thetrees Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Chris Grayling has banned books in prison. http://www.leftfootforward.org/2014/03/the-prison-book-ban-is-not-just-nasty-but-bizarre/ In brazil they encourage prisoners to read books, that has to be a better way. As the article states, a bizarre and populist move. If they are lucky enough to be taken prisoner in Brazil, they get to read books. I really don't think that Brazil is a great example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Chris Grayling has banned books in prison. http://www.leftfootforward.org/2014/03/the-prison-book-ban-is-not-just-nasty-but-bizarre/ In brazil they encourage prisoners to read books, that has to be a better way. As the article states, a bizarre and populist move. If they are lucky enough to be taken prisoner in Brazil, they get to read books. I really don't think that Brazil is a great example.Read the article? It says EVEN in Brazil they are encouraged to read books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) ...these people are socialists..Not really. They have no chance of power, so they say things which appeal, or might appeal to their target audience outside of those who'd vote for them for purely racist reasons. so they say things which might appeal to folk who are unaware of their extreme racist nature. Folk who might be alarmed by immigration or multi-cultural nature of our society, but aren't outright racist. They're basically scooping for support from as wide an audience as they can get, and they use seemingly "fair" stuff to try and pull in that audience. They're not for actual fairness, obviously, or for actually treating people equally. That much is self evident, I'd have thought. They're no more socialist or left wing than [insert name of right wing, but non-racist party of your choosing]. They're not about standing up for poor folk who are non-white, they cannot be socialist by definition, whatever they or others might say.Exactly, which is why they tap into the poorer, so called 'working class' areas, and which is why what 'success' they have enjoyed has been in such areas. Your typical BNP voter, and fortunately there are not too many of them, would otherwise vote Labour. People with extreme right wing views are not generally attracted to the left in politics. I think that you will find that those with 'extreme right wing views' (Racists) don't particularly understand what is what in politics, which is why BNP, EDL and the like draw their support from so called 'working class' areas where there are a larger number of the poorly educated who don't really understand. Most, if not all of the areas are otherwise Labour strongholds, hence the observation that it is from the Labour vote that BNP get their support. Edited March 24, 2014 by thetrees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers13 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Yeah, I went back and read the bnp healthcare ideas and what they say they want to do actually makes a lot of sense. What they'd actually do is probably far different of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Chris Grayling has banned books in prison. http://www.leftfootforward.org/2014/03/the-prison-book-ban-is-not-just-nasty-but-bizarre/ In brazil they encourage prisoners to read books, that has to be a better way. As the article states, a bizarre and populist move. If they are lucky enough to be taken prisoner in Brazil, they get to read books. I really don't think that Brazil is a great example.Read the article? It says EVEN in Brazil they are encouraged to read books. I still don't think that Brazil is a good example. An acquaintance of mine was kidnapped in Sao Paulo a few years ago and taken into a favella and held with some other hostages. The story as he told it was, despite the fact that they had taken mobile phones off everyone, a Belgian guy had a second phone that they didn't get. The police picked up on his signal, went in and got all hostages out safely. All of the kidnappers were killed, even though some could have been taken prisoner. So you might get to read a book in a Brazilian prison, but only if you make it that far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Brazil is encouraging prisoners to read books, we are not. Who is right, who is wrong? I agree with the conclusions presented within the article, that we are wrong, and prisoners should be encouraged to read books. The article posses the question that even if Brazil, with its poor reputation can get this right, why can't we? What are your views on the banning of books in prison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Brazil is encouraging prisoners to read books, we are not. Who is right, who is wrong? I agree with the conclusions presented within the article, that we are wrong, and prisoners should be encouraged to read books. The article posses the question that even if Brazil, with its poor reputation can get this right, why can't we? What are your views on the banning of books in prison? Based upon the flimsy article that you quoted, I have no view on that particular subject. The article states that there is a ban on *sending* books to prisoners, and appears to have been sensationalised into making the reader believe that it is a total ban. The writer then picks up on some project in Sao Paulo (Brazil is run on a state by state model), in a patronising effort to put forward, in his mind, 'some third world country' as somehow being better than the UK on the subject of prisoner welfare. I would be more interested in reading an article about why the ban on sending is taking place, if it is, rather than some commentator twisting things up to accommodate his beliefs, and the beliefs of his target audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) But probably not that good, I bet most of the jobs are under the living wage.The living wage is £7.65 per hour outside of London, isn't it?We have provided you with a link to the Aldi website that says they pay store assistants a minimum of £7.95 per hour.Unless you can provide evidence that these jobs are, in fact, not being paid at that rate (perhaps they aren't but we've seen nothing to counteract it apart from your hunches) then we ought to take the evidence presented that they are indeed jobs for which Aldi provide more than the living wage (all of these jobs were outside London). Edited March 24, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 People with extreme right wing views are not generally attracted to the left in politics.I'm not sure that racism and xenophobia (and, lesserly, protectionist or anti-immigration policies) are solely the preserve of the 'extreme right'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 But probably not that good, I bet most of the jobs are under the living wage.The living wage is £7.65 per hour outside of London, isn't it? We have provided you with a link to the Aldi website that says they pay store assistants a minimum of £7.95 per hour. Unless you can provide evidence that these jobs are, in fact, not being paid at that rate (perhaps they aren't but we've seen nothing to counteract it apart from your hunches) then we ought to take the evidence presented that they are indeed jobs for which Aldi provide more than the living wage (all of these jobs were outside London).Aldi have many jobs advertised offering less than £7.65 for stock assistants on various job websites but as neither of us know the pay and hours being offered, you go with your hunch, I'll go with mine. It's a side issue, whether the jobs are low pay, or very low pay. The startling thing is the number of people applying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Brazil is encouraging prisoners to read books, we are not. Who is right, who is wrong? I agree with the conclusions presented within the article, that we are wrong, and prisoners should be encouraged to read books. The article posses the question that even if Brazil, with its poor reputation can get this right, why can't we? What are your views on the banning of books in prison? Based upon the flimsy article that you quoted, I have no view on that particular subject. The article states that there is a ban on *sending* books to prisoners, and appears to have been sensationalised into making the reader believe that it is a total ban. The writer then picks up on some project in Sao Paulo (Brazil is run on a state by state model), in a patronising effort to put forward, in his mind, 'some third world country' as somehow being better than the UK on the subject of prisoner welfare. I would be more interested in reading an article about why the ban on sending is taking place, if it is, rather than some commentator twisting things up to accommodate his beliefs, and the beliefs of his target audience.Maybe they can get their books from a prison library. What's this governments record when it comes to the availability of libraries outside of prison? What is to be achieved by making books harder to get hold of? I think we should definitely take a lesson from Brazil on this and actively encourage reading in prisons. I cannot think of a reason not to allow books in, can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Grayling has previous for this sort of thing. The last one was banning prisoners getting parcels at christmas, here. And of course he's the person behind the savage cuts on legal aid. He's a weird bloke. Sometimes on the radio he can sound reasonable and measured, but he keeps coming out with spiteful, nasty and vindictive policies. I suspect he's a religious bigot, one of the kind of blokes who a couple of centuries ago would be sentencing child thieves to be whipped, before attending church and congratulating himself on how wisely he administers justice. I see his wife is paid £40k of our money to be his little helper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 "Sometimes on the radio he can sound reasonable and measured" so did Stuart Hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 It was a nice try, in a Rugby sense because he has scored one there. It is typical right wing thinking - "Oh no, that might affect me!" me, me me. So in your world, when politicians of all colours going into the next general election, ask people to consider the issues that affect them, then ALL of the politicians, and ALL of the electorate are right wing. Because that's what people will be asked to vote on, particularly by Labour, the issues that affect them. So because a politician asks me to think of myself and only myself, that automatically makes me do so, thus confining me to the individualistic hell that is the right wing? How about I ignore them and cast my vote based on which party I believe will further benefit society as a whole? Am I not allowed to do that? Absolutely! But there is a definitely a lot to be said for voting entirely out of self-interest and it cannot be denied that a wish to live in a particular type of society is still self-interest. Everyone voting out of self-interest would seem to be the only way to arrive at the synthesis of all views which democracy is supposed to deliver. Voting out of idealism certainly does not guard against manipulation because whether the ideology is right-wing or left-wing, they are usually based upon some abstract notion of what amounts to the greater good, whether that is some kind of socialist utopia and/or the myths and fantasies of nationalism. Ultimately, ideologies usually require coercion to compel the less ideological to comply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Aldi have many jobs advertised offering less than £7.65 for stock assistants on various job websites but as neither of us know the pay and hours being offered, you go with your hunch, I'll go with mine.My point was that you were presenting a case on here that was contrary to the evidence being provided without showing any evidence to back up your case (just 'various websites' say - leaving other people either to find these things themselves or, perhaps mnore likely, to dismiss your argument as, on the face of it, without evidence).It's not as though your posts highlight a problem with linking to other sites.You could just have said, "It would appear from this advert that Aldi pay stock assistants at a lower rate (£7 per hour) than store assistants." The startling thing is the number of people applying.Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Why are you taking this line of argument? Questioning my honesty because I didn't provide a link. If you wanted proof, a two second search on a job site with keywords is all it takes, as you have demonstrated.It is startling that so many people are applying for so few positions. I wonder how many people in the crowd are actually counted as unemployed. Are pay and conditions so bad now that a low pay position in a supermarket would be a step up, and not a job market entry level level job. Are these things not bothersome to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 If you wanted proof, a two second search on a job site with keywords is all it takes, as you have demonstrated.It isn't (or shouldn't be) up to me to provide evidence for the position you take.It's not about questioning your 'honesty' but suggesting to you that if you want other people to take your arguments seriously and get involved in discussing the issues with you then you ought to show them some respect and provide the evidence that you have already found to back up your arguments (or say that you have none if you don't).It is startling that so many people are applying for so few positions. I wonder how many people in the crowd are actually counted as unemployed. Are pay and conditions so bad now that a low pay position in a supermarket would be a step up, and not a job market entry level level job. Are these things not bothersome to you?There is a vast difference between something being startling and something being concerning.The labour market is a concern (for many more reasons than a simple example of the ratio of applicants to vacancies) but, unlike you, I am not startled by the situation as it seems to me the product of changes over the last few decades and I can't see the route that it is going down changing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Ok you're not startled but concerned. And I was being disrespectful. Time on your hands much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Another MP on trial this week...sigh. But this one is for something I consider positive for a change! Here's a link! http://www.carolinelucas.com/media.html/2014/03/21/my-trial/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Brazil is encouraging prisoners to read books, we are not. Who is right, who is wrong? I agree with the conclusions presented within the article, that we are wrong, and prisoners should be encouraged to read books. The article posses the question that even if Brazil, with its poor reputation can get this right, why can't we? What are your views on the banning of books in prison? Based upon the flimsy article that you quoted, I have no view on that particular subject. The article states that there is a ban on *sending* books to prisoners, and appears to have been sensationalised into making the reader believe that it is a total ban. The writer then picks up on some project in Sao Paulo (Brazil is run on a state by state model), in a patronising effort to put forward, in his mind, 'some third world country' as somehow being better than the UK on the subject of prisoner welfare. I would be more interested in reading an article about why the ban on sending is taking place, if it is, rather than some commentator twisting things up to accommodate his beliefs, and the beliefs of his target audience. Maybe they can get their books from a prison library. What's this governments record when it comes to the availability of libraries outside of prison? What is to be achieved by making books harder to get hold of? I think we should definitely take a lesson from Brazil on this and actively encourage reading in prisons. I cannot think of a reason not to allow books in, can you? I think you will find that libraries are a local not national government responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts