Off Topic The Politics Thread

[sb_73]

Here's an observation. The EU problems are to come. At present, all the 27 have done is give a mandate to the negotiators. But most of those countries each want something different out of Brexit.

Poland and the East Europeans in the south are fixated on money and want to hold out for the max, since they are net recipients. Ireland wants soft borders and continued, easy trade. The German car industry is in a weakened state and cannot afford trade tariffs on a vital export market. Italy is pressing for a smooth transition. Northern Eastern states feel it vital to preserve UK military services as a bulwark against Russia. Junckers and the Commission seem to be in punitive mode.

At some stage, they are all going to have to sit down and agree something. Then the fur will fly in the European Parliament...

If that is all true and plays out, surely it makes a no deal scenario more likely?

Unless of course we stay in the Single Market and Customs Union, allow freedom of movement and continue contributing to the EU budget. Like Norway. Then everyone is happy, except a few British hard Brexiters.

 

[Stroller]

This quoted from your first article cited:

"Overall, the data from Table 1 do show that Hispanics have higher crime rates than non-Hispanic whites and (most) Asian ethnicities. Thus, immigration restrictionists who are focused on this second-generation/third-generation crime effect may have some valid grounds for worry there, though, as pointed out above, comparison with all Americans, including blacks, paints a different picture..."

Mexico is the 22nd most dangerous country in the world, and this includes all the countries like Syria where there is a war on. There have been some horrific serial killers coming across the border into the US.

In the US, a man is about nine times more likely to be murdered if he is black, and three times is a woman. These killings are almost all by black offenders. The following article is interesting as it shows that many more black people kill whites, as whites kill black, despite all the "Black Lives Matter" stuff (see the first table):

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers

The Black Lives Matter 'stuff' is about blacks killed by Police. Blacks are significantly more likely to be killed by police than whites, and are more likely to have been unarmed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-by-police-yes-but-no/?utm_term=.e37b5e7a6292

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...hite-people-us-african-american-a7567471.html

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

If that is all true and plays out, surely it makes a no deal scenario more likely?

Unless of course we stay in the Single Market and Customs Union, allow freedom of movement and continue contributing to the EU budget. Like Norway. Then everyone is happy, except a few British hard Brexiters.

Interestingly the latest survey (by the LSE) found that 2/3rds of voters favour a clean Brexit. Make of that what you, it might be a no-deal scenario but I suspect pressure will be put on recalcitrants within the EU to agree whatever Germany and France proposes.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

The Black Lives Matter 'stuff' is about blacks killed by Police. Blacks are significantly more likely to be killed by police than whites, and are more likely to have been unarmed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-by-police-yes-but-no/?utm_term=.e37b5e7a6292

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...hite-people-us-african-american-a7567471.html

It's wider than just the police. It started partly as a result of the black killing by Zimmerman in Florida. There were BLM activists fighting white supremacists over the weekend, which is ironic since it espouses non-violence

 

[West London Willy]

It's wider than just the police. It started partly as a result of the black killing by Zimmerman in Florida. There were BLM activists fighting white supremacists over the weekend, which is ironic since it espouses non-violence

Such a simple statement to make, however you didn't mention who started it. From every single news source I've seen, the counter-protesters were there simply to denounce the white supremacists. I've not seen a single report of anyone except the supremacists starting any violence whatsoever, so from what I can see, any fighting by the counter-protesters would have been self-defence. What were they supposed to do, just stand there?

 

[durbar2003]

This quoted from your first article cited:

"Overall, the data from Table 1 do show that Hispanics have higher crime rates than non-Hispanic whites and (most) Asian ethnicities. Thus, immigration restrictionists who are focused on this second-generation/third-generation crime effect may have some valid grounds for worry there, though, as pointed out above, comparison with all Americans, including blacks, paints a different picture..."

Mexico is the 22nd most dangerous country in the world, and this includes all the countries like Syria where there is a war on. There have been some horrific serial killers coming across the border into the US.

In the US, a man is about nine times more likely to be murdered if he is black, and three times is a woman. These killings are almost all by black offenders. The following article is interesting as it shows that many more black people kill whites, than whites kill black, despite all the "Black Lives Matter" stuff (see the first table):

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers

You must also take into account that Blacks total only about 12% of the US population

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Such a simple statement to make, however you didn't mention who started it. From every single news source I've seen, the counter-protesters were there simply to denounce the white supremacists. I've not seen a single report of anyone except the supremacists starting any violence whatsoever, so from what I can see, any fighting by the counter-protesters would have been self-defence. What were they supposed to do, just stand there?

I'm no apologist for white supremacists, and the death of that young woman is sad and shocking. The meeting was held by the supremacists to "Unite the Right". Counter-demonstrators came to confront them. I think it safe to say, their purpose was to do more than engage with the alt-right in reasoned dialogue, many came for a fight as did the supremacists.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

You must also take into account that Blacks total only about 12% of the US population

Good point.

 

[BobbyD]

okay boys i had this fight on ethnicity and racism and minorities getting killed by the police. This was about the UK though and i would think that in the US racism is far more prevalent (just my view) because i like to think we're more civilised whereas in the U.S. the views are more polarised and people literally live apart in their own little ethnic communities.

This biggest one for me is that black people are arrested far more than a white person in terms of proportion to the population. My point of view is that this is more down to an income divide rather than a ethnicity issue (although there will probably be some aspect of racisms as racism does exist) especially nowadays where people are far more liberal. You see far more crime in areas where the general populace is poor than in a middle class town or village imo (again no facts) which i why i think its more about the poor rich divide rather than race. Why black people in general have lower levels of education is a different matter.

In general, people are far more bothered about violent crime and robberies which are far easier to catch and often causes more outrage than something like fraud which requires extensive investigation in my opinion (nothing to back this up)

Anyway, with the black people are far more likely to die than a white person in the above argument, the statistics show this is not the case:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43/#overview

~70% of arrest people are white whereas ~27% are black (data from 2015)

The number 1093 people killed in 2016 (first 1 that came up i cannot be bothered to find 2015):

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...un/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database

574 were white and 266 were black, so around ~%53 and ~%24

Obviously i've just taken 1 years worth of data but there isn't a far significant increase in lives dying when looking at arrest figures rather than population figures.

Why a black person is more likely to be arrested though can probably be attributed to racism but to suggest police are more likely to kill a black person as per BLM is more to do with the police being trigger happy imo

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

okay boys i had this fight on ethnicity and racism and minorities getting killed by the police. This was about the UK though and i would think that in the US racism is far more prevalent (just my view) because i like to think we're more civilised whereas in the U.S. the views are more polarised and people literally live apart in their own little ethnic communities.

This biggest one for me is that black people are arrested far more than a white person in terms of proportion to the population. My point of view is that this is more down to an income divide rather than a ethnicity issue (although there will probably be some aspect of racisms as racism does exist) especially nowadays where people are far more liberal. You see far more crime in areas where the general populace is poor than in a middle class town or village imo (again no facts) which i why i think its more about the poor rich divide rather than race. Why black people in general have lower levels of education is a different matter.

In general, people are far more bothered about violent crime and robberies which are far easier to catch and often causes more outrage than something like fraud which requires extensive investigation in my opinion (nothing to back this up)

Anyway, with the black people are far more likely to die than a white person in the above argument, the statistics show this is not the case:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43/#overview

~70% of arrest people are white whereas ~27% are black (data from 2015)

The number 1093 people killed in 2016 (first 1 that came up i cannot be bothered to find 2015):

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...un/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database

574 were white and 266 were black, so around ~%53 and ~%24

Obviously i've just taken 1 years worth of data but there isn't a far significant increase in lives dying when looking at arrest figures rather than population figures.

Why a black person is more likely to be arrested though can probably be attributed to racism but to suggest police are more likely to kill a black person as per BLM is more to do with the police being trigger happy imo

This comes from your FBI report:

"Of adults arrested for murder, 50.4 percent were Black or African American, 46.5 percent were White, and 3.1 percent were of other races.

Over 50% black people arrested for murder, where black people make up 12% of the population...?

Of course, nothing excuses some of the police killings of unarmed black people, mainly young black men. It's not only black men, as seen recently when an Australian woman called the US cops after hearing screaming in a nearby ally, and the Somali-American cop in the cop-car passenger seat decided to shoot her while she was talking through the car window to his colleague. Both cops have declined to give statements to the subsequent police investigation.

 

[BobbyD]

This comes from your FBI report:

"Of adults arrested for murder, 50.4 percent were Black or African American, 46.5 percent were White, and 3.1 percent were of other races.

Over 50% black people arrested for murder, where black people make up 12% of the population...?

Of course, nothing excuses some of the police killings of unarmed black people, mainly young black men. It's not only black men, as seen recently when an Australian woman called the US cops after hearing screaming in a nearby ally, and the Somali-American cop in the cop-car passenger seat decided to shoot her while she was talking through the car window to his colleague. Both cops have declined to give statements to the subsequent police investigation.

Not sure what you are getting at if there is a rebuttal to what i've posted? Or were you just providing additional commentary to what i wrote?

 

[sb_73]

On a different subject, what is this BBC obsession with the 70th anniversary of the partition of India? Of course it was a horrific time with the religious massacres and migration of 12 million people across borders, and a period and part of the world I find very interesting. But every news bulletin? A documentary or two perhaps, apparently this is getting more attention here than in either India or Pakistan.

From what I have read the focus on India is much stronger amongst certain English people (probably myself included) than anyone in India thinks about the UK.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

On a different subject, what is this BBC obsession with the 70th anniversary of the partition of India? Of course it was a horrific time with the religious massacres and migration of 12 million people across borders, and a period and part of the world I find very interesting. But every news bulletin? A documentary or two perhaps, apparently this is getting more attention here than in either India or Pakistan.

From what I have read the focus on India is much stronger amongst certain English people (probably myself included) than anyone in India thinks about the UK.

It's because of the number of Indian immigrants living in the U.K. with ties still in their homeland, Stan. For the same reason we get reports about gang rapes in India when no doubt their are equally heinous acts being perpetrated elsewhere around the globe. I suspect that there are a significant number of BBC staff of Indian decent too, such that such reports can come across as local/home news.

I agree, however, that the history of India (from the early days of the Raj to partition) is a subject that I have found all the more interesting as I've got older.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Not sure what you are getting at if there is a rebuttal to what i've posted? Or were you just providing additional commentary to what i wrote?

Not so much a rebuttal - but for me, the reason black people are arrested in greater numbers in the US and the UK is that they are committing more crime pro rata on the street, particularly with reference to gangs and drug dealing, and perhaps also there is an under-catch of white collar crimes that generally involve white people.

Drugs have the attraction of quick and vast sums of money. Huge risk to life, which seems to be accepted by those dealing.

 

[sb_73]

It's because of the number of Indian immigrants living in the U.K. with ties still in their homeland, Stan. For the same reason we get reports about gang rapes in India when no doubt their are equally heinous acts being perpetrated elsewhere around the globe. I suspect that there are a significant number of BBC staff of Indian decent too, such that such reports can come across as local/home news.

I agree, however, that the history of India (from the early days of the Raj to partition) is a subject that I have found all the more interesting as I've got older.

Possibly mate, but still odd that, by all accounts, it's getting more attention here than in the countries which are celebrating their independence. And judging by the screens in some of the houses I walk past with the dog in the evening there are dedicated Indian tv channels. 'Look, it's the Sikh Vic and Bob' we trill as we skip past a telly showing a couple of turbaned talking heads. No matter, it is interesting and the last few years of first hand accounts.

Flashman in the Great Game is the best book on Indian history I have read.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

I agree, however, that the history of India (from the early days of the Raj to partition) is a subject that I have found all the more interesting as I've got older.

It may be a relative thing, Uber. Your interest in India may be just it was when you were 18, but it seems greater because your interest in pulling women in nightclubs, getting mortal on rum and coke, surfing the tops of tube trains, pulling women outside nightclubs, base jumping, smoking noxious substances, naked bungee jumping, and free running across high buildings is slightly diminished

 

[Uber_Hoop]

Possibly mate, but still odd that, by all accounts, it's getting more attention here than in the countries which are celebrating their independence. And judging by the screens in some of the houses I walk past with the dog in the evening there are dedicated Indian tv channels. 'Look, it's the Sikh Vic and Bob' we trill as we skip past a telly showing a couple of turbaned talking heads. No matter, it is interesting and the last few years of first hand accounts.

Flashman in the Great Game is the best book on Indian history I have read.

I lurve Flashman; have read 'em all.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

It may be a relative thing, Uber. Your interest in India may be just it was when you were 18, but it seems greater because your interest in pulling women in nightclubs, getting mortal on rum and coke, surfing the tops of tube trains, pulling women outside nightclubs, base jumping, smoking noxious substances, naked bungee jumping, and free running across high buildings is slightly diminished

It's not my interest in pulling women inside and outside of nightclubs that has diminished, Goldie. Strangely, it's Mrs Uber's interest in me pulling women inside and outside of nightclubs that has diminished.

 

[sb_73]

I see Jeremy Corbyn has condemned Trumps initial denouncement of 'violence on all sides' in Charlottesville as 'not enough'.

Quite right, but also quite ironic that Trump has simply borrowed Corbyn's technique of condemning violence in general, but not specifically calling out people like, say, Maduro, the IRA or Hamas.

Perhaps now that Trump has specifically condemned the white supremacists Jeremy will feel able to be more clear about who he is condemning, in addition to 'the far right', in his pronouncements on violence.

 

[West London Willy]

I see Jeremy Corbyn has condemned Trumps initial denouncement of 'violence on all sides' in Charlottesville as 'not enough'.

Quite right, but also quite ironic that Trump has simply borrowed Corbyn's technique of condemning violence in general, but not specifically calling out people like, say, Maduro, the IRA or Hamas.

Perhaps now that Trump has specifically condemned the white supremacists Jeremy will feel able to be more clear about who he is condemning, in addition to 'the far right', in his pronouncements on violence.

Of course he won't. He's as hypocritical and opportunistic as the rest, despite some people on here thinking he's different from other politicians. Well here's further proof, if needed, that he's just the same. He actually used the words 'by all sides' when talking about the violence in Venezuela under Maduro. almost the exact same words as Trump.