Are you seriously arguing about someone using the word “we” when talking about what they think the country should or shouldn’t do? People do that all the sodding time. I bet I could find a dozen examples just on this thread of other people doing it. What’s the big deal?
Yes, I am. And I'm deeply serious about it.
Apparently that seriousness was taking a break when you read the OP, because it uses “we” and “our” in exactly the same way nine times.
Thank you for signposting me to that. I agree. Telford is by no means the only perpetrator. The OP has a pretty bad score on this.
I hadn't really been following this thread that closely. So I hadn't picked up other examples. What had struck me wasn't so much what he/she was saying as Telford's use of the portentous we. As you may have noticed, my response to him/her was headed "Tangent alert but a different tangent".
You summed up your attitude to me in your last 5 words.
@Telford I've no attitude to you. We've never met. There is no need to take this personally unless you choose to take everything that way. I've been commenting on 'the portentous we'. You're by no means the only person to use it, either on the ship or elsewhere.
I'm not, though, as tolerant as KarlLB, and particularly not on a cosmopolitan ship. People have a much greater entitlement to advocate for and against policies of and criticise their own governments than other peoples' governments. So, for that reason, I think one would need here to write, 'the UK/US/Canadian etc etc government imposes import tariffs of 5% on widgets.'
and 'I think the UK/US/Canadian etc etc government should impose a 10% tariff on widgets.'
If we were in their shoes, wouldn't we do exactly the same thing?
Probably. And if they were in our shoes they’d probably try to stop us.
Ah, the old "if they had the power they'd treat us atrociously so we have to do the same when we have power".
Not that we have to do the same, just that we're not uniquely evil. Some people seem to get confused between "we're the only ones who have enough power to do this" and "we're the only ones that would ever do this".
If we were in their shoes, wouldn't we do exactly the same thing?
Probably. And if they were in our shoes they’d probably try to stop us.
Ah, the old "if they had the power they'd treat us atrociously so we have to do the same when we have power".
Not that we have to do the same, just that we're not uniquely evil. Some people seem to get confused between "we're the only ones who have enough power to do this" and "we're the only ones that would ever do this".
Did anyone say the latter? The question is about what we should do.
I think I mentioned that the black newscaster was unable to find anywhere to house her in Powell's area, so his popularity there rather diminishes any identification of the place as multicultural. It was racist. A lot of people now think racism is bad.
According to the Guardian's interview with Roy Hackett, one of the leaders of the Bristol bus boycott, just five years before his Rivers of Blood speech Enoch Powell was busy campaigning in the West Indies to get West Indian immigrants to work in the UK.
I don't know whether hypocritical assumed racism is better or worse than genuinely felt racism. (To be honest, I'm suspicious of the idea that a vice can be even partially excused by sincerity.)
At least the people who complain that they don't want to hear Polish / Spanish / Urdu / whatever on their High Street are honest.
Seems like some people really don't get it.
The wanting one's own local area to keep it's own language and culture. Welcoming in ones and twos immigrants who want to speak that language and live that culture. And not welcoming hundreds of expats who want to occupy the area while speaking their own language and living their own culture.
Wanting this place to be full of the people who love it for what it is. Not the people who would prefer it to be Poland or Spain or Pakistan.
You summed up your attitude to me in your last 5 words.
@Telford I've no attitude to you. We've never met. There is no need to take this personally unless you choose to take everything that way. I've been commenting on 'the portentous we'. You're by no means the only person to use it, either on the ship or elsewhere.
You have a bee in your bonnet that 'the portentous we'
If we were in their shoes, wouldn't we do exactly the same thing?
Probably. And if they were in our shoes they’d probably try to stop us.
Ah, the old "if they had the power they'd treat us atrociously so we have to do the same when we have power". Paging Enoch Powell...
Enoch Powell...A very popular Wolverhampton MP standing in a multi racial area.
And your point is what exactly?
What I have said.Two people had already mentioned him.
Ok. In that case; so what?
In that case, what's your point ?
Oh, this is tedious.
Enoch Powell was being discussed.
You stated that he was a popular local MP. You have as yet offered no explanation as to how this observation is relevant to the discussion. Nor for that matter, any evidence for your assertion.
Are you trying to make a point? Because discussions are generally more fruitful if the other people know what you are trying to say.
The OP was about the recent increase in attempts by various groups of people to reach these shores, so what has Enoch Powell (who died more than 20 years ago!) to do with that issue?
The OP was about the recent increase in attempts by various groups of people to reach these shores, so what has Enoch Powell (who died more than 20 years ago!) to do with that issue?
Perhaps the two people who first mentioned him could explain themselves
The OP was about the recent increase in attempts by various groups of people to reach these shores, so what has Enoch Powell (who died more than 20 years ago!) to do with that issue?
Perhaps the two people who first mentioned him could explain themselves
I mentioned Powell because @Marvin the Martian 's claims reminded me of the sort of nonsense he used to spout about black people getting the "whip hand" over white.
Meanwhile, back in the real world alternative universe, I see that another 71 people, in 6 boats, were intercepted in the Channel yesterday. No reports yet of any more today - I wonder if the forecast thunderstorms put them off?
The OP was about the recent increase in attempts by various groups of people to reach these shores, so what has Enoch Powell (who died more than 20 years ago!) to do with that issue?
Perhaps the two people who first mentioned him could explain themselves
That's sophistry.
The raising of the name of Powell as @Arethosemyfeet explained, was a pertinent point as the language used at the very least one could argue bears some similarity to the pronouncements of Mr Rivers of Blood. Whether that's a fair charge or not is beside the point here, it's relevant to the discussion. You then chip in with the statement that Enoch Powell was a popular local MP. It's difficult to see how that particular observation is relevant to the current discussion on refugees. There is one obvious way that it could be and I deliberately refrained from going there and gave you three opportunities to explain why you felt that added to the discussion. I did this because I did not want to put words in your mouth. I did not want to assume.
The thing is, on other threads you have intimated more than once that the only measure of a politician you think counts is their popularity. The inevitable conclusion of this logic is that his vile racism is justified because it was popular. Now, that position is one that I find significant fault with but is indeed relevant as one could use the same argument now. Recent polling suggests the public want a 'tough' response to refugees.
So, is that what you meant? or did you mean something else - like you could be arguing that Powell wasn't racist? Or simply did you think Powell's popularity was an interesting aside to where the discussion had got to? As I said above: what's your point? The whole reason I asked you to clarify was to allow me (and others if they want to) to respond to you based on what your actual argument is rather than any presumption I (or they might make). This kind of thread especially is liable to go off the rails very fast when people misunderstand what others are saying. I simply wanted to know what you were saying.
It's sophistry because you then try to frame the issue as others raising Powell's name when that's not the issue at all.
Nobody can choose their parents or their place of birth.
And yet our spirit wishes to be like that of the arctic tern that can migrate from the North Pole to the South Pole and back again, not respecting political borders that are in many ways arbitary and temporary.
If a religious view of life means anything then surely it mean railing against the almost incomprehensible degree of inequality in this world.
Indeed - but those who rail against the inequality are so often railed against themselves, by the 'privileged' few...who just hate to have their comfortable status quo questioned.
The OP was about the recent increase in attempts by various groups of people to reach these shores, so what has Enoch Powell (who died more than 20 years ago!) to do with that issue?
Perhaps the two people who first mentioned him could explain themselves
That's sophistry.
The raising of the name of Powell as @Arethosemyfeet explained, was a pertinent point as the language used at the very least one could argue bears some similarity to the pronouncements of Mr Rivers of Blood.
AFZ
Who is this Mr Rivers of Blood ? ( a phrase that he never used). His name is Professor/Brigadier John Enoch Powell MP CBE.MBE.
He was a British politician, classical scholar, author, linguist, soldier, philologist, and poet.
I say all this because you only appear to know him as a racist.
This is the last time I will refer to him in this thread.
If we were in their shoes, wouldn't we do exactly the same thing?
Probably. And if they were in our shoes they’d probably try to stop us.
Ah, the old "if they had the power they'd treat us atrociously so we have to do the same when we have power". Paging Enoch Powell...
Enoch Powell...A very popular Wolverhampton MP standing in a multi racial area.
Doesn't alter the fact that he was a populist as well as a racist, even if he could be a good constituency MP to those BAME people he thought deserving. Populism has been the greatest underminer of democracy since the Cold War and he was a great exponent of the British version of it, so not worthy of anyone's admiration unless you want to live in somewhere corrupt and brutal like Putin's Russia.
The argument that the Royal Navy needs to crack down on small boats crossing the Channel in order to discourage people traffickers doesn't seem entirely without merit to me, but - exposing my ignorance - what actually is the role of people traffickers on these vessels?
Are these vessels piloted by traffickers who are in effect running an unofficial cross-Channel ferry service? That seems relatively honourable to me, in the sense that if the trafficker is on the boat with the people, they are all, quite literally, in the same boat, and so the trafficker has a vested interest in the passengers' welfare - much more so than, say, an HGV driver stowing immigrants in a shipping container or the reserve fuel tank. Or are the traffickers simply procuring a boat for the migrants and leaving them to their own devices? Or is there some form of indentured labour in place - i.e., we arrange safe passage across the Channel and you work in illegal conditions in our sweatshop?
(Where this is going is that if you remove a bad option without providing a better option, then people will choose an even worse option - which I suspect is the option of being trafficked by the aforementioned HGV drivers or similar.)
The OP was about the recent increase in attempts by various groups of people to reach these shores, so what has Enoch Powell (who died more than 20 years ago!) to do with that issue?
Perhaps the two people who first mentioned him could explain themselves
That's sophistry.
The raising of the name of Powell as @Arethosemyfeet explained, was a pertinent point as the language used at the very least one could argue bears some similarity to the pronouncements of Mr Rivers of Blood.
AFZ
Who is this Mr Rivers of Blood ? ( a phrase that he never used). His name is Professor/Brigadier John Enoch Powell MP CBE.MBE.
He was a British politician, classical scholar, author, linguist, soldier, philologist, and poet.
I say all this because you only appear to know him as a racist.
This is the last time I will refer to him in this thread.
N.B. I am not an expert on refugees but I know a few. There's a couple on the Ship who may wish to comment (or may not). In the meantime, whilst I am not an expert, I listen to those who know stuff.
The argument that the Royal Navy needs to crack down on small boats crossing the Channel in order to discourage people traffickers doesn't seem entirely without merit to me, but - exposing my ignorance - what actually is the role of people traffickers on these vessels?
Are these vessels piloted by traffickers who are in effect running an unofficial cross-Channel ferry service? That seems relatively honourable to me, in the sense that if the trafficker is on the boat with the people, they are all, quite literally, in the same boat, and so the trafficker has a vested interest in the passengers' welfare - much more so than, say, an HGV driver stowing immigrants in a shipping container or the reserve fuel tank. Or are the traffickers simply procuring a boat for the migrants and leaving them to their own devices? Or is there some form of indentured labour in place - i.e., we arrange safe passage across the Channel and you work in illegal conditions in our sweatshop?
(Where this is going is that if you remove a bad option without providing a better option, then people will choose an even worse option - which I suspect is the option of being trafficked by the aforementioned HGV drivers or similar.)
From what I've read, there are (broadly speaking) two types of people traffikers.
1. There are criminal gangs who purchase cheap boats and a few life vests, turn up at a beach in France with said boat take money from refugees (significantly in excess of cost of boat) and then wave good bye from the beach as the refugees make their own way towards Dover. When the boat is detained on route, they're not on board to be arrested, and arresting them requires the prior intelligence for the French police to be on the beach when they're taking cash from refugees.
2. There are criminal gangs who operate at both ends. These are the people who load refugees into locked trailers, and then need to be at the English end to unlock the trailers and let them out. Or, take slightly better boats and try to cross the Channel at night when there's less chance of being caught, and then re-use the boat to do this regularly. These gangs are more likely to work with modern slavery gangs in the UK, so will take money from that route as well as from the refugees.
The raising of the name of Powell as @Arethosemyfeet explained, was a pertinent point as the language used at the very least one could argue bears some similarity to the pronouncements of Mr Rivers of Blood. Whether that's a fair charge or not is beside the point here, it's relevant to the discussion.
Seems to me that it's being used to shut down discussion. Why is a perceived similarity* between what I said and what Powell said decades ago relevant, if not as a means of tainting my views by association?
.
*= and frankly, there are some mental gymnastics to be done to perceive that similarity. IMO.
The raising of the name of Powell as @Arethosemyfeet explained, was a pertinent point as the language used at the very least one could argue bears some similarity to the pronouncements of Mr Rivers of Blood. Whether that's a fair charge or not is beside the point here, it's relevant to the discussion.
Seems to me that it's being used to shut down discussion. Why is a perceived similarity* between what I said and what Powell said decades ago relevant, if not as a means of tainting my views by association?
.
*= and frankly, there are some mental gymnastics to be done to perceive that similarity. IMO.
If you use arguments commonly used by racists you shouldn't be surprised if the similarity gets noticed. If you're uncomfortable with that you might want to reconsider the arguments you're deploying.
It's saying "This Tweet is unavailable." which suggests the HO operate the "put out a Tweet and leave it there long enough to be seen and do damage then withdraw it again" approach.
It's saying "This Tweet is unavailable." which suggests the HO operate the "put out a Tweet and leave it there long enough to be seen and do damage then withdraw it again" approach.
Comments
What I have said.Two people had already mentioned him.
I hadn't really been following this thread that closely. So I hadn't picked up other examples. What had struck me wasn't so much what he/she was saying as Telford's use of the portentous we. As you may have noticed, my response to him/her was headed "Tangent alert but a different tangent".
Statement of fact: 'we impose import tariffs of 5% on widgets.'
Opinion of what policy should be: 'I think we should impose a 10% tariff on widgets.'
Attempting to speak for everyone: 'We in the UK are sick of low tariffs on widget imports.'
It's only the last of these which bothers me, speaking personally.
Ok. In that case; so what?
That racism was popular in the 60s and 70s is not news to anyone I would hope.
I'm not, though, as tolerant as KarlLB, and particularly not on a cosmopolitan ship. People have a much greater entitlement to advocate for and against policies of and criticise their own governments than other peoples' governments. So, for that reason, I think one would need here to write,
'the UK/US/Canadian etc etc government imposes import tariffs of 5% on widgets.'
and
'I think the UK/US/Canadian etc etc government should impose a 10% tariff on widgets.'
Not that we have to do the same, just that we're not uniquely evil. Some people seem to get confused between "we're the only ones who have enough power to do this" and "we're the only ones that would ever do this".
Did anyone say the latter? The question is about what we should do.
I don't know whether hypocritical assumed racism is better or worse than genuinely felt racism. (To be honest, I'm suspicious of the idea that a vice can be even partially excused by sincerity.)
Seems like some people really don't get it.
The wanting one's own local area to keep it's own language and culture. Welcoming in ones and twos immigrants who want to speak that language and live that culture. And not welcoming hundreds of expats who want to occupy the area while speaking their own language and living their own culture.
Wanting this place to be full of the people who love it for what it is. Not the people who would prefer it to be Poland or Spain or Pakistan.
In that case, what's your point ?
Oh, this is tedious.
Enoch Powell was being discussed.
You stated that he was a popular local MP. You have as yet offered no explanation as to how this observation is relevant to the discussion. Nor for that matter, any evidence for your assertion.
Are you trying to make a point? Because discussions are generally more fruitful if the other people know what you are trying to say.
AFZ
The OP was about the recent increase in attempts by various groups of people to reach these shores, so what has Enoch Powell (who died more than 20 years ago!) to do with that issue?
Perhaps the two people who first mentioned him could explain themselves
I mentioned Powell because @Marvin the Martian 's claims reminded me of the sort of nonsense he used to spout about black people getting the "whip hand" over white.
That's sophistry.
The raising of the name of Powell as @Arethosemyfeet explained, was a pertinent point as the language used at the very least one could argue bears some similarity to the pronouncements of Mr Rivers of Blood. Whether that's a fair charge or not is beside the point here, it's relevant to the discussion. You then chip in with the statement that Enoch Powell was a popular local MP. It's difficult to see how that particular observation is relevant to the current discussion on refugees. There is one obvious way that it could be and I deliberately refrained from going there and gave you three opportunities to explain why you felt that added to the discussion. I did this because I did not want to put words in your mouth. I did not want to assume.
The thing is, on other threads you have intimated more than once that the only measure of a politician you think counts is their popularity. The inevitable conclusion of this logic is that his vile racism is justified because it was popular. Now, that position is one that I find significant fault with but is indeed relevant as one could use the same argument now. Recent polling suggests the public want a 'tough' response to refugees.
So, is that what you meant? or did you mean something else - like you could be arguing that Powell wasn't racist? Or simply did you think Powell's popularity was an interesting aside to where the discussion had got to? As I said above: what's your point? The whole reason I asked you to clarify was to allow me (and others if they want to) to respond to you based on what your actual argument is rather than any presumption I (or they might make). This kind of thread especially is liable to go off the rails very fast when people misunderstand what others are saying. I simply wanted to know what you were saying.
It's sophistry because you then try to frame the issue as others raising Powell's name when that's not the issue at all.
AFZ
Sophistry (/ˈsɒfɪstri/)
The use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
Which could, by some, be taken as a sort of back-handed compliment, I suppose!
And yet our spirit wishes to be like that of the arctic tern that can migrate from the North Pole to the South Pole and back again, not respecting political borders that are in many ways arbitary and temporary.
If a religious view of life means anything then surely it mean railing against the almost incomprehensible degree of inequality in this world.
Who is this Mr Rivers of Blood ? ( a phrase that he never used). His name is Professor/Brigadier John Enoch Powell MP CBE.MBE.
He was a British politician, classical scholar, author, linguist, soldier, philologist, and poet.
I say all this because you only appear to know him as a racist.
This is the last time I will refer to him in this thread.
Doesn't alter the fact that he was a populist as well as a racist, even if he could be a good constituency MP to those BAME people he thought deserving. Populism has been the greatest underminer of democracy since the Cold War and he was a great exponent of the British version of it, so not worthy of anyone's admiration unless you want to live in somewhere corrupt and brutal like Putin's Russia.
The argument that the Royal Navy needs to crack down on small boats crossing the Channel in order to discourage people traffickers doesn't seem entirely without merit to me, but - exposing my ignorance - what actually is the role of people traffickers on these vessels?
Are these vessels piloted by traffickers who are in effect running an unofficial cross-Channel ferry service? That seems relatively honourable to me, in the sense that if the trafficker is on the boat with the people, they are all, quite literally, in the same boat, and so the trafficker has a vested interest in the passengers' welfare - much more so than, say, an HGV driver stowing immigrants in a shipping container or the reserve fuel tank. Or are the traffickers simply procuring a boat for the migrants and leaving them to their own devices? Or is there some form of indentured labour in place - i.e., we arrange safe passage across the Channel and you work in illegal conditions in our sweatshop?
(Where this is going is that if you remove a bad option without providing a better option, then people will choose an even worse option - which I suspect is the option of being trafficked by the aforementioned HGV drivers or similar.)
Oh look, a squirrel!
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/the-truth-about-asylum/
In answer to the above question; this seems to be a good summary:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/06/refugees-tell-of-brutality-as-people-smuggling-across-channel-booms
AFZ
N.B. I am not an expert on refugees but I know a few. There's a couple on the Ship who may wish to comment (or may not). In the meantime, whilst I am not an expert, I listen to those who know stuff.
1. There are criminal gangs who purchase cheap boats and a few life vests, turn up at a beach in France with said boat take money from refugees (significantly in excess of cost of boat) and then wave good bye from the beach as the refugees make their own way towards Dover. When the boat is detained on route, they're not on board to be arrested, and arresting them requires the prior intelligence for the French police to be on the beach when they're taking cash from refugees.
2. There are criminal gangs who operate at both ends. These are the people who load refugees into locked trailers, and then need to be at the English end to unlock the trailers and let them out. Or, take slightly better boats and try to cross the Channel at night when there's less chance of being caught, and then re-use the boat to do this regularly. These gangs are more likely to work with modern slavery gangs in the UK, so will take money from that route as well as from the refugees.
Seems to me that it's being used to shut down discussion. Why is a perceived similarity* between what I said and what Powell said decades ago relevant, if not as a means of tainting my views by association?
.
*= and frankly, there are some mental gymnastics to be done to perceive that similarity. IMO.
/urgent pedant alert/
For @Telford's edification, the 'Rivers of Blood' speech may not actually have included those words in that order , but there was an allusion to a line from Virgil's Aeniad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech
If you use arguments commonly used by racists you shouldn't be surprised if the similarity gets noticed. If you're uncomfortable with that you might want to reconsider the arguments you're deploying.
https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1298674067323727872?s=19
I don't know where to begin with this.
How can an official HO account tweet something so legally inaccurate??????
AFZ
I guess they are hoping that there will be no consequences to that tweet
Only took about 15 hours...
Here's the Bar Council's response: https://twitter.com/thebarcouncil/status/1298965294724067329?s=19
Fifteen hours!
You couldn’t make up this level of incompetence
https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53937593
Same subject? I haven't been able to read the original tweet...
https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-53905550