The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[HanoiVillan]

37 minutes ago, blandy said:

What the hell is wellness culture? is it a good thing or a bad thing? do I need to worry about it and do a petition, or am I safe to carry on my life in ignorance?

Will yoghurt turn me fascist?

There's a useful definition here:

'The $4.5trn wellness industry – the universe of clean eating and super foods, juices, mylks, supplements, skincare routines and self-care baths, boutique gyms, yoga, mindfulness, meditation, CBD, crystals, alternative medicine, holistic anything – has never been so seductive.'

(from: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2020/06/dark-side-wellness-industry)

That article looks at some of the general problems with 'wellness' - most obviously, the way it individualises poor health outcomes - but doesn't look at the recent phenomenon of many of these people giving space on their Instagram accounts to QAnon memes and other far/alt-right shit.

[Davkaus]

Well, there's some good ideas in there that we'd all benefit from, and some absolute madness.

What's the point in me investing in so many crystals if I've still got to eat salad?

[ender4]

13 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

What's the point in me investing in so many crystals if I've still got to eat salad?

That's a good point.

I say eat the crystals and invest in salad.

[magnkarl]

15 hours ago, blandy said:

What the hell is wellness culture? is it a good thing or a bad thing? do I need to worry about it and do a petition, or am I safe to carry on my life in ignorance?

Will yoghurt turn me fascist?

I'm as confused as you.

It's the first time I've heard 'Ibiza', 'yoga' and 'wellness' used in the same context. Scary.

[Xela]

"self care baths"

I often have a bit of self care during my morning shower.

[Davkaus]

8 minutes ago, Xela said:

"self care baths"

I often have a bit of self care during my morning shower.

It's a lot more hygienic in the shower, I'll give you that. 

[HanoiVillan]

On 27/04/2018 at 07:50, blandy said:

Sarah Champion has been brilliant on the grooming gangs

Appreciate this is dragging up an extremely old post, and not doing so to point score against @blandy, because Champion's work and arguments at the time were extremely popular in the media. However, it's important to note that the Home Office today published long-delayed research that casts huge doubt on her argument.

In 2017, she wrote an article in The Sun in which she said, and I quote, Britain has 'a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls'. She later apologised for the 'extremely poor choice of words', but her argument that this was a British Pakistani problem remained unchanged. In May this year, again writing in a Murdoch property - The Times this time - she wrote 'when you at the convictions of what are identified as grooming gangs in the media by far the majority of perpetrators are of Pakistani heritage.'

However, note today's news:

Grooming gangs come from ‘diverse backgrounds’, says Home Office as review finally published

'Grooming gangs come from “diverse backgrounds”, a Home Office review has concluded.

The research, originally promised by Sajid Javid in 2018, was published on Tuesday following a government U-turn.

The Home Office previously said releasing the paper would not be in the “public interest”, in response to a Freedom of Information request by The Independent, but committed to making it public after a petition signed by more than 130,000 people.

The paper said that although a number of high-profile grooming cases, including Rotherham, Rochdale and Telford mainly involved men of Pakistani ethnicity, “links between ethnicity and this form of offending” could not be proven.

“Research has found that group-based child sexual exploitation (CSE) offenders are most commonly white," it added.

“Some studies suggest an over-representation of black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations. However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending.”'

more on link: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/grooming-gangs-review-race-religion-home-office-b1774161.html

So it may or may not be the case that some groups are over-represented compared to their share of the population, but it absolutely is not the case that 'by far the majority of perpetrators are of Pakistani heritage', as she stated this year.

Champion's comment on this has been a retweet of the Independent article.

[Wainy316]

7 hours ago, Davkaus said:

It's a lot more hygienic in the shower, I'll give you that. 

It's a nightmare, upon contact with water it seems to have this affect:

[darrenm]

Watching the left on Twitter is fascinating these days. Twitter becomes kind of a panopticon to view how all of the factions operate. These are what I would say are the groups:

Blairite and anti Corbyn: tend to be very aggressive and rude but claim abuse when anyone who looks remotely socialist replies to them. John McTiernan, Luke Akehurst, a million others.

Previously Corbyn, now anti: was vaguely Pro Corbyn for a little while but now wants to be taken seriously and not seen as part of the rabble. Very focused on optics. James Melville, Sunny Hundal

Sensible left: still pro Corbyn but doesn't focus everything on him and wouldn't be especially bothered if he was around or not. Sometimes media acceptable and happy to go against the cranks to say what they think is right. Owen Jones, Ash Sarkar, Rachel Shabi

Sh*tpost left: the cool bros who fake newspaper articles about Jo Swinson killing a squirrel, Ian Austin liking dogs a bit too much and Mike Gapes having a fetish with milk. Loosely related to the Trevor B*stard Extended Universe. Very entertaining but sometimes really not helpful.

Angry commies: the people who are very convinced that every bit of antisemitism against Corbyn is a smear and that you're not allowed to ever say that Corbyn has ever been wrong. Very pro Chris Williamson and Kerry Ann Mendoza.

These groups are quite broad and you do see some people moving between them. Today's argument between the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front is whether Corbyn should be giving an interview with The Canary. Anyone to the right of the sh*tposters has decided that KAM is antisemitic and that the Canary is very problematic while the angry commies (the cranks) have decided that if Corbyn has decided to give them an interview they must be fine.

It's entertaining if nothing else. But it's so fractured and at war that they won't be able to do anything. Everyone bar the Blairites is very distrustful of Starmer so are taking more chunks off him than any Tory. The Labour Party is an absolute mess at the moment. Starmer really hasn't helped by being far too authoritarian about things. Most CLPs are full of varying amounts of Corbynites anyway so resignations are happening everywhere. The Labour Party *should* be able to capitalise on the mess of the Tories at the moment but is so interested in infighting that it can't. I don't see how the broad church can stay this broad.

[Seat68]

I will agree mostly with that Darren, it is a mess. If we take this thread it used to be the tories coming in and kicking Labour, these days it’s Labour voters kicking the party or each other. 
Can’t see that changing any time soon. Also to fall in with the Blairite aggressive and rude theory. **** you. 

[bickster]

How long before Jehovahs new "project" turns into a full bown party?

[darrenm]

Just now, bickster said:

How long before Jehovahs new "project" turns into a full bown party?

There's a lot of call for it but I don't see it. I think the moment he becomes officially ex Labour and isn't the thorn in Starmer's side he's easier to ignore and become irrelevant.

[darrenm]

And to ramble on while I've got the train of thought,

The cranks aren't bad people. They're just very dedicated to what they believe in. They're where the left right horseshoe theory probably has some truth because they tend to be anti vaxxer, pro conspiracy theory. 

But they just need something/one to get behind. A cause. They got that with Corbyn. That needed to then be Starmer. It's not recognised enough that all of the left elected Starmer because he looked like being Corbyn with a BBC haircut. I don't know why he hasn't played to that crowd.

[darrenm]

Final one tonight.

Examples of the takes. 

The previously pro Corbyn:

 

The sensible left:

the cranks:

 

 

 

 

 

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

Examples of the takes. 

I would humbly submit that there could easily be a lot of crossover between the categories of "previously pro-Corbyn" and "sensible left".

I'd wager that the people on the left who moved from "he seems alright" over time to "him being leader is not a good thing for the party or the country" is a pretty large number. 

In fact, given he resigned as leader, one could argue that Corbyn himself could be classed as "previously pro-Corbyn!"

[HanoiVillan]

14 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Champion's comment on this has been a retweet of the Independent article.

A couple of further updates on this:

1 - The misinformation that she was in large part responsible for spreading is now 'fact':

2 - I had somehow missed that she is literally the Shadow Equalities Minister

Given that, is it good enough for her to simply tweet a link to an article? Bearing in mind that the claim that the report disproves was in fact in the public domain largely because of her in the first place? And what was Starmer thinking, appointing her to this role? Hard not to think that she got the role precisely *because* she's a complete danger on this issue.

[blandy]

14 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Appreciate this is dragging up an extremely old post, and not doing so to point score against @blandy, because Champion's work and arguments at the time were extremely popular in the media. However, it's important to note that the Home Office today published long-delayed research that casts huge doubt on her argument.

Ouch, much snark.

 “Not to point score, but I’ll just quote out of context, tag on a bit about the Sun and right wing media and then post something that argues against a different point to that originally made”

Nice.

The discussion and comment 3 years ago was about MPs who are the genuine article, who get stuff done, “walk the walk”, are competent .  Champion pursued help and belief in and justice for the victims of a grooming gang, when because of sensitivities around race and the circumstances of the children (poor, troubled homes, drink, drugs) councils and police etc were not doing what they should have done.  What she had yet to write? / already written? in the Sun was nothing to do with my comment on MPs who had made change happen on domestic abuse, child abuse, payday lenders, green causes and had stood up for principles of justice.  And I included my patented Tory gag.

On 27/04/2018 at 07:50, blandy said:

I think there are quite a few MPs like that, people who walk the walk. Stella Creasy almost single handedly got these payday lenders much better regulated, Sarah Champion has been brilliant on the grooming gangs, there’s Caroline Lucas, Jess Phillips, Sarah Woollaston, Ken Clark, Kier Hardie....all these people regardless of their politics seem to me to be capable, genuine, honest and in it for the right reasons. There’s others, too.

@OutByEaster? mentioned he looks at if MPs do things the way he’d like them to be done, and then worries about competence afterwards. You could make the case that all of those listed above (including Tory Stu’s sister, Laura Pidcock) show that competence is the key, and that there’s more than one way to skin a cat.

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Bearing in mind that the claim that the report disproves

And while I’m bone picking, a spot of pedantry. It doesn’t “disprove” the claim (nor does it do the opposite). 
 

Quote

The report concluded that the “existing data would not answer the question of the relationship between ethnicity and child sexual exploitation” (CSE), and that it “was not possible” to say whether certain groups are over-represented among abusers.

“Disproves” is very inaccurate.

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

And while I’m bone picking, a spot of pedantry. It doesn’t “disprove” the claim (nor does it do the opposite). 
 

“Disproves” is very inaccurate.

Champion - 'when you at the convictions of what are identified as grooming gangs in the media by far the majority of perpetrators are of Pakistani heritage.'

Report - “Research has found that group-based child sexual exploitation (CSE) offenders are most commonly white,"

[HanoiVillan]

19 minutes ago, blandy said:

Ouch, much snark.

 “Not to point score, but I’ll just quote out of context, tag on a bit about the Sun and right wing media and then post something that argues against a different point to that originally made”

Nice.

It wasn't meant as snark, or sarcasm; you should read the words as they are written and not try to find a hidden meaning behind them. I quote your words there only to demonstrate the point that Champion previously received a lot of praise for her work in this area, and I believe that praise should be reconsidered in light of both this report and the reality that the far right have spent the last few years recruiting off her work.