|
Gort posted:So what is the problem with Juncker anyway? European federalism sounds like a decent idea to me. There is some legit worrying stuff about Juncker - his drinking problem and the circumstances of his exit from prime-ministership make him sound rather like the Luxembourger equivalent of Richard Nixon. That's not why Cameron is going after him, though.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 12:29 |
|
|
TinTower posted:Under the Equality Act, there is a duty, especially in the public sector, to actively "eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation" and "advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations". Adding a privileged category such as ex-service members reduces the amount of resources these people can use on actually marginalised categories. How much resources goes into protecting white heterosexual men? They're all protected characteristics. White - Race Heterosexual - Sexuality Man - Gender I'm struggling to see a more privileged class than that, and yet they have as much protection under the equality act as I do. Adding "military employment" to the protected characteristics will mean nothing, unless someone is denying people jobs because they did or didn't serve.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Under the Equality Act, there is a duty, especially in the public sector, to actively "eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation" and "advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations". Adding a privileged category such as ex-service members reduces the amount of resources these people can use on actually marginalised categories. How does the idea of a specific criminal offence compare to hate crime legislation? Do hate crimes hand out harsher sentences, or do they just effect how its investigated?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 11:01
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Yes. Here's a couple of examples: That isn't because they were soldiers, but because they were soldiers in uniform, trying to procure alcohol. The MoD doesn't like that. Strom Cuzewon posted:How does the idea of a specific criminal offence compare to hate crime legislation? Do hate crimes hand out harsher sentences, or do they just effect how its investigated? They're often aggravating circumstances in sentencing. HortonNash posted:How much resources goes into protecting white heterosexual men? Not much, but remember that most anti-discrimination laws follow the same structure of listing classes on which a minority is marginalised rather than the minority itself. Adding an incredibly privileged minority to those classes makes a mockery of the system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Not much, but remember that most anti-discrimination laws follow the same structure of listing classes on which a minority is marginalised rather than the minority itself. Adding an incredibly privileged minority to those classes makes a mockery of the system. But does it actually make things worse for anyone? How is adding these people to that group going to diminish the protection currently in place for those other oppressed groups?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 11:22
|
|
|
Aren't Solider trained to kill? Isn't that reason enough to not pick a fight with a soldier? Toy Army pricks gonna be getting braver.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 11:24
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Adding an incredibly privileged minority to those classes makes a mockery of the system. No it doesn't. As long as the legal protection for existing protected characteristics remains then it makes absolutely no difference to anyone but those that wear their protected characteristic as some sort of badge, or compare their "struggle" to others. The equality act is about treating people equally, not some people as special.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 11:30
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Aren't Solider trained to kill? Isn't that reason enough to not pick a fight with a soldier? Yeah have you not seen Con Air the judge gives Nic Cage a long sentence for manslaughter because his body is a deadly killing machine and as a soldier he should know better or something. That's a more sensible attitude than saying assaulting a soldier is worse than assaulting somebody vulnerable. There you go Con loving Air is more sensible than the labour party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
Catching up after a week off, just want to add something to the pre-decimal currency thing... I found out from my father-in-law about why we had such a mad system. Mathmos will probably know it already, but the whole point was it made calculations easier without a calculator (i.e. for most of human history). The basic idea is that 12 can be split evenly between 2,3,4 or 6 people. Groups of 5 were a bit stuffed, which is why we then use (12x5)=60 as another favourite multiple - and also why learning times tables up to 12x12 was very important. The real trick is counting on your fingers with it. You use your thumb as a 'pointer', and the pads of the fingers as the marking spot - 3 joints per finger, 4 fingers = 12 on one hand. The other hand keeps the dozens, so you can easily keep track of numbers up to 156 with just your hands. For example, '1' is the left thumb touching the top joint of the left index finger. 2 is with the thumb by the knuckle, three is the bottom bone, 4 is touching the top of the middle finger and so on up to the base of the little finger which is 12.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:How much resources goes into protecting white heterosexual men? This is absurdly reductionist and wholey ignorant of existing societal biases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
Chocolate Teapot posted:This is absurdly reductionist and wholey ignorant of existing societal biases. Oh do please tell how adding a protected class for ex-service members oppresses me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 12:24
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:Oh do please tell how adding a protected class for ex-service members oppresses me. Assuming you're a white middle-class male, it doesn't. But like TinTower said, it drives attention away from people who *genuinely* need the protection, even if it's something as minor as having to find out as to whether someone involved in a fight is or has been a member of the military at some point in their life. And then you've got to consider inherent biases from the coppers themselves, who might already by racist/sexist/pro-militant/etc. and try to re-write things to their own favour.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
Chocolate Teapot posted:Assuming you're a white middle-class male, it doesn't. But like TinTower said, it drives attention away from people who *genuinely* need the protection, even if it's something as minor as having to find out as to whether someone involved in a fight is or has been a member of the military at some point in their life. And then you've got to consider inherent biases from the coppers themselves, who might already by racist/sexist/pro-militant/etc. and try to re-write things to their own favour. The equality act has nothing to do with fights, it's about accessing employment, education and services. I'm BAME and disabled (which makes no difference to the strength of my argument), which I've previously mentioned. e: and screw your "*genuinely*" qualifier. Everyone deserves protection from being treated unfairly. HortonNash fucked around with this message at 12:52 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
Alecto posted:Joining the military is a choice. Maybe it's not always a choice that someone feels good about, sometimes it might even have been the best choice for their situation, but it's still a choice. If you're going to make discriminatory laws about one profession then really you have to do it about all of them, and then we're just saying 'you can't deny service to anyone ever', which would be a far simpler law. All that ever comes laws like this is someone who gets into a bar fight with someone who turns out to be a squaddie ends up getting slightly more jail time than if they'd got into a fight with a non-squaddie. Not true, someone with mental illness can not join the armed forces untill they have been off mental health services for 3 years, and off their meds for 1 year prior to joining. Without this discrimination you're playing with lives, giving someone unstable a gun is different to having someone unstable work at a charity shop. TinTower posted:It harms the very idea of equality. To elevate such a privileged group of people in society as needing statutory redress mocks the work done to try to foster racial/sexual/etc equality. 
Fluo fucked around with this message at 13:03 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
"O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that..." - 1892 this feels like an standard issue of britpol since britpol in any recognizable form existed
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
StoneOfShame posted:Yeah have you not seen Con Air the judge gives Nic Cage a long sentence for manslaughter because his body is a deadly killing machine and as a soldier he should know better or something. That's a more sensible attitude than saying assaulting a soldier is worse than assaulting somebody vulnerable. There you go Con loving Air is more sensible than the labour party. The average squaddie will be really fit, which helps a lot in a fight, but aren't all going to be Bruce Lee you loving lunatic. Not that I don't think this protected status idea is a bit silly. tooterfish fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:Meanwhile in the real world, soldiers don't spend an inordinate amount of training on hand to hand combat... considering that most of the people they fight will be shooting at them, it's considered a bit of a waste of loving time. We all know Michael Bay movies are deep, meaningful, grounded and not at all brainless explosions and subpar logic! TinTower posted:Not much, but remember that most anti-discrimination laws follow the same structure of listing classes on which a minority is marginalised rather than the minority itself. Adding an incredibly privileged minority to those classes makes a mockery of the system. Ah yes, the great privilege of getting paid to fight in Hell on Earth and maybe even die or lose some limbs to be able to feed your family back home. Most likely end up with PTSD for someone they had to kill. I'm glad TinTower is here to tell us which minorities are and are not "privileged". What if the soldier is black and gay, does that even the privilege out? Fluo fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:Meanwhile in the real world, soldiers don't spend an inordinate amount of training on hand to hand combat... considering that most of the people they fight will be shooting at them, it's considered a bit of a waste of loving time. Did you miss that I wasn't being serious in anyway or I have missed that you're not being serious? Of course I know a soldier isn't a highly tuned killing machine, I have the capability to differentiate films from reality. Fluo posted:We all know Michael Bay movies are deep, meaningful, grounded and not at all brainless explosions and subpar logic! Simon West film 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
StoneOfShame posted:Simon West film Haha you're right, it was such a bad explodions movie I just always default put it as a Bay movie.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VovRTt0hAPk
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:The equality act is about treating people equally, not some people as special. This is literally the argument anti-equality types always use against anti-discrimination laws all the time. Fluo posted:We all know Michael Bay movies are deep, meaningful, grounded and not at all brainless explosions and subpar logic! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:In both the 1987 and the 1992 elections, the Tories won more votes than they had the previous election (13,012,316 in 1983, 13,790,935 in 1987, 14,093,007 in 1992) So incumbent tory goverments have won more votes in the next election before, and in 1992 during the beginning of a recovering from a recession that was in their previous term. In both of those cases they got a smaller share of the vote than the previous election though, which is what really matters. And the 1992 election is too a-typical to draw any conclusions from because the PM changed part way through the parliament. The economy's been 'recovered' for quite some time now as well, and it still hasn't led to a noticeable, sustained Con-Lab swing. Yes, it's possible for the Conservatives to still be the largest party in 2015, but it's really, really unlikely. The advantage that Labour have with the boundaries cannot be emphasised enough. Also I assume you're not think the Conservatives are going to get an actual majority, so how are they going to form a government? Their MPs are rabidly opposed to another coalition with the Lib Dems, nothing they've promised on the EU would be able to get done. So who's to say even in the eventuality of a Conservative 'win' the fruitcakes don't scare the Lib Dems off and we end up with a Lib-Lab government anyway, given the Lib Dems' commitment to no minority governments because Tough Choices Need To Be Made?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
TinTower posted:This is literally the argument anti-equality types always use against anti-discrimination laws all the time. gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
Having lived in towns near garrisons, gently caress squaddies. They should be kept locked up in their camps until we need to point them at some brown people or kids to kill or something. Pretty much 90% of trouble in the town I used to live on a Friday/Saturday night was due to groups of squaddies on leave getting pissed up and fighting people, usually as drunken instigators. Who would have thought isolating groups of young men, teaching them to fight and then letting (and having a culture that encourages excess alcohol consumption even above and beyond the rest of this society's) them get pissed in public was a bad idea?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
TinTower posted:That isn't because they were soldiers, but because they were soldiers in uniform, trying to procure alcohol. The MoD doesn't like that. Apparently it used to be illegal to serve Police in uniform alcohol, and some staff (typically slightly older staff) are still wary of serving people in army/police uniform because of this. Which is probably why the manager was called. It wasn't an anti-solider thing and to make out that incident to be an example of wider discrimination , is disingenuous at best.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
Edit: remove double post with inordinately long time between. Yes, I'm a fuckwit.
OzyMandrill fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:gently caress you. Except TinTower is right. "I'm not a feminist, I consider myself an egalitarian, after all isn't it more important that equal rights be our platform rather than elevating women at the expense of men?" etc etc etc
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
KazigluBey posted:Except TinTower is right. Saying nobody needs unusual protection from discrimination is basically the same thing as saying no one is unusually discriminated against to begin with, which is obviously the favoured position of bigots. (Except when they're positioning themselves as the discriminated-against party of course.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:gently caress you. Some beautiful reasoned debate there. "You are using exactly the same argument that people use to oppress others" "Yeah well gently caress you".
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
KazigluBey posted:Except TinTower is right. No they're not. TinTower's entire argument is that extending rights to another, "unworthy" group, oppresses the "worthy" groups, and defines "worthiness" by the amount of struggle a group has faced. My argument is that there are no groups more "worthy" than any other, that struggle means nothing in the end, and that adding one more protected class makes no difference. I'm interested in the ends, not the means, and the ends are a more fair society where access to employment, education and services is for all, and that accommodations are made when required, I'm not interested in building a hierarchy of special needs. If ex-service personnel are not facing discrimination, then adding them makes no difference to how I, as a BAME, disabled person, is treated. If they are facing discrimination, then it still doesn't affect me, but it ends unfair treatment to some members of society.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
Hijo Del Helmsley posted:Some beautiful reasoned debate there. "You are using exactly the same argument that people use to oppress others" "Yeah well gently caress you". Being accused of oppressing others when I spent my entire childhood being called a Paki and being bullied for my disability. gently caress you too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Alecto posted:In both of those cases they got a smaller share of the vote than the previous election though, which is what really matters. And the 1992 election is too a-typical to draw any conclusions from because the PM changed part way through the parliament. The economy's been 'recovered' for quite some time now as well, and it still hasn't led to a noticeable, sustained Con-Lab swing. Yes, it's possible for the Conservatives to still be the largest party in 2015, but it's really, really unlikely. The advantage that Labour have with the boundaries cannot be emphasised enough. I'm not saying that the Tories will win the next election (In my mind the question is will Labour get enough seats on their own to form a goverrment or not), but that incumbant goverment overall votes always goes down, which is what was claimed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:Being accused of oppressing others when I spent my entire childhood being called a Paki and being bullied for my disability. gently caress you too. "I am oppressed and therefore cannot hold lovely opinions". That's not how it works. As you're demonstrating with your posting, you can simultaneously be oppressed and be a dick to other oppressed parties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:In both the 1987 and the 1992 elections, the Tories won more votes than they had the previous election (13,012,316 in 1983, 13,790,935 in 1987, 14,093,007 in 1992) So incumbent tory goverments have won more votes in the next election before, and in 1992 during the beginning of a recovering from a recession that was in their previous term. You know what else happened between '83, '87 and '92? The population of the country grew by about a million people, and the Tory share of the vote decreased by about 0.5% Using number of votes cast for is the dumbest metric imaginable to show that incumbent governments can gain support. The last time a sitting UK government actually gained support over a 'full' term in office would seem to be 1955. It happened in '66 and '74, but those elections were only 18 and 6 months respectively after the previous barely-decisive elections. 2010-2015 will probably be remembered as a pretty weird time in UK politics, but the Tories actually increasing their vote share would make it the very, very weirdest. (My prediction is we'll end up with Labour and the Tories near enough to neck-and-neck on ~35% apiece, with a slim but workable Labour majority)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
The Sunday Times are running a story about Jon Cruddas (Labour policy wonk) dissing, erm, everyone else involved in setting policy for Labour. Some of what he says isn't very flattering - the hopeless pandering to focus groups in particular is something he seems to despise. None of this is a surprise, of course, but it's interesting that there are some senior Labour figures who don't have their head stuck in the sand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
 Article here Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Hijo Del Helmsley posted:"I am oppressed and therefore cannot hold lovely opinions". Explain how arguing that adding one more protected class affects the treatment of any of the other protected classes. I'm not even in favour of adding soldiers, just that it makes no difference to anyone else. I'm not saying that I'm oppressed and therefore my opinions are valid, I'm taking umbrage at being compared to bigots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:Explain how arguing that adding one more protected class affects the treatment of any of the other protected classes. I'm not even in favour of adding soldiers, just that it makes no difference to anyone else. Attacks due to people sexuality, gender identity, race etc. do happen. They happen a worrying amount. I've yet to see evidence supporting the motion that soldiers face even a fraction of that violence purely on the basis of their profession, and I just feel it trivializes the idea of having laws in place to protect minorities at risk by adding the same protection to people who don't need it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Hijo Del Helmsley posted:"I am oppressed and therefore cannot hold lovely opinions". This is literally an argument anti-equality types always use against anti-discrimination laws all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Hijo Del Helmsley posted:Attacks due to people sexuality, gender identity, race etc. do happen. They happen a worrying amount. I've yet to see evidence supporting the motion that soldiers face even a fraction of that violence purely on the basis of their profession, and I just feel it trivializes the idea of having laws in place to protect minorities at risk by adding the same protection to people who don't need it. The equality act has nothing to do with assault or violence, it is about equal access to employment, education and services, it doesn't go far enough to protect certain groups, but it is a drat sight better than before. Adding one more protected characteristic makes no difference to the protections offered to the existing protected characteristics. HortonNash fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 12:29 |
|
|
HortonNash posted:The equality act has nothing to do with assault or violence, it is about equal access to employment, education and services, it doesn't go far enough to protect certain groups, but it is a drat sight better than before. Alright, outside of assault or violence, has there ever been a systematic push to deny things like employment, education or services to armed forces personnel, especially on the same level as disabled people, or LGBT people, or any other currently protected class? What a god-drat disgusting human being.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 15:11
|
|