RayC

Then think yourself lucky that you haven't had any problems up to now because if you're a white, heterosexual, indigenous UK male then the current UK government hates you and is coming for you. Everybody knows this; it's a fact🤦

Unfortunately, your prejudice is so plain to see that these attempts to deflect attention from them are futile.

"I know what I know". I'll only accept studies which support my viewpoint. My prejudice is against people who believe those who are not indigenous or right-wing are not patriots. If you bothered to read posts properly you will see that I stated earlier in this thread that, "I'm not sure that positive discrimination is the answer".

You won't acknowledge that the harsher sentencing of BAME criminals compared with their white counterparts illustrates bias because the studies are methodologically flawed: However, the complete absence of any studies whatsoever showing bias towards white, indigenous individuals convicted of crimes during last summer's riots you deem to be irrelevant. It's inconsistent reasoning and it indicates prejudice.

I was there at the outset. What about my other point? i.e. that in the absence of methodological sound studies we can't conclude that white, indigenous UK nationals faced discrimination when being sentenced in the aftermath of last year's riots. If you are going to be consistent in your reasoning, surely you must agree?

It's possible but there needs to be evidence to support that premise. If by that you mean that that group should not be discriminated against, then the answer is 'Yes'. I'm not sure that 'positive discrimination' is the answer (especially when it comes to military operations).

Which bit of my previous post (reproduced below) is unclear? The authors of the report which I linked to acknowledge the methodological limitations of the study but, notwithstanding this, it still shows that BAME offenders receive tougher sentences than their white counterparts. Interestingly, the lack of methodological sound studies to support your grievance that white, indigenous males were discriminated against during sentencing as a result of last summer's riots doesn't seem to concern you. ---+-+------++-++-- "Where did I defend it? That's right I didn't. Please don't attribute statements to me which I didn't make. For the record, of course there should not be a two-tier justice system."

https://yjlc.uk/resources/legal-updates/ethnicity-and-custodial-sentencing-data-highlights-racial-bias I'm sure that now I have brought the evidence to your attention, you would like to go on record and condemn the bias shown towards BAME under the UK justice system.

"Asked about the new guidelines on LBC radio, Jones said: “We disagree with this decision. I think it’s really important in the country that people are trusting in the justice system that we have and that means you can’t have a two-tier system, it has to be fair, it has to be equal to everybody and so we have asked them to think again about this guidance.” Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, said overnight that she would write to the Sentencing Council to “register my displeasure and to recommend reversing this change to guidance”." Could the government's opposition to this guidance be any clearer? The only fools are those who cannot think logically due to their irrational hatred of anything that doesn't fit in neatly with their narrow, blinkered view of what the UK should look like. You're right for a change, I did know that. But equally, the system shouldn't impose harsher sentences on black people for committing the same crime as whites. However, apparently you can't bring yourself to condemn that two-tier application of justice. Where did I defend it? That's right I didn't. Please don't attribute statements to me which I didn't make. For the record, of course there should not be a two-tier justice system.

I'll admit that I was irritated by your previous post, but I don't see anything contemptuous in my reply. I'm sorry if you saw it otherwise. If you are suggesting that those who have little recent experience of living in a country are less qualified to pass opinion on day-to-day life there than those who have/ do, then I would agree with you. All the best.

Did you even read the article? The government - and opposition - is opposed to the guidance. Who knows, maybe the guidance will be reversed by legislation? However, I understand your grievance. As a black male living outside the country with (apparently) no personal experience of the UK justice system, it must be difficult for you. "At present black and minority ethnic communities are overrepresented at almost all stages of the criminal justice process in England and Wales, and are more likely to be imprisoned and receive longer sentences than white people".

Serious question. I'm intrigued. How has the UK justice system discriminated against you personally? Again, seriously, I will understand if you don't want to discuss this matter on a public forum.

Not from where? I was born and raised in South London and have lived or worked in a number of EU countries so, by those criteria, I'd say that I'm more qualified than most - probably including yourself -to comment on these matters. It's nonsense to suggest that no countries have benefitted from the EU (or its' predecessors). For example, by almost any criteria, things in the former Warsaw Pact nations have greatly improved since they joined the EU. Going further back, the ECSC helped ensure that the regular, centuries old dust-ups between France and Germany became a thing of the past. Germany's economic problems are mainly structural and, if there is blame to assign, it rests with successive German governments not the EU: Likewise, Merkel's well-meaning, but ill conceived 'open doors' policy regarding refugees, was a German government decision not the EU's, albeit the rest of Europe are dealing with the consequences. Although the EU lays down targets wrt energy - targets agreed to by the member states - energy policy and strategy are largely the responsibility of the individual EU states.

Hope for you yet? Good to see you offering a tacit admission that Russia is more of a threat to its' neighbours than vice versa. Is it too much to hope that you might eventually admit that Russia was the instigator of this war and that you condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Another fallacy. Stabbings in the UK are, fortunately, relatively rare events, are largely confined to the big cities and are more often than not, the result of gang violence: That's why when they do occur, the event makes the news. Only 9 countries in the world where you have less chance of getting stabbed to death per head of population than the UK. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/stabbing-deaths-by-country

Not sure what you mean by 'hollowing out'? The US surpassed the UK as the world's foremost economic power over 100 years ago. China and India's economies have also now overtaken the UK's and will, no doubt, overtake the EU's in time. Nevertheless by most criteria, the overwhelming majority of countries in Western Europe remain affordable and good places to live for the majority of the population. However there are, no doubt, some individuals/ groups experiencing difficulties, and imo it is a mark of a society's civility how we deal with these unfortunate individuals.

Couldn't resist a bit of gloating. Underneath your 'Peacenik' posturing, there is nothing but admiration for Putin and his methods.

Congratulations and welcome to 'TBL Ignore' club. I'd like to claim that it is exclusive but membership must be in the hundreds by now.

Many people don't have a choice and for all its' faults, the UK still - relative to most other countries - offers a good quality of life for most residents. Free, good quality education to the age of 18; a free - albeit struggling - health service; decent standard of living; good leisure facilities; etc. And next-to-no chance of getting shot.

It appears that you are confused about the origins of the EU. This should help your understanding: https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/history-eu/1945-59_en https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuman_Declaration

We have had 4 PMs (3 Tories) since we left the EU and not one of them has been successful in stopping illegal immigration, so that blows the theory that it is solely down to Labour sky high. Unless you want to go down the avenue of blowing the boats out of the water and all that entails, then it's difficult to see what deterrents can be effective. Farage may be many things, but I doubt that he is a cold-blooded killer. As for dealing with the root cause(s) of the problem, I very much doubt that Farage has any more idea than anyone else in Europe. Labour is not anti-Britain. Most of the voices that are seem to originate from disgruntled expats.

So yet another non-answer. 'In Nigel, we trust'. Let's face it, (almost?) all you 'hard' Brexiters don't have the foggiest idea what you want and even if you did, you wouldn't have a clue about how to achieve it.

If you are referring to dealing with illegal migrants then, arguably, things have become worse since we left the EU and opted out of the Dublin Agreement. Moreover, if membership of the EU was the sole reason preventing the UK from solving the problem of illegal immigration, why haven't successive UK governments been able to introduce measures which would do the trick? If you are referring to legal immigration then the UK is more reliant than ever on overseas labour. Membership of the EU - in particular, freedom of movement - was beneficial in so many ways. Not only did UK employers have a vastly increased workforce to choose from, they were no bureaucratic hurdles to hiring EU nationals; part-time, fixed contract jobs were easy to fill with workers who were also transient, many of whom had no desire to immigrate permanently to the UK. These benefits were also available to Brits wanting to broaden their experience by living and working in the EU. Sadly, these benefits are no longer available to either Brits/EU workers or employers without firstly having to complete a lot of previously unnecessary red tape. The throwaway line about "unelected bureaucrats in Brussels" is just that a throwaway line without any substance. As Michel Barnier said, "There are no winners with Brexit".

By that rationale, the rest of Europe should lay back and do nothing if Putin decides, for example, that he wants to reclaim the parts of Poland that were formally Russian. 1930's style appeasement. Nothing more, nothing like.

So May ruined Brexit? So, usual question(s), Jonny, which I expect you will avoid answering once again. What does this utopian Brexit look like, and how should/ could it (have) be(en) achieved?