looking, regardless of the evidence. They don't know they are doing it, but it happens. So if we can't rely on people of good intent managing a fair set of outcomes across the breadth of a complex society with all sorts of inbuilt disadvantage, of which while doing an interview they may be at best only dimly aware, what should we do? Well, several things. Outlawing direct discrimination, obviously. Educating people in the ways discrimination may happen even if they are not trying to discriminate is another. Letting people challenge outcomes if they think they have been disadvantaged is a third. And creating the opportunity to employ people who can broaden the social mix is another - not if it means you employ numpties, but yes if it helps create a more balanced workforce where better understanding can develop. After all, the balance of feeling on this site against racism is very different to what you would have found 40 years ago, if the internet existed. Why? Only because living in an increasingly mixed society has raised the bar in terms of awareness of issues, and reduced our tolerance of racism. But as for simply having a law outlawing discrimination - been there, done that, worked in parts and not in others, need a more sophisticated approach.

Yes, they are in favour of both corporal and capital punishment. For capital punishment they say there should be incontrovertible proof of guilt, such as DNA evidence or "being caught red-handed", which will bring a laugh for anyone with the slightest knowledge of how many people have previously been convicted but were in fact innocent. They are also in favour of casual assault by the police, and they actually use the phrase "clip round the ear". The policies are both knowingly populist (eg singling out paedophiles), and highly authoritarian. Consistent with the general approach of their other policies, in fact. Though at one point the populism triumphs, where they want police uniforms to be demilitarised, and to have police on foot and bikes instead of in cars (so, walking unarmed round the inner city assaulting mouthy youths? Wonder what the police will think of that). They do not as far as I can see mention cricket on the village green.

Actually, no, Peter. I think racism is something which stands independent both of economic and social 'wings'. The combination resulting in a fascist conglomerate would, naturally, tend towards the right - I think that you are arguing a position solely becuase of your own political position. My point is that authoritarianism is not the preseve of the right; nor is racism; nor is populism. Your argument that it 'tends to be more associated with' doesn't really help the situations where people and the electorate need to be more analytical of the electoral position presented to them. Oh dear. I really feel like I've been put in a box here. I specifically stated that authoritarianism and populism are not the province of either left or right, and I think you perceive I've said the opposite, because you perceive me to have a particular political position which you associate with the view you think I must have.

That's rather what I said with regard to authoritarianism and populism, isn't it? But racism tends to be more associated with the right, don't you find?

No they aren't on the soci-economic scale they are fairly central, slightly to the left of Labour and the Tories, to the right of the Liberal Party Not arguing for the sake of it Bicks but from the Labour supporting New Statesman: They really are lefties but with hardcore racism thrown in. That's why they've taken their support from Labour voters not Conservatives, who mainly went to UKIP. The BNP are not left wing. You seem to have taken a comment from an article (that in respect of the policies listed, the BNP position is further left than the current LP position) and built a wobbly edifice of extrapolation. BNP economic policies draw from the left, right and centre. If there's a common thread, it's that they tend to be populist. But what sets them apart from other parties, what is really distinctive about them, is the large degree of authoritarianism combined with socially, and especially racially, reactionary policies. The rest of the policies tend to be there as an afterthought - in fact the section you quote comments that Griffin has drawn up a wider range of policies than they usually have - and to draw in support from disaffected voters who can excuse themselves by claiming it was really this or that policy, rather than what is wholly distinctive about the BNP, that drew their vote. Authoritarianism can feature in both left and right parties. But you will find that the combination of racism, populism and authoritarianism is a hallmark of fascist parties, generally thought of as right rather than left, to the extent that this particular spectrum makes much sense when discussing this sort of set of policies.

Glencoe, today.

Racism is the defining characteristic of the BNP. If you're not a racist, they won't let you in. And if you're not a racist, you have no business voting for them. Being former Labour and TU people doesn't mean you're not racist. Here's just one example of a racist scumbag who freeloaded on the Labour Party while it was convenient to do so, without ever living up to or owning the values of that party. Equally, there have been TU figures who have been vicious racists. Are you aware that it's a tactic of the BNP to conceal the racist element, until people have been drawn in to the cosy circle? A standard revolutionary group tactic, true, and one which perhaps fools the uninititiated - but lies and deceit, all the same. (Similar to the recruiting tactics of Moonies and some churches, actually. It works with suggestible people who welcome new social contacts, so they do it with university students in their first term, away from home and feeling lonely). Shane Meadows made a film about the way the fascists recruit people into their sordid little gangs. What is really shocking is that 9 people on this forum admit to having voted for them. Has the level of political education in this country sunk so low that people can really kid themselves that a vicious, thuggish, racist party is really about helping pensioners across the street and fighting to save British industry? Sick, sick, sick.

sounds like a boring film to me ...:-) But have you seen it?

I quite liked the Bourne films. But then I watched Three Days of the Condor, not having seen it for decades, and realised that just about everything in the first Bourne film is a direct and total ripoff from that film. Except that the Bourne film gives the hero superpowers, where in Three Days, the hero is boringly normal, unable to overpower people with a flick of the wrist or scale buildings with a few deft moves.

Yes he did, though it started out well. Players let him down, but he couldn't adjust. Despite being the best manager in the history of the world, ever. The end looked desperate - throw on all the attacking players you have, and hope for the best. But despite having a team worth the GDP of Malawi, they got stuffed. Really glad to see them humbled like this. Arrogant, droning gits when they're winning, petulant, fouling gits when they lose. And the supporters are worse.

When you say posters do you mean people who post on here? :? I often tour hospitals advocating the benefits of the "spit polish" technique and the " reaching through your legs whilst sat down " concept. It's nice to have a hobby.

One has one's butler do it. Just as soon as the fellow's finished cleaning out one's moat.

I hope to god that is some kind of sick joke :shock: In quoting, you missed the bit about "posing a threat"...which sort of pointed it out...

I was happier with Knight's performance than you, John, but never mind. The big point for me is made in your first para. We hadn't won for 3 months, and clean sheets were a distant memory. And yet we're fifth. Says a lot about how well we've done over the whole piece. If someone had offered a bet at the start of the year that we could go winless for three months and still be in the top 5, everyone would have thought them mad. Could also add that with 3 games still to go, we have at least equalled last year's position, qualified for Europe earlier, and avoided getting into Europe via the back door. Not as good as a top 4 position, but good progress, and something more to build on.

Would rather he stayed, but if he wants to go, we should let him go with good grace for what is accepted as a reasonable price. But if he does decide to find another club, he needs to manage it in a way which is far less disruptive than last year's nonsense.

He's just amazing. Several other clips available, and I thought was quite good. Takes place in the centre of Edinburgh. I know most of the locations. He has inspired me! Tomorrow, I shall take my zimmer frame and replicate his feats!

I found American Tabloid a bit meandering, and won't finish it. The LA Noir trilogy is good, and of course LA Confidential and Black Dahlia.

Excession is one of the later "Culture" novels. It's not that they're a sequence exactly, but they draw on ideas from earlier ones. Starting with Consider Phlebas might make it easier to get into.

His first two sentences give an absolutely clear statement of the purpose of the piece. And I don't see anything in the rest of it that's proposing an unnecessarily complicated explanation where a simpler one would work better (unless you think the only answer is "they're just not good enough"). Good article, well explained, and some thought-provoking comments.

I like the bit where they bring in the expert to add his perceptive insights: "At this point in time she's exhibited that she probably does not have much thought for the safety of others on the road ". Thanks for that, Professor.

What I'm trying to say is that if someone at that level of the game was living that sort of lifestyle now, the coverage would be much greater. Yes, Best had a lot of media attention, but people get similar levels of attention now for far less interesting lifestyles. More column inches to fill, more tv stations, more radio sports programmes...never mind the internet.

A lot of people have said something similar. I can only speak for myself but I don't worship the ground MON treads or feel there's any faith I have to keep. I think he has made the odd mistake (I went ballistic when I first heard he was sending a weakened squad to Moscow). I wasn't too happy about the lack of proper right backs. Do I want MON as manager? Yes. Do I want him to radically change the way he is or the way he does things? No. So what do i say? No? Undecided? It depends? I said yes. And I said yes because he's the best manager we've had in years and because there's no one else out there I'd rather have as manager. If some insist in seeing totally in black and white that's their prerogative. I think that's a good summary. I'm entirely happy having him as manager. I'm not entirely happy with every one of his decisions, and I don't expect to be. I don't see him as faultless or beyond reproach, and I think it's ludicrous that a few people can't seem to distinguish between being very happy with having him as manager (and therefore prepared to accept his decisions, despite happening to disagree with some of them) and some sort of hero worship.

That was a really good, thoughtful piece. Thanks for taking the time to produce it. A couple of comments on some of the questions you pose. "So if it was necessary to prioritise one competition above the other then with the chances of Champions League qualification seemingly the more likely to be rewarded and the more glittering potential prize then surely that was the target to take aim for?" Yes it was, and if we have, as seems likely, lost the CL place, that doesn't make the decision wrong. "...would it have been the right thing in January to bulk up the squad with numbers rather than to wait until the right player who could add quality to the squad in the long term became available?" This is the long-term vs short-term issue. Those who say we should have strengthened more in January are right, of course, but if the players weren't available who MON saw as the right players long-term, should we just have bought whoever we could? I would say no. If that means buying people who don't fit the team ethic, they might add to the squad strength on paper, but detract from it in practice. Robinho, for example. "Is George Graham right? Were our players not mentally up for it? Does this apply to us in isolation or to other clubs and players as well?" No, he's not. It's a self-serving, self-congratulatory answer. The game was dirtier then, and pitch conditions were far worse. Training methods were more basic, dietary techniques unheard of. And yet the game was played with one substitute only, and with players who smoked. This is not mental toughness, George, it's an entirely different scenario. Harder challenges, but far slower pace, far less demanding levels of fitness, nothing like the media attention (imagine George Best under the media spotlight lijke Beckham, or, for different reasons, Tommy Smith's fouling getting televised like Fellaini's). You just had it a lot easier, George. "Our expectations have been raised and perhaps they are a little to high just now." Yes, I agree. It's great that we have higher expectations, and I welcome it. It's just that if we don't immediately live up to the vaulting expectations we are developing, maybe the answer is to reflect on the overall direction of travel, rather than complain that we haven't arrived quite as quickly as we would like.

Isn't the point of a discussion board that you do explain yourself, not just state your view and expect it to be accepted? That would be pretty tedious, don't you think?

I get it. You're going to ask three times, aren't you? This and the reference to death is the Easter theme?