Thanks Tigerr, bang goes my plans to get a Jag! That`s not the image I want to project! Looks like I`m stuck with the 13 year old Kangoo van with the noisy wheel bearing for now. Mind you those tartan slippers I saw in the shops do look rather comfortable

Edited November 25, 20241 yr by Bee

I'm not "stuck with" my 12 year old Skoda, but I will stick with it for another few years. 

 

A frequent source of pleasure is parking it in spaces where no SUV, or no Jaguar, will fit. 

 

 

...and even so, it's bigger than the Cortinas and Sierras I used to drive. 

 

 

On 22/11/2024 at 17:02, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Especially if the child turns out to be transgender.

Of which there are hardly any.

And even fewer who would not have been happy enough in their lives in their actual sex before we were all told anyone can be any sex they like, it's "normal".

This is a typical case of the "progressives" looking harder and harder for stuff to get upset about

 

On 22/11/2024 at 23:51, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I think it is more what you haven't said that the other poster was referring to. You quite clearly stated,"....There was a disturbing article in The Times the other day about the latest thing to upset student campuses......." which was what precisely?

 

You made a lot of fuss on another thread regarding an investigation into the 'journalist' Alison Pearson however when you look at what she was responsible for she was seriously damaging her journalistic credentials. She complained that  Metropolitan Police Officers didn't want to pose with a bunch of genocide supporters, the 'friendly' British Friends of Israel but, to use her words (on the now deleted post) were happy to pose with a bunch of Jew-haters. It turns out that the Officers seen with the group she allege were Jew Haters were in fact the Greater Manchester force,so not the Met, the photo was taken some time ago and the Officers concerned were alongside some Pakistani supporters of the imprisoned Pakistani leader Imram Khan, so nothing whatsoever to do with any 'jew haters' at all. Has she apologised or acknowledged her error? No, she merely deleted the post when it was exposed as total bullox. The force concerned are not taking the matter any further, but it certainly sounds to me like she was wilfully stirring the sh*t regardless of any factual accuracy, which for a journalist is a cardinal sin hence my earlier placing her Journalist occupation in inverted commas. If freedom of speech now means that you can accuse anyone of anything without consequence, perhaps we should abolish the laws on Libel.

It was a factual accuracy that the police called round to her house. Just that is completely unacceptable.

 

We live in a free country, just about, nobody should be prosecuted (or threatened) for saying anything unless it is libellous or slanderous.

People have a right to free speech.

People have a right to be upset.

People do not have a right not to be upset, particularly if it limits others right to free speech.

 

>>There was a disturbing article in The Times the other day about the latest thing to upset student campuses......." which was what precisely?<<

 

It was about some young man who made pass* at a woman and the snowflake concerned objected and the student union got involved and he was more or less officially ostracised. In this pathetic over sensitive world we live in nobody can ever get upset, it's the ultimate sin, and anything and everything is subsumed to that diktat.

 

* literally just that. There was no suggestion of sexual assault or even sexual harassment (not that that even means anything anyway).

Edited November 27, 20241 yr by Justin Smith

1 hour ago, Justin Smith said:

Of which there are hardly any.

And even fewer who would not have been happy enough in their lives in their actual sex before we were all told anyone can be any sex they like, it's "normal".

This is a typical case of the "progressives" looking harder and harder for stuff to get upset about

 

It was a factual accuracy that the police called round to her house. Just that is completely unacceptable.

 

We live in a free country, just about, nobody should be prosecuted (or threatened) for saying anything unless it is libellous or slanderous.

People have a right to free speech.

People have a right to be upset.

People do not have a right not to be upset, particularly if it limits others right to free speech.

 

 

So calling a group of totally unconnected Pakistanis 'a bunch of Jew Haters' is in no way libelous or slanderous then? I kind of get the feeling that you don't understand what libel or slander actually means. Had an apology for her error been forthcoming then perhaps a visit would not be justified, but when she says something that is entirely fabricated to specifically stir up tension and declines to apologise then the visit was entirely justified. The Police reacted to a complaint that they had received, so it seems that when they do that they are criticised, and when they fail to make follow-up enquiries they are criticised. Probably best for them if they just stay in the Police Station if they will meet criticism for whatever they do.

4 hours ago, Justin Smith said:

 

>>There was a disturbing article in The Times the other day about the latest thing to upset student campuses......." which was what precisely?<<

 

It was about some young man who made pass* at a woman and the snowflake concerned objected and the student union got involved and he was more or less officially ostracised. In this pathetic over sensitive world we live in nobody can ever get upset, it's the ultimate sin, and anything and everything is subsumed to that diktat.

 

* literally just that. There was no suggestion of sexual assault or even sexual harassment (not that that even means anything anyway).

OK so sexual harassment isn't really a thing then. So you are sitting on a train or bus, minding your own business,and a gay man 'makes a pass' at you, are you comfortable with that? Or are you a 'snowflake'?

Perhaps Mr Smith should give us an explanation of exactly what he considers a "snowflake" and "woke".
Somehow I suspect they are nothing like the meanings others have.
He seems to be following certain other members of this forum with an alternative dictionary.

12 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Perhaps Mr Smith should give us an explanation of exactly what he considers a "snowflake" and "woke".
Somehow I suspect they are nothing like the meanings others have.
He seems to be following certain other members of this forum with an alternative dictionary.

If you're going to continue arguing with him (please don't, then he might go away!) I suggest you point him at Jo Brand's comment about "woke" -- because it describes him perfectly... 😉 

Edited November 27, 20241 yr by IanD

18 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

OK so sexual harassment isn't really a thing then. So you are sitting on a train or bus, minding your own business,and a gay man 'makes a pass' at you, are you comfortable with that? Or are you a 'snowflake'?

No I would not be comfortable with it, but that is nothing to do with being a snowflake. In my younger days (in the 80s.... A far better time) I had my ar5se slapped more than once by women in nightclubs. Whilst I would not recommend doing that these days I did not start shouting sexual assault, nor was I even tempted to do so. It would never have even occurred to me

The problem is the that term "sexual assault" is applied to so much these days that it is utterly diluted and I take no notice of it when it is mentioned. I can remember being shocked when I read about some young woman who got into a drunken snog with a young bloke and when he tried groping her boob she jumped up and started screaming sexual assault. Now let's just assume he only did it once* (as opposed to repeatedly trying it on with her repeatedly removing his hand) that really bought home to me just how over sensitive society has become, "Me too" has obviously gone far too far. I worry about my lad having to grow up in this world, where one false moving in the mating game can have the police onto you.

Frightening.

 

* which must have been the case because the police declined to press charges. And even if he had done that, some what ill advisedly....) why did why not just get up and walk off ? 

I'm glad I'm 77, no more hassle keeping attractive women from demanding sex, it used to take up too much of my time and was exhausting. 

I expect all the women who say they have been negatively affected by Mr Wallace are woke too?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd7n1e8n721o

 

Not to mention the roughly 110 who have come forward to complain about the culture of abuse at Harrods.

5 hours ago, Justin Smith said:

No I would not be comfortable with it, but that is nothing to do with being a snowflake.........

So what IS it to do with then? You don't like the idea of some random bloke making a pass at you? Ever thought that might also be the case with women?

4 hours ago, nb Innisfree said:

I'm glad I'm 77, no more hassle keeping attractive women from demanding sex, it used to take up too much of my time and was exhausting. 

I'm 77 too, what is your secret?

1 hour ago, system 4-50 said:

I'm 77 too, what is your secret?

False memory syndrome. 

On 23/11/2024 at 02:50, Justin Smith said:

He says some very insightful things.

One of the best is he is in favour of equality of opportunity* not equality of outcomes, whereas many "progressives" are really in favour of the latter over the former, even if they won't say it, or even admit it to themselves.....

 

* i.e. no discrimination, "positive" or not....

 

I don't think it is. Quite apart from anything when was the last time they abolished a law, or even just a regulation ?

Almost never.

Equality of achievement is very highly dependant on equality of  asset availability.

So much of the inequality, and infact growing inequality of outcomes, is a direct result of asset availability. Our impoverished are increasingly getting diminished access to assets. And an vastly increasing portion of those assets are intergenerational. Inherited assets.

 

The descendents of slave traders are still benefitting today.

Parents regardless of their wealth very largely went the best for their children. But  the  assets available to them to achieve this vary tremendously.

So some children in our societies suffer from insecure and inadequate housing, crap diet, good nutrition is actually expensive, poor access to health services, an increasing problem even now for the better off, and the minimum formal education our states deem to give them.

Others benifit from trophy housing, frequent restaurant meals, private orthodontists to straighten slightly ajar teeth and school trips abroad.

Is this "Equal Opportunity" Like Hell.

 

We are having this same debate here stirred up by our Libertarian Right Wing Act Party wanting to rewrite our founding treaty on the basis of "Equal Opportunity" whilst totally ignoring that Equal Opportunity requires an Equality of starting positions.

Without the equality of starting positions,  the arguments  instead end up advocating for extending the advancement of existing privilege.

The white middle class patriarchal,  nominally Christian, privilege.

 

The descendents of those granted South Island high country grazing leases in the mid 19th Century are still receiving substantial benifits from these windfalls. 

This is in contrast with the descendants of those Maori people, whose chiefs in 1840, negotiated a shrewd and enlightened Treaty with representatives of the British Crown. 

Maori  are instead over represented in all our measures of impoverishment.

At the time though  they owned all the land, but unsurprisingly did not have title deeds, and out numbered the settlers 40 to 1.

They did not cede Sovereignty to the Crown, that would have been entirely illogical, and they were shrewd.

But they did want British Protection against other, what they considered, and  probably correctly, less benign potential invaders. 

And they wanted a British flag for their trading ships, that were already providoring Sydney with Maori grown horticultural produce. 

And they wanted the, at times,  unruly settlers to be dealt to by  their own structured settlers law and order system.

And they wanted to learn European ways, they wanted education systems,  and benifit from European technology.

But as the largely British governed section of the population overtook Maori population the demands for more land as expressed  by the now majority of the people, were met by land confiscations and unconscionable land dealings facilitated by British legal systems and practitioners.

The will of the majority completly overrode Treaty terms.

Maori became impoverished in their own land. There was no equality of opportunity, Maori really only succeeded when they became honorary whites.

But nearly 50 years ago, and after concerted Maori representation and action, right up to Privy  Council level, it was finally more or less generally  conceded that the Treaty had not honoured and substantial injustices had occurred and infact were ongoing.

So the Treaty Setttlement process was begun, without a defined end.

The results so far have been stunning but for continuing Maori and therfore NZ advancement it must remain as work in progress.

There should not be a full and final anything.

A PWC report last year stated 

The Māori economy plays a crucial role in driving Aotearoa New Zealand's economic success and is experiencing significant growth - this is projected to continue. Over the last ten years, the Māori asset base has also grown at a significantly faster rate than the overall economy (NZ Herald, 2022). Today the Māori economy is valued at more than NZD$70bn, and estimates suggest it will have assets worth NZD$100bn by 2030 (NZTE, 2017).

https://www.pwc.co.nz/insights-and-publications/2023-publications/unlocking-the-potential-of-the-maori-economy.html

and

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/the-maori-economy-is-booming-and-will-be-worth-100-billion-by-2030/L73MCPZMUFGRVEXWQTXL7XC62Q/

This growth in asset base is far more then the value of Treaty Settlements.

But there is definite unease amongst our white community, those that feel that our Britishness is being displaced by "maorification"

Others, myself included think the addition of another potent strand in our diversity is enrichment.

Not one versus the other, one plus the other.

The unstated argument is that  former privilege is being eroded,  when in fact here,  in common with most of the rest of the Western world,  privilege is becoming increasingly concentrated. And much more reinforced by intergenerational transfer. Particularily wealth enabling private provision of enhanced healthcare and education. 

 

And the Treaty settlements are just compensation for land and assets improperly removed from Maori without, or with inadequate levies compensation.

 

On 23/11/2024 at 02:50, Justin Smith said:

He says some very insightful things.

One of the best is he is in favour of equality of opportunity* not equality of outcomes, whereas many "progressives" are really in favour of the latter over the former, even if they won't say it, or even admit it to themselves.....

 

* i.e. no discrimination, "positive" or not....

 

I don't think it is. Quite apart from anything when was the last time they abolished a law, or even just a regulation ?

Almost never.

Equality of achievement is very highly dependant on equality of  asset availability.

So much of the inequality, and infact growing inequality of outcomes, is a direct result of this asset availability. Our impoverished are increasingly getting diminished access to assets. And an vastly increasing portion of those assets are becoming intergenerational. Inherited assets.

 

The descendents of slave traders are still benefitting today.

Parents regardless of their wealth very largely went the best for their children. But  the  assets available to them to achieve this vary tremendously.

So some children in our societies suffer from insecure and inadequate housing, crap diet, good nutrition is actually expensive, poor access to health services, an increasing problem even now for the better off, and the minimum formal education our states deem to give them.

Others benifit from trophy housing, frequent restaurant meals, private orthodontists to straighten slightly ajar teeth and school trips abroad.

Is this "Equal Opportunity" Like Hell.

 

We are having this same debate here stirred up by our Libertarian Right Wing Act Party wanting to rewrite our founding treaty on the basis of "Equal Opportunity" whilst totally ignoring that Equal Opportunity requires an Equality of starting positions.

Without the equality of starting positions,  the arguments  instead end up advocating for extending the advancement of existing privilege.

The white middle class patriarchal,  nominally Christian, privilege.

 

The descendents of those granted South Island high country grazing leases in the mid 19th Century are still receiving substantial benifits from these windfalls. 

This is in contrast with the descendants of those Maori people, whose chiefs in 1840, negotiated a shrewd and enlightened Treaty with representatives of the British Crown. 

Maori  are instead over represented in all our measures of impoverishment.

At the time though  they owned all the land, but unsurprisingly did not have title deeds, and out numbered the settlers 40 to 1.

They did not cede Sovereignty to the Crown, that would have been entirely illogical, and they were shrewd.

But they did want British Protection against other, what they considered, and  probably correctly, less benign potential invaders. 

And they wanted a British flag for their trading ships, that were already providoring Sydney with Maori grown horticultural produce. 

And they wanted the, at times,  unruly settlers to be dealt to by  their own structured settlers law and order system.

And they wanted to learn European ways, they wanted education systems,  and benifit from European technology.

But as the largely British governed section of the population overtook Maori population the demands for more land as expressed  by the now majority of the people, were met by land confiscations and unconscionable land dealings facilitated by British legal systems and practitioners.

The will of the majority completly overrode Treaty terms.

Maori became impoverished in their own land. There was no equality of opportunity, Maori really only succeeded when they became honorary whites.

But nearly 50 years ago, and after concerted Maori representation and action, right up to Privy  Council level, it was finally more or less generally  conceded that the Treaty had not honoured and substantial injustices had occurred and infact were ongoing.

So the Treaty Setttlement process was begun, without a defined end.

The results so far have been stunning but for continuing Maori and therfore NZ advancement it must remain as work in progress.

There should not be a full and final anything.

A PWC report last year stated 

The Māori economy plays a crucial role in driving Aotearoa New Zealand's economic success and is experiencing significant growth - this is projected to continue. Over the last ten years, the Māori asset base has also grown at a significantly faster rate than the overall economy (NZ Herald, 2022). Today the Māori economy is valued at more than NZD$70bn, and estimates suggest it will have assets worth NZD$100bn by 2030 (NZTE, 2017).

https://www.pwc.co.nz/insights-and-publications/2023-publications/unlocking-the-potential-of-the-maori-economy.html

and

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/the-maori-economy-is-booming-and-will-be-worth-100-billion-by-2030/L73MCPZMUFGRVEXWQTXL7XC62Q/

This growth in asset base is far more then the value of Treaty Settlements.

But there is definite unease amongst our white community, those that feel that our Britishness is being displaced by "maorification"

Others, myself included think the addition of another potent strand in our diversity is enrichment.

Not one versus the other, one plus the other.

The unstated argument is that  former privilege is being eroded,  when in fact here,  in common with most of the rest of the Western world,  privilege is becoming increasingly concentrated. And much more reinforced by intergenerational transfer. Particularily wealth enabling private provision of enhanced healthcare and education. 

 

And the Treaty settlements are just compensation for land and assets improperly removed from Maori without, or with inadequate levies compensation.

 

3 hours ago, DandV said:

Equality of achievement is very highly dependant on equality of  asset availability.

So much of the inequality, and infact growing inequality of outcomes, is a direct result of asset availability. Our impoverished are increasingly getting diminished access to assets. And an vastly increasing portion of those assets are intergenerational. Inherited assets.

 

The descendents of slave traders are still benefitting today.

Parents regardless of their wealth very largely went the best for their children. But  the  assets available to them to achieve this vary tremendously.

So some children in our societies suffer from insecure and inadequate housing, crap diet, good nutrition is actually expensive, poor access to health services, an increasing problem even now for the better off, and the minimum formal education our states deem to give them.

Others benifit from trophy housing, frequent restaurant meals, private orthodontists to straighten slightly ajar teeth and school trips abroad.

Is this "Equal Opportunity" Like Hell.

 

We are having this same debate here stirred up by our Libertarian Right Wing Act Party wanting to rewrite our founding treaty on the basis of "Equal Opportunity" whilst totally ignoring that Equal Opportunity requires an Equality of starting positions.

Without the equality of starting positions,  the arguments  instead end up advocating for extending the advancement of existing privilege.

The white middle class patriarchal,  nominally Christian, privilege.

 

The descendents of those granted South Island high country grazing leases in the mid 19th Century are still receiving substantial benifits from these windfalls. 

This is in contrast with the descendants of those Maori people, whose chiefs in 1840, negotiated a shrewd and enlightened Treaty with representatives of the British Crown. 

Maori  are instead over represented in all our measures of impoverishment.

At the time though  they owned all the land, but unsurprisingly did not have title deeds, and out numbered the settlers 40 to 1.

They did not cede Sovereignty to the Crown, that would have been entirely illogical, and they were shrewd.

But they did want British Protection against other, what they considered, and  probably correctly, less benign potential invaders. 

And they wanted a British flag for their trading ships, that were already providoring Sydney with Maori grown horticultural produce. 

And they wanted the, at times,  unruly settlers to be dealt to by  their own structured settlers law and order system.

And they wanted to learn European ways, they wanted education systems,  and benifit from European technology.

But as the largely British governed section of the population overtook Maori population the demands for more land as expressed  by the now majority of the people, were met by land confiscations and unconscionable land dealings facilitated by British legal systems and practitioners.

The will of the majority completly overrode Treaty terms.

Maori became impoverished in their own land. There was no equality of opportunity, Maori really only succeeded when they became honorary whites.

But nearly 50 years ago, and after concerted Maori representation and action, right up to Privy  Council level, it was finally more or less generally  conceded that the Treaty had not honoured and substantial injustices had occurred and infact were ongoing.

So the Treaty Setttlement process was begun, without a defined end.

The results so far have been stunning but for continuing Maori and therfore NZ advancement it must remain as work in progress.

There should not be a full and final anything.

A PWC report last year stated 

The Māori economy plays a crucial role in driving Aotearoa New Zealand's economic success and is experiencing significant growth - this is projected to continue. Over the last ten years, the Māori asset base has also grown at a significantly faster rate than the overall economy (NZ Herald, 2022). Today the Māori economy is valued at more than NZD$70bn, and estimates suggest it will have assets worth NZD$100bn by 2030 (NZTE, 2017).

https://www.pwc.co.nz/insights-and-publications/2023-publications/unlocking-the-potential-of-the-maori-economy.html

and

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/the-maori-economy-is-booming-and-will-be-worth-100-billion-by-2030/L73MCPZMUFGRVEXWQTXL7XC62Q/

This growth in asset base is far more then the value of Treaty Settlements.

But there is definite unease amongst our white community, those that feel that our Britishness is being displaced by "maorification"

Others, myself included think the addition of another potent strand in our diversity is enrichment.

Not one versus the other, one plus the other.

The unstated argument is that  former privilege is being eroded,  when in fact here,  in common with most of the rest of the Western world,  privilege is becoming increasingly concentrated. And much more reinforced by intergenerational transfer. Particularily wealth enabling private provision of enhanced healthcare and education. 

 

And the Treaty settlements are just compensation for land and assets improperly removed from Maori without, or with inadequate levies compensation.

 

Equality of achievement is very highly dependant on equality of  asset availability.

So much of the inequality, and infact growing inequality of outcomes, is a direct result of this asset availability. Our impoverished are increasingly getting diminished access to assets. And an vastly increasing portion of those assets are becoming intergenerational. Inherited assets.

 

The descendents of slave traders are still benefitting today.

Parents regardless of their wealth very largely went the best for their children. But  the  assets available to them to achieve this vary tremendously.

So some children in our societies suffer from insecure and inadequate housing, crap diet, good nutrition is actually expensive, poor access to health services, an increasing problem even now for the better off, and the minimum formal education our states deem to give them.

Others benifit from trophy housing, frequent restaurant meals, private orthodontists to straighten slightly ajar teeth and school trips abroad.

Is this "Equal Opportunity" Like Hell.

 

We are having this same debate here stirred up by our Libertarian Right Wing Act Party wanting to rewrite our founding treaty on the basis of "Equal Opportunity" whilst totally ignoring that Equal Opportunity requires an Equality of starting positions.

Without the equality of starting positions,  the arguments  instead end up advocating for extending the advancement of existing privilege.

The white middle class patriarchal,  nominally Christian, privilege.

 

The descendents of those granted South Island high country grazing leases in the mid 19th Century are still receiving substantial benifits from these windfalls. 

This is in contrast with the descendants of those Maori people, whose chiefs in 1840, negotiated a shrewd and enlightened Treaty with representatives of the British Crown. 

Maori  are instead over represented in all our measures of impoverishment.

At the time though  they owned all the land, but unsurprisingly did not have title deeds, and out numbered the settlers 40 to 1.

They did not cede Sovereignty to the Crown, that would have been entirely illogical, and they were shrewd.

But they did want British Protection against other, what they considered, and  probably correctly, less benign potential invaders. 

And they wanted a British flag for their trading ships, that were already providoring Sydney with Maori grown horticultural produce. 

And they wanted the, at times,  unruly settlers to be dealt to by  their own structured settlers law and order system.

And they wanted to learn European ways, they wanted education systems,  and benifit from European technology.

But as the largely British governed section of the population overtook Maori population the demands for more land as expressed  by the now majority of the people, were met by land confiscations and unconscionable land dealings facilitated by British legal systems and practitioners.

The will of the majority completly overrode Treaty terms.

Maori became impoverished in their own land. There was no equality of opportunity, Maori really only succeeded when they became honorary whites.

But nearly 50 years ago, and after concerted Maori representation and action, right up to Privy  Council level, it was finally more or less generally  conceded that the Treaty had not honoured and substantial injustices had occurred and infact were ongoing.

So the Treaty Setttlement process was begun, without a defined end.

The results so far have been stunning but for continuing Maori and therfore NZ advancement it must remain as work in progress.

There should not be a full and final anything.

A PWC report last year stated 

The Māori economy plays a crucial role in driving Aotearoa New Zealand's economic success and is experiencing significant growth - this is projected to continue. Over the last ten years, the Māori asset base has also grown at a significantly faster rate than the overall economy (NZ Herald, 2022). Today the Māori economy is valued at more than NZD$70bn, and estimates suggest it will have assets worth NZD$100bn by 2030 (NZTE, 2017).

https://www.pwc.co.nz/insights-and-publications/2023-publications/unlocking-the-potential-of-the-maori-economy.html

and

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/the-maori-economy-is-booming-and-will-be-worth-100-billion-by-2030/L73MCPZMUFGRVEXWQTXL7XC62Q/

This growth in asset base is far more then the value of Treaty Settlements.

But there is definite unease amongst our white community, those that feel that our Britishness is being displaced by "maorification"

Others, myself included think the addition of another potent strand in our diversity is enrichment.

Not one versus the other, one plus the other.

The unstated argument is that  former privilege is being eroded,  when in fact here,  in common with most of the rest of the Western world,  privilege is becoming increasingly concentrated. And much more reinforced by intergenerational transfer. Particularily wealth enabling private provision of enhanced healthcare and education. 

 

And the Treaty settlements are just compensation for land and assets improperly removed from Maori without, or with inadequate levies compensation.

 

I agree, the trouble is with the ‘anti woke’ hammer is that it is often in the hands of people who will not accept detail in their thought. 
 

I put it to Justin to explain his level of understanding of the intersectional relationship between subsections of our society and safety. 
 

I suspect, and am happy to be wrong on this, however he reads as if his opinion comes directly from his own experience rather than considering others. It’s the same selfishness we see with Phil, it’s a me me me attitude that attaches itself to a movement to justify itself. 
 

I actually think there is an intelligent discussion to be had about offence and who owns it etc, however the ‘anti woke’ folk who post on here are just using that to further their own selfishness. 

22 hours ago, Stilllearning said:

I expect all the women who say they have been negatively affected by Mr Wallace are woke too?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd7n1e8n721o

 

Not to mention the roughly 110 who have come forward to complain about the culture of abuse at Harrods.

It depends what he did to them. You see that's part of the problem with the term "sexual assault", or even more extreme "sexual harassment", being bandied about so much, it just doesn't mean much anymore.

But I have to say whenever I hear of these cases form many years being dragged up my first reaction is why did they not say anything at the time ?

19 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

So what IS it to do with then? You don't like the idea of some random bloke making a pass at you? Ever thought that might also be the case with women?

Don't be obtuse.

I don't like the idea of gay sex. Don't get me wrong if they want to do that in private that's fine, I just don't want to see it thanks very much. There are more people than you seem to think who are uncomfortable at seeing two men being (sexually) affectionate.

9 hours ago, DandV said:

Equality of achievement is very highly dependant on equality of  asset availability.

So much of the inequality, and infact growing inequality of outcomes, is a direct result of asset availability. Our impoverished are increasingly getting diminished access to assets. And an vastly increasing portion of those assets are intergenerational. Inherited assets.

 

The descendents of slave traders are still benefitting today.

Parents regardless of their wealth very largely went the best for their children. But  the  assets available to them to achieve this vary tremendously.

So some children in our societies suffer from insecure and inadequate housing, crap diet, good nutrition is actually expensive, poor access to health services, an increasing problem even now for the better off, and the minimum formal education our states deem to give them.

Others benifit from trophy housing, frequent restaurant meals, private orthodontists to straighten slightly ajar teeth and school trips abroad.

Is this "Equal Opportunity" Like Hell.

 

We are having this same debate here stirred up by our Libertarian Right Wing Act Party wanting to rewrite our founding treaty on the basis of "Equal Opportunity" whilst totally ignoring that Equal Opportunity requires an Equality of starting positions.

Without the equality of starting positions,  the arguments  instead end up advocating for extending the advancement of existing privilege.

The white middle class patriarchal,  nominally Christian, privilege.

 

The descendents of those granted South Island high country grazing leases in the mid 19th Century are still receiving substantial benifits from these windfalls. 

This is in contrast with the descendants of those Maori people, whose chiefs in 1840, negotiated a shrewd and enlightened Treaty with representatives of the British Crown. 

Maori  are instead over represented in all our measures of impoverishment.

At the time though  they owned all the land, but unsurprisingly did not have title deeds, and out numbered the settlers 40 to 1.

They did not cede Sovereignty to the Crown, that would have been entirely illogical, and they were shrewd.

But they did want British Protection against other, what they considered, and  probably correctly, less benign potential invaders. 

And they wanted a British flag for their trading ships, that were already providoring Sydney with Maori grown horticultural produce. 

And they wanted the, at times,  unruly settlers to be dealt to by  their own structured settlers law and order system.

And they wanted to learn European ways, they wanted education systems,  and benifit from European technology.

But as the largely British governed section of the population overtook Maori population the demands for more land as expressed  by the now majority of the people, were met by land confiscations and unconscionable land dealings facilitated by British legal systems and practitioners.

The will of the majority completly overrode Treaty terms.

Maori became impoverished in their own land. There was no equality of opportunity, Maori really only succeeded when they became honorary whites.

But nearly 50 years ago, and after concerted Maori representation and action, right up to Privy  Council level, it was finally more or less generally  conceded that the Treaty had not honoured and substantial injustices had occurred and infact were ongoing.

So the Treaty Setttlement process was begun, without a defined end.

The results so far have been stunning but for continuing Maori and therfore NZ advancement it must remain as work in progress.

There should not be a full and final anything.

A PWC report last year stated 

The Māori economy plays a crucial role in driving Aotearoa New Zealand's economic success and is experiencing significant growth - this is projected to continue. Over the last ten years, the Māori asset base has also grown at a significantly faster rate than the overall economy (NZ Herald, 2022). Today the Māori economy is valued at more than NZD$70bn, and estimates suggest it will have assets worth NZD$100bn by 2030 (NZTE, 2017).

https://www.pwc.co.nz/insights-and-publications/2023-publications/unlocking-the-potential-of-the-maori-economy.html

and

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/the-maori-economy-is-booming-and-will-be-worth-100-billion-by-2030/L73MCPZMUFGRVEXWQTXL7XC62Q/

This growth in asset base is far more then the value of Treaty Settlements.

But there is definite unease amongst our white community, those that feel that our Britishness is being displaced by "maorification"

Others, myself included think the addition of another potent strand in our diversity is enrichment.

Not one versus the other, one plus the other.

The unstated argument is that  former privilege is being eroded,  when in fact here,  in common with most of the rest of the Western world,  privilege is becoming increasingly concentrated. And much more reinforced by intergenerational transfer. Particularily wealth enabling private provision of enhanced healthcare and education. 

 

And the Treaty settlements are just compensation for land and assets improperly removed from Maori without, or with inadequate levies compensation.

 

Equality of achievement is very highly dependant on equality of  asset availability.

So much of the inequality, and infact growing inequality of outcomes, is a direct result of this asset availability. Our impoverished are increasingly getting diminished access to assets. And an vastly increasing portion of those assets are becoming intergenerational. Inherited assets.

 

The descendents of slave traders are still benefitting today.

Parents regardless of their wealth very largely went the best for their children. But  the  assets available to them to achieve this vary tremendously.

So some children in our societies suffer from insecure and inadequate housing, crap diet, good nutrition is actually expensive, poor access to health services, an increasing problem even now for the better off, and the minimum formal education our states deem to give them.

Others benifit from trophy housing, frequent restaurant meals, private orthodontists to straighten slightly ajar teeth and school trips abroad.

Is this "Equal Opportunity" Like Hell.

 

We are having this same debate here stirred up by our Libertarian Right Wing Act Party wanting to rewrite our founding treaty on the basis of "Equal Opportunity" whilst totally ignoring that Equal Opportunity requires an Equality of starting positions.

Without the equality of starting positions,  the arguments  instead end up advocating for extending the advancement of existing privilege.

The white middle class patriarchal,  nominally Christian, privilege.

 

The descendents of those granted South Island high country grazing leases in the mid 19th Century are still receiving substantial benifits from these windfalls. 

This is in contrast with the descendants of those Maori people, whose chiefs in 1840, negotiated a shrewd and enlightened Treaty with representatives of the British Crown. 

Maori  are instead over represented in all our measures of impoverishment.

At the time though  they owned all the land, but unsurprisingly did not have title deeds, and out numbered the settlers 40 to 1.

They did not cede Sovereignty to the Crown, that would have been entirely illogical, and they were shrewd.

But they did want British Protection against other, what they considered, and  probably correctly, less benign potential invaders. 

And they wanted a British flag for their trading ships, that were already providoring Sydney with Maori grown horticultural produce. 

And they wanted the, at times,  unruly settlers to be dealt to by  their own structured settlers law and order system.

And they wanted to learn European ways, they wanted education systems,  and benifit from European technology.

But as the largely British governed section of the population overtook Maori population the demands for more land as expressed  by the now majority of the people, were met by land confiscations and unconscionable land dealings facilitated by British legal systems and practitioners.

The will of the majority completly overrode Treaty terms.

Maori became impoverished in their own land. There was no equality of opportunity, Maori really only succeeded when they became honorary whites.

But nearly 50 years ago, and after concerted Maori representation and action, right up to Privy  Council level, it was finally more or less generally  conceded that the Treaty had not honoured and substantial injustices had occurred and infact were ongoing.

So the Treaty Setttlement process was begun, without a defined end.

The results so far have been stunning but for continuing Maori and therfore NZ advancement it must remain as work in progress.

There should not be a full and final anything.

A PWC report last year stated 

The Māori economy plays a crucial role in driving Aotearoa New Zealand's economic success and is experiencing significant growth - this is projected to continue. Over the last ten years, the Māori asset base has also grown at a significantly faster rate than the overall economy (NZ Herald, 2022). Today the Māori economy is valued at more than NZD$70bn, and estimates suggest it will have assets worth NZD$100bn by 2030 (NZTE, 2017).

https://www.pwc.co.nz/insights-and-publications/2023-publications/unlocking-the-potential-of-the-maori-economy.html

and

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/the-maori-economy-is-booming-and-will-be-worth-100-billion-by-2030/L73MCPZMUFGRVEXWQTXL7XC62Q/

This growth in asset base is far more then the value of Treaty Settlements.

But there is definite unease amongst our white community, those that feel that our Britishness is being displaced by "maorification"

Others, myself included think the addition of another potent strand in our diversity is enrichment.

Not one versus the other, one plus the other.

The unstated argument is that  former privilege is being eroded,  when in fact here,  in common with most of the rest of the Western world,  privilege is becoming increasingly concentrated. And much more reinforced by intergenerational transfer. Particularily wealth enabling private provision of enhanced healthcare and education. 

 

And the Treaty settlements are just compensation for land and assets improperly removed from Maori without, or with inadequate levies compensation.

 

Bleedin' hell D. there a bit too much to be going at there.

One or two things I did spot :

 

>>Equality of achievement is very highly dependant on equality of  asset availability.

So much of the inequality, and infact growing inequality of outcomes, is a direct result of asset availability.<<

 

To some extent, but not enough to warrant yet more positive discrimination or taxes.

Firstly, even if one inherits a decent sum, one has to spend it / invest it wisely for it to do much good long term, certainly for the next generation.

Secondly I believe anyone in this country, pretty much regardless of background, can get on pretty well if they have a brain and are prepared work hard. Obviously those lacking in the brain cell department may struggle, but unfortunately that is life. At least, in this country, they aren't going to die of hunger.

 

>>The descendents of slave traders are still benefitting today.<<

 

That may well be so, but so are nearly all the descendants of the slaves (transplanted from Africa to America or even the Caribbean - excluding Haiti or possibly Cuba, the latter pair saying a lot that "progressives" would rather not think about too much) .

 

>>And the Treaty settlements are just compensation for land and assets improperly removed from Maori without, or with inadequate levies compensation.<<

 

Should we get the same from the French ? 1066 and all that ?

6 hours ago, Wanted said:

I agree, the trouble is with the ‘anti woke’ hammer is that it is often in the hands of people who will not accept detail in their thought. 

I put it to Justin to explain his level of understanding of the intersectional relationship between subsections of our society and safety. 

I suspect, and am happy to be wrong on this, however he reads as if his opinion comes directly from his own experience rather than considering others. It’s the same selfishness we see with Phil, it’s a me me me attitude that attaches itself to a movement to justify itself. 

I actually think there is an intelligent discussion to be had about offence and who owns it etc, however the ‘anti woke’ folk who post on here are just using that to further their own selfishness. 

The problem with the "progressives" is always that they think they know best. They are usually well meaning people who want to "make the world a better place", but the only way they can really do that, and they are in favour of doing it, is to legislate and restrict and interfere in how people want to live their own lives. And most people don't like it, why do you think the world is going to the Right and Trump (even a man with his baggage) got in ?

And "It’s the same selfishness" cuts both ways. During Covid all you "thoughtful caring progressives" only had empathy for people who might be at risk of Covid. You had precious little, if any, for all those whose rights were trashed. Speaking as one of the latter I think it was you lot who were bloody selfish.

Edited November 29, 20241 yr by Justin Smith

And that folks is why I hold Smith (and others) in utter contempt!

Edited November 29, 20241 yr by Graham Davis

23 hours ago, Stilllearning said:

I expect all the women who say they have been negatively affected by Mr Wallace are woke too?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd7n1e8n721o

 

Not to mention the roughly 110 who have come forward to complain about the culture of abuse at Harrods.

 

1 hour ago, Justin Smith said:

It depends what he did to them. You see that's part of the problem with the term "sexual assault", or even more extreme "sexual harassment", being bandied about so much, it just doesn't mean much anymore.

But I have to say whenever I hear of these cases form many years being dragged up my first reaction is why did they not say anything at the time ?

BBC News (sexual harassment, apparently)

 

Television host Gregg Wallace has been accused of making "lesbian jokes "constantly" by a woman who worked on a travel show with him.

The woman, who we are calling Anna, said he was "fascinated" by the fact she dated women and asked her the "logistics" of how it worked. She is one of a number of workers across a range of shows who came to BBC News with claims about the TV presenter.

 

Really ?

How terrible.

"Constantly" ?

How would that even be possible ?

I'd hate to work with her, never have a soddin' laugh and constantly having to watch everything you say.

She should get yourself a sense of humour and some balls (metaphorically of course, the other sort would be most inappropriate under the circumstances), or work from home so nobody could ever upset her.

People have a right to laugh.

People have a right to be upset.

But people do not have a right not to be upset.

 

53 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

And that folks is why I hold Smith (and others) in utter contempt!

Your bar for "utter contempt" must be pretty low. A bit over sensitive maybe ?

3 hours ago, Justin Smith said:

.........

Don't be obtuse.

I don't like the idea of gay sex. Don't get me wrong if they want to do that in private that's fine, I just don't want to see it thanks very much. There are more people than you seem to think who are uncomfortable at seeing two men being (sexually) affectionate.........

 

In terms of being obtuse, you seem to be the one who cannot open your eyes. Personally I don't give a toss for your views on gay sex ('scuse the pun), the point being made obviously went right over your head. When some random bloke decides that he is going to 'make a pass' at some girl that he doesn't know, is he aware of what her sexual orientation might be? Does he even feckin' care?? If she rejects him he is probably going to accuse her of being a lesbian anyway. THAT is why there is no difference between a random gay man making a pass at you and a random heterosexual man making a pass at some woman, they are both the actions of people who feel 'entitlement'.

9 hours ago, Justin Smith said:

It depends what he did to them. You see that's part of the problem with the term "sexual assault", or even more extreme "sexual harassment", being bandied about so much, it just doesn't mean much anymore.

But I have to say whenever I hear of these cases form many years being dragged up 

 

>>Equality of achievement is very highly dependant on equality of  asset availability.

So much of the inequality, and infact growing inequality of outcomes, is a direct result of asset availability.<<

 

To some extent, but not enough to warrant yet more positive discrimination or taxes.

Firstly, even if one inherits a decent sum, one has to spend it / invest it wisely for it to do much good long term, certainly for the next generation.

Secondly I believe anyone in this country, pretty much regardless of background, can get on pretty well if they have a brain and are prepared work hard. Obviously those lacking in the brain cell department may struggle, but unfortunately that is life. At least, in this country, they aren't going to die of hunger.

 

 

 

>>And the Treaty settlements are just compensation for land and assets improperly removed from Maori without, or with inadequate levies compensation.<<

 

Should we get the same from the French ? 1066 and all that ?

 

Firstly sorry for the unintentional double posting of my last post. 

Was going out to a very interesting opening of an art exhibition from some young artists selected to go on a trip to South Georgia and missed the double post. 

The exhibition  of photos, microscopic video of glacial ice melting, ceramics and paintings, was anchored by a set of large paintings by an Italian painter, Paola Folicaldi Suh, depicting Shakelton's last Antarctic voyage, the loss of his ship The Endurance and his truely epic voyage to a  South Georgian whaling station,  to then lead to a recovery voyage to collect the rest of his entire crew.   Evidently these paintings will next be displayed in Scotland early next year. 

 

So much of the inequality, and infact growing inequality of outcomes, is a direct result of asset availability

Even a huge portion of US wealth remains in the descendants of the original Boston Mercantile families. 

 

Privately provisioned schooling used to be as much about networking as education quality, but with  austerity and rationing of state resources into education, (and healthcare) there has been a marked relitive decline in state provisioned education, (and now state provisioned healthcare) Fot education  in Britain, going back to Thatchers removal of school grounds. 

 

And the Treaty settlements are just compensation for land and assets improperly removed from Maori without, or with inadequate levies compensation.<<

It was incredibly hypocritical to demand respect from the Justice System, when that same Justice System was complicit in facilitating powerful injustices against our indigenous  minority.

 

 

Our recently published Abuse in Care report by a Royal Commision highlighted just this.

That crimes committed by agents of our State, under "The Rule of the Law" are a huge catalyst for the formation of our present gang culture.

For extremly good reasons gang members, and a lot of others in our Maori communities, are extremly cynical towards our "Rule of Law" They were horrifically abused by it or its resulting dysfunction. 

It grieviously failed so many of them when they were at their most vulnerable.

Likewise with their experiences,  they have a very jaundiced view of "The Way of God" "Christian Good" and "Respectable Society"

In the very  recent parliamentary  Apology for the Abuses in State Care, jeers were reserved for the apology from the Solicitor General,  because of the continued actions of this office in opposing or limiting  settlements. 

 

But I think you missed the main point of my argument.

Our Treaty Settlements, and their results  and ongoing  reconciliation are extremely good for our economy. 

Our Maori economy is outperforming our economy in general. 

 

Lifting the performance of the underperforming sections of the economy lifts overall performance, more then lifting the performance further of the high performing sections. Hence the rapid advance of the USSR economy immediatly post WW2, and China a just a bit later. 

 

Although now as a retired person I am well aware, and very much appreciating, that I am no longer required to economically perform.

Of course pure capitalism has an answer for this. Look at the USA.

Fund yourself or die. 

 

My  quality of life is very much provided by our standard state pensions, my healtcare costs are largely met by the state, and my transport needs largely met by free state and council provided off peak urban public transport. 

I like it this way. 

 

 

Edited November 29, 20241 yr by DandV

10 hours ago, Justin Smith said:

It depends what he did to them. You see that's part of the problem with the term "sexual assault", or even more extreme "sexual harassment", being bandied about so much, it just doesn't mean much anymore.

But I have to say whenever I hear of these cases form many years being dragged up my first reaction is why did they not say anything at the time ?

Don't be obtuse.

I don't like the idea of gay sex. Don't get me wrong if they want to do that in private that's fine, I just don't want to see it thanks very much. There are more people than you seem to think who are uncomfortable at seeing two men being (sexually) affectionate.

Bleedin' hell D. there a bit too much to be going at there.

One or two things I did spot :

 

>>Equality of achievement is very highly dependant on equality of  asset availability.

So much of the inequality, and infact growing inequality of outcomes, is a direct result of asset availability.<<

 

To some extent, but not enough to warrant yet more positive discrimination or taxes.

Firstly, even if one inherits a decent sum, one has to spend it / invest it wisely for it to do much good long term, certainly for the next generation.

Secondly I believe anyone in this country, pretty much regardless of background, can get on pretty well if they have a brain and are prepared work hard. Obviously those lacking in the brain cell department may struggle, but unfortunately that is life. At least, in this country, they aren't going to die of hunger.

 

>>The descendents of slave traders are still benefitting today.<<

 

That may well be so, but so are nearly all the descendants of the slaves (transplanted from Africa to America or even the Caribbean - excluding Haiti or possibly Cuba, the latter pair saying a lot that "progressives" would rather not think about too much) .

 

>>And the Treaty settlements are just compensation for land and assets improperly removed from Maori without, or with inadequate levies compensation.<<

 

Should we get the same from the French ? 1066 and all that ?

The problem with the "progressives" is always that they think they know best. They are usually well meaning people who want to "make the world a better place", but the only way they can really do that, and they are in favour of doing it, is to legislate and restrict and interfere in how people want to live their own lives. And most people don't like it, why do you think the world is going to the Right and Trump (even a man with his baggage) got in ?

And "It’s the same selfishness" cuts both ways. During Covid all you "thoughtful caring progressives" only had empathy for people who might be at risk of Covid. You had precious little, if any, for all those whose rights were trashed. Speaking as one of the latter I think it was you lot who were bloody selfish.

So amongst this word soup, what you forgot to do was answer the question. 
out of politeness, I shall ask again. What is your understanding of the intersectional relationship between subsections of our society and safety? 
 

16 hours ago, Justin Smith said:

 

BBC News (sexual harassment, apparently)

 

Television host Gregg Wallace has been accused of making "lesbian jokes "constantly" by a woman who worked on a travel show with him.

The woman, who we are calling Anna, said he was "fascinated" by the fact she dated women and asked her the "logistics" of how it worked. She is one of a number of workers across a range of shows who came to BBC News with claims about the TV presenter.

 

Really ?

How terrible.

"Constantly" ?

How would that even be possible ?

I'd hate to work with her, never have a soddin' laugh and constantly having to watch everything you say.

She should get yourself a sense of humour and some balls (metaphorically of course, the other sort would be most inappropriate under the circumstances), or work from home so nobody could ever upset her.

People have a right to laugh.

People have a right to be upset.

But people do not have a right not to be upset.

 

Your bar for "utter contempt" must be pretty low. A bit over sensitive maybe ?

I just knew there would be someone defending Gregg Wallace’s behaviour, the old ‘bantz’ defence, used by bullies and sex pests all the time.  It’s s safe bet that anyone doing so also moans about the bbc being full of sex abusers, and somehow seeing that as being caused by wokery. 
What he should do, is start by bothering to read the full extent of complaints against Wallace. He’s a creepy pest, and old school millwall bully boy. 

15 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

In terms of being obtuse, you seem to be the one who cannot open your eyes. Personally I don't give a toss for your views on gay sex ('scuse the pun), the point being made obviously went right over your head. When some random bloke decides that he is going to 'make a pass' at some girl that he doesn't know, is he aware of what her sexual orientation might be? Does he even feckin' care?? If she rejects him he is probably going to accuse her of being a lesbian anyway. THAT is why there is no difference between a random gay man making a pass at you and a random heterosexual man making a pass at some woman, they are both the actions of people who feel 'entitlement'.

 

Faced with some bloke making a pass at someone, homosexual or heterosexual, the concept of consent seems to be alien to Mr Smith. 

 

Wallace was allegedly making repeated inappropriate remarks in the workplace. Forget wokery; if the events took place, they showed somebody who never learnt how to behave like a gentleman. I don't mean opening a door for lady, or doffing one's hat to her, but just having simple respect for other people's feelings. 

 

 

Edited November 30, 20241 yr by Machpoint005

7 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Faced with some bloke making a pass at someone, homosexual or heterosexual, the concept of consent seems to be alien to Mr Smith. 

 

Wallace was allegedly making repeated inappropriate remarks in the workplace. Forget wokery; if the events took place, they showed somebody who never learnt how to behave like a gentleman. I don't mean opening a door for lady, or doffing one's hat to her, but just having simple respect for other people's feelings. 

 

 

Did he really parade around naked with a sock on his knob? That’s just a bit beyond bantz isnt it. 

Why would anyone want to wear a sock there?

 

Even allegedly.