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

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

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,"

It says “most likely... white” it caveats multiple times with “difficult to determine” , “lack of clarity” , “confusion”, “under reporting” and so on. That can’t be cited as disproving something. It’s own conclusion says 

Quote

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.

Her assertion seems therefore to be unsupported by empirical data, data is generally lacking, her assertion is likely to be wrong. It is absolutely not “disproven”

[HanoiVillan]

Just now, blandy said:

It says “most likely... white” it caveats multiple times with “difficult to determine” , “lack of clarity” , “confusion”, “under reporting” and so on. That can’t be cited as disproving something. It’s own conclusion says 

Her assertion seems therefore to be unsupported by empirical data, data is generally lacking, her assertion is likely to be wrong. It is absolutely not “disproven”

Okay; I don't think it helps her case that she made a racially inflammatory claim that is 'unsupported by empirical data' or 'likely to be wrong', as opposed to 'disproven', but I take your point that the report does acknowledge the weakness of the data.

 

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Okay; I don't think it helps her case that she made a racially inflammatory claim that is 'unsupported by empirical data' or 'likely to be wrong', as opposed to 'disproven', but I take your point that the report does acknowledge the weakness of the data.

 

Indeed. She made an assertion based on personal experiences in supporting victims in her constituency, without having the benefit of a home office or other study and made her view public in the press. Careless for an MP given the subject matter.

And now we know there’s a real lack of coherent collection of data and detail in this area. It’s one of those “fear to tread” things, because presumably any effort to tie ethnicity or other such background data e.g. religion, into grooming will look to some like an effort to be racist, or to sow divisions.  And they might have a point.

[bickster]

Hot on the heels of Starmer appearing on LBC, here's the reincarnation of L Ron Hubbard himself appearing on The Canary, a website that has more than once published AS articles and opinions

He's not really trying to get the whip back is he?

[blandy]

36 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

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.

You presumably went to the trouble of searching for her name in this thread, found a quote of me mentioning her, though not discussing her sun article, then tagged me by name, then used a very common technique of “I’m not saying that...” which is frequently used to imply the exact opposite. You could have just quoted her directly, or said “ A few years ago Sarah Champion got into hot water over an article, here’s an update...

[darrenm]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

Hot on the heels of Starmer appearing on LBC, here's the reincarnation of L Ron Hubbard himself appearing on The Canary, a website that has more than once published AS articles and opinions

He's not really trying to get the whip back is he?

This is what I was referring to in my post last night:

My opinion: it's about as bad as giving an interview to The Daily Mail, The Times, The Telegraph, The Sun, The Express and all the others who indulge in and increase racism and xenophobia. I don't like The Canary, I stopped reading it about a month after I started because I didn't want Daily Mail style bending of the truth or sensationalism. But I don't think it's any worse than any right wing newspaper.

[HanoiVillan]

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

Indeed. She made an assertion based on personal experiences in supporting victims in her constituency, without having the benefit of a home office or other study and made her view public in the press. Careless for an MP given the subject matter.

And now we know there’s a real lack of coherent collection of data and detail in this area. It’s one of those “fear to tread” things, because presumably any effort to tie ethnicity or other such background data e.g. religion, into grooming will look to some like an effort to be racist, or to sow divisions.  And they might have a point.

On the first paragraph; it is certainly extremely careless. If she were arguing 'at the court hearings I have personally attended, the vast majority have been . . .' or 'looking at a limited sample of trials at Rotherham crown court, the vast majority have been . . .' that would have been one thing, but that isn't at all what she did. She also didn't write about the issues in the local paper, but in the national media. It is the latter that is most important, as whatever good she may or may not have achieved within her constituency is going to be outwighed by the national reach of the country's most popular right-wing tabloid and most popular right-wing broadsheet.

On the second paragraph, it's clear that there needs to be better data collection, agreed.

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

You presumably went to the trouble of searching for her name in this thread, found a quote of me mentioning her, though not discussing her sun article, then tagged me by name, then used a very common technique of “I’m not saying that...” which is frequently used to imply the exact opposite. You could have just quoted her directly, or said “ A few years ago Sarah Champion got into hot water over an article, here’s an update...

As I say, I want to connect this to the praise she has received in the past. When I say, 'I'm not saying that . . .', I mean 'I'm not saying that . . .'. We may have very different opinions on many things, you and I, but I am not going to be snarky in the way you read that.

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, darrenm said:

This is what I was referring to in my post last night:

My opinion: it's about as bad as giving an interview to The Daily Mail, The Times, The Telegraph, The Sun, The Express and all the others who indulge in and increase racism and xenophobia. I don't like The Canary, I stopped reading it about a month after I started because I didn't want Daily Mail style bending of the truth or sensationalism. But I don't think it's any worse than any right wing newspaper.

or LBC?

[darrenm]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

or LBC?

Actually, yeah. James 'the ego' O'Brien can't redeem that pit of hate.

[blandy]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I want to connect this to the praise she has received in the past

Fair enough. I didn’t praise her for her article, (I dunno if she’d even written it back then? [edit - she had, apparently]) but for “walking the walk” on the child abuse and for being genuinely "in it" as an MP to do good. And that stands.

[blandy]

3 hours ago, darrenm said:

This is what I was referring to in my post last night:

My opinion: it's about as bad as giving an interview to The Daily Mail, The Times, The Telegraph, The Sun, The Express and all the others who indulge in and increase racism and xenophobia. I don't like The Canary, I stopped reading it about a month after I started because I didn't want Daily Mail style bending of the truth or sensationalism. But I don't think it's any worse than any right wing newspaper.

I half agree - there's the comment on the Canary/Mail etc. with which I completely agree - they're nasty and biased and so on.

But where I disagree is Starmer writing a column in the right wing press is seeking to talk to, and be heard by people he needs to persuade to switch to Labour from Tory voting.

What Corbyn's doing, as ever, is preaching to the converted. Doubling down, if you like. I don't have a problem with it now he's a backbencher of little consequence, to be fair to him.

But it is the job of Party leaders to reach across divides and seek to persuade e.g. right wing(ish) voters to maybe give Labour more of a hearing - people who don't read the Mirror or Guardian or Indie or i. So in that respect Starmer is doing his job well, Corbyn's just being Corbyn.

[bickster]

My point about LBC is that a lot of people were criticising Starmer for even being on there (see @blandy's post above) but a lot of those very same people will be tuning in to The Canary to listen to L Ron Hubbard, presumably talking about his new vanity project

[bickster]

Talking of the vanity project. None of his team are very tech savvy are they

Not only is the websites address theCorbynProject.com when surely it should be a .org but they also failed to register the more obvious projectforpeaceandjustice.com which has now been hijacked but TheCorbynProject.org has now also been hijacked

It's not like this doesn't happen all the time, standard practice is to buy All the domains you can think of

[darrenm]

45 minutes ago, bickster said:

My point about LBC is that a lot of people were criticising Starmer for even being on there (see @blandy's post above) but a lot of those very same people will be tuning in to The Canary to listen to L Ron Hubbard, presumably talking about his new vanity project

Yep. Personally I have no interest in either.

Although, to draw another parallel. If Corbyn were to sit on the same stage as Jackie Walker, Tony Greenstein, people seen as problematic due to previous antisemitic comments, he would be criticised.

Starmer is co-hosting a radio show with an objective racist: Nick Ferrari. Who has said to a black woman "why do you stay in this country?" and "fairly soon there could be a Jamaican rapist or paedophile living on your road" when talking about deportation flights. I get speaking outside the bubble and I agree with your comments about the difference between Corbyn going on the already converted media vs Starmer going on the 'definitely not left wing' show but he's literally sharing a platform with an unapologetic racist. I'm not comfortable with that. It was kind of the straw that broke the camel's back for me and I finally cancelled my membership because of it.

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, darrenm said:

co-hosting

Is a guest on would be more accurate for starters

[darrenm]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

Is a guest on would be more accurate for starters

Nah, it's a regular show. He's definitely co-hosting it with Ferrari.

[markavfc40]

I can see why Starmer is going on Ferrari's show as he gets to reach people that wouldn't usually listen to him so therefore gets to hopefully win some of their votes come the next election. He could wait half hour and go on the James O'Brien show but in the main he'd be preaching to the converted.  By going on to Ferraris show doesn't mean he condones the views of the presenter or those phoning in though.

I don't know LBC's listening figures but I'd imagine they hold up pretty well against their rivals in terms of talk radio and I'd imagine the breakfast show in particular does well.

If Labour is to win the next election they are going to have to draw back people who used to vote for them or draw in people who usually wouldn't and the best way to do that is to engage with them. 

Edited December 16, 2020 by markavfc40

[HanoiVillan]

I don't have a problem with Starmer going on LBC, even though Ferrari is a horrible shit. As others have said, you need to find ways to communicate with voters and get a hearing, and a radio phone-in seems like a reasonable way to do it. Does LBC have much reach outside London though?

[HanoiVillan]

I missed the other day that Tracy Brabin has been selected as the Labour candidate for the West Yorkshire mayoralty, and has said that if she wins - and she must be heavily favoured - she would resign her Westminster seat, so Batley & Spen may well be one of the first by-elections in this Parliament.

[ml1dch]

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't have a problem with Starmer going on LBC, even though Ferrari is a horrible shit. As others have said, you need to find ways to communicate with voters and get a hearing, and a radio phone-in seems like a reasonable way to do it. Does LBC have much reach outside London though?

Not in terms of broadcast. But politicians like going on it because it's very clippable for social media. 

And if you're in London anyway with an hour to spare, why not.