UK Politics Thread XII: The Lockdown

[Hirota]

Out of interest, is there a formula for determining when a party as a whole has a "sexual assault problem?"

You know, something like X=( (2*number of arrests squared) + number of resignations + (0.5 * number of apologies) )/number of MPs in the party where if X is greater than a number then the party has a problem?

No, but as soon as the party leadership is actively involved in covering up sexual assaults performed by their members, the party has a "sexual assault problem".

Given that parties of all stripes were accused in 2017 of:

After revelations emerged in 2017 about Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, researchers, staff members and journalists working in British politics began to come forward with allegations of sexual abuse and harassment by lawmakers and parliamentary officials.

Several said political parties failed to take action when notified of alleged abuse and even discouraged victims from going to the police.

And given that some of these coverups were alleged to have been over the course of years, and the current suggestion is that (according to the Sunday Times), that Mark Spencer, the chief whip, and Jacob Rees-Mogg, might have known for up to a month there is a very different level of coverup in play here.

In fact, given the glacial pace the police can often take to investigate these things because they have to do it so thoroughly (full disclosure: my partners niece was a victim of sexual assault two years ago, the person who did it - her step brother - was only charged six months after she reported it) , I'd suggest there is currently little to no evidence at this time of anyone being "actively involved in a coverup" in this specific instance. Although given the historical coverups mentioned earlier there is certainly a need for all political parties to be seen to be reactive to similar allegations.

[The Alma Mater]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/04/number-of-uk-citizens-emigrating-to-eu-has-risen-by-30-since-brexit-vote

No. Go back! Stop increasing housing prices over here. You made your bed, now lie in it.

Secretly it is all a plan to restore the British Empire - just spread out and claim all the houses. Monopoly 2.0; and no free parking.

[Ostroeuropa]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/04/number-of-uk-citizens-emigrating-to-eu-has-risen-by-30-since-brexit-vote

No. Go back! Stop increasing housing prices over here. You made your bed, now lie in it.

Secretly it is all a plan to restore the British Empire - just spread out and claim all the houses. Monopoly 2.0; and no free parking.

If you care about British culture as a meme and want it to spread, this but unironically.

Having a country with few immigrants but lots of emigrants is good for a societies long term influence, security, and access to resources.

The issue is maintaining enough population growth for it to be viable.

[Ostroeuropa]

Interesting how anonymity is given to MPs but not to others accused.

[Hirota]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/04/number-of-uk-citizens-emigrating-to-eu-has-risen-by-30-since-brexit-vote

No. Go back! Stop increasing housing prices over here. You made your bed, now lie in it.

Don't get taken in by the clickbait. It is being rather creative over some of the numbers. It does an awful job of distinguishing between:
- British nationals moving their place of residence from the UK to the EU - this is the ones which is implied in the headline
- British nationals already resident in the EU changing their nationality so they can stay there after free movement is potentially taken away from them. For example:

The biggest jump in migration was to Spain, where an estimated 380,000 British nationals live. Registration has not been essential in the country so many have lived there without being included in official Spanish immigration data, with an average of just 2,300 a year registering as migrating to the country between 2008 and 2015. After the referendum, this jumped fivefold, with 21,250 registrations in the two years between 2016 and 2018.

The second most popular country for British nationals was France, which does not require registration of EU migrants. Between 2008 and 2015 the number of registrations was just over 500 a year. After the referendum this rose tenfold with 5,000 registrations over the following two years.

So in other words these numbers will include people who had already emigrated to Spain and France years ago but simply had not registered because there was no obligation to do so.

And the article makes no mention of the third category: EU nationals normally resident in the UK deciding to return, and whether being deemed ineligible for "settled status" or indefinite leave to remain is a factor in that.

Meanwhile, we also know that the number of EU nationals applying for British citizenship has also increased, probably for the same reasons as the number of registrations for UK to EU has increased.

[The Blaatschapen]

Secretly it is all a plan to restore the British Empire - just spread out and claim all the houses. Monopoly 2.0; and no free parking.

If you care about British culture as a meme and want it to spread, this but unironically.

Having a country with few immigrants but lots of emigrants is good for a societies long term influence, security, and access to resources.

The issue is maintaining enough population growth for it to be viable.

The numbers of British here is still too small to make a visible dent in the population numbers at large. And they might integrate and lose their Britishness, whatever that means. It's not like Germans in Romania or so, who have been there for centuries, in large enough numbers concentrated in a few areas (the British tend to be spread out across the major cities in Germany probably, and not take over a whole village in East-Frisia).

Also, what is British culture, especially when compared to the local cultures here (so don't give me things like "rule of law")? Monty Python quotes? Sunburns on Spanish beaches? I am genuinely curious.

[Hirota]

Interesting how anonymity is given to MPs but not to others accused.

You can thank Cliff Richard for that in his legal action against the BBC in 2018. Until this MP is charged (and not just arrested) they have the same anonymity as everyone else.

[The Alma Mater]

If you care about British culture as a meme and want it to spread, this but unironically.

Having a country with few immigrants but lots of emigrants is good for a societies long term influence, security, and access to resources.

The issue is maintaining enough population growth for it to be viable.

The numbers of British here is still too small to make a visible dent in the population numbers at large. And they might integrate and lose their Britishness, whatever that means. It's not like Germans in Romania or so, who have been there for centuries, in large enough numbers concentrated in a few areas (the British tend to be spread out across the major cities in Germany probably, and not take over a whole village in East-Frisia).

In Amsterdam they are surpisingly present - to the level that the common language spoken in parks (even during lockdown with no tourists) is English.

[The Blaatschapen]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/04/number-of-uk-citizens-emigrating-to-eu-has-risen-by-30-since-brexit-vote

No. Go back! Stop increasing housing prices over here. You made your bed, now lie in it.

Don't get taken in by the clickbait. It is being rather creative over some of the numbers. It does an awful job of distinguishing between:
- British nationals moving their place of residence from the UK to the EU - this is the ones which is implied in the headline
- British nationals already resident in the EU changing their nationality so they can stay there after free movement is potentially taken away from them. For example:

The biggest jump in migration was to Spain, where an estimated 380,000 British nationals live. Registration has not been essential in the country so many have lived there without being included in official Spanish immigration data, with an average of just 2,300 a year registering as migrating to the country between 2008 and 2015. After the referendum, this jumped fivefold, with 21,250 registrations in the two years between 2016 and 2018.

The second most popular country for British nationals was France, which does not require registration of EU migrants. Between 2008 and 2015 the number of registrations was just over 500 a year. After the referendum this rose tenfold with 5,000 registrations over the following two years.

So in other words these numbers will include people who had already emigrated to Spain and France years ago but simply had not registered because there was no obligation to do so.

And the article makes no mention of the third category: EU nationals normally resident in the UK deciding to return, and whether being deemed ineligible for "settled status" or indefinite leave to remain is a factor in that.

Meanwhile, we also know that the number of EU nationals applying for British citizenship has also increased, probably for the same reasons as the number of registrations for UK to EU has increased.

Yeah, it makes sense for people whose rights(privileges, opportunities, freedoms) are now up for political games, that they try to secure said rights by gaining citizensheep. Either way. I also know some EU-nationals who gained their British passport. And some Brits who gained their Dutch or German one.

The difference of course is that the EU nationals had less influence on said political games, thus I'll blame them less for the consequences

[The Blaatschapen]

The numbers of British here is still too small to make a visible dent in the population numbers at large. And they might integrate and lose their Britishness, whatever that means. It's not like Germans in Romania or so, who have been there for centuries, in large enough numbers concentrated in a few areas (the British tend to be spread out across the major cities in Germany probably, and not take over a whole village in East-Frisia).

In Amsterdam they are surpisingly present - to the level that the common language spoken in parks (even during lockdown with no tourists) is English.

English is also a lingua franca. The amount of times that I speak English with a native English speaker is fairly low. The amount of times that I speak it with Italian, Spanish, or other kinds of non-Anglo immigrants in NL (or Germany) is fairly high.

[Tinhampton]

citizensheep

The Childcare Offer for Wales has returned.

[Ostroeuropa]

If you care about British culture as a meme and want it to spread, this but unironically.

Having a country with few immigrants but lots of emigrants is good for a societies long term influence, security, and access to resources.

The issue is maintaining enough population growth for it to be viable.

The numbers of British here is still too small to make a visible dent in the population numbers at large. And they might integrate and lose their Britishness, whatever that means. It's not like Germans in Romania or so, who have been there for centuries, in large enough numbers concentrated in a few areas (the British tend to be spread out across the major cities in Germany probably, and not take over a whole village in East-Frisia).

Also, what is British culture, especially when compared to the local cultures here (so don't give me things like "rule of law")? Monty Python quotes? Sunburns on Spanish beaches? I am genuinely curious.

British culture is a set of local cultures that are complex. It's a series of notions, tendencies, values, perspectives, stories, and traits to varying degrees. You may as well ask me to describe the British Economy but act like it's incomprehensible as a concept because other places also have various industries and jobs so really there is just "The economy" and any notion of there being local distinct variants is nonsense.

I shouldn't have to explain to people every aspect and business and industry in the British economy to understand it exists and think it's important.

[Ostroeuropa]

Interesting how anonymity is given to MPs but not to others accused.

You can thank Cliff Richard for that in his legal action against the BBC in 2018. Until this MP is charged (and not just arrested) they have the same anonymity as everyone else.

Oh he won that did he? That's heartening.

[The Archregimancy]

You can thank Cliff Richard for that in his legal action against the BBC in 2018. Until this MP is charged (and not just arrested) they have the same anonymity as everyone else.

Oh he won that did he? That's heartening.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44871799

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49576940


Edit:

See also formal police advice on naming on arrest...

https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-c ... -on-arrest


Versus naming on charge (including formal court summons)...

https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-c ... -on-charge

[Ostroeuropa]

Oh he won that did he? That's heartening.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44871799

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49576940

Good news. Now if only we can regulate them in the rest of their shite we'll be on to a winner.

[The Blaatschapen]

The numbers of British here is still too small to make a visible dent in the population numbers at large. And they might integrate and lose their Britishness, whatever that means. It's not like Germans in Romania or so, who have been there for centuries, in large enough numbers concentrated in a few areas (the British tend to be spread out across the major cities in Germany probably, and not take over a whole village in East-Frisia).

Also, what is British culture, especially when compared to the local cultures here (so don't give me things like "rule of law")? Monty Python quotes? Sunburns on Spanish beaches? I am genuinely curious.

British culture is a set of local cultures that are complex. It's a series of notions, tendencies, and traits to varying degrees. You may as well ask me to describe the British Economy but act like it's incomprehensible as a concept because other places also have various industries and jobs so really there is just "The economy" and any notion of there being local variants is nonsense.

German culture is a set of local cultures that are complex. It's a series of notions, tendencies, and traits to varying degrees.

Yet, we can agree(I hope!) that British and German culture are not the same. So what is British which is not also German? And vice versa, what is German which is not also British.

Kilts. It's definitely something British (in a subset of its local cultures), but not German(at least, I never heard a German argue that kilts are part of their culture). Yet I feel it is more, because I can get a German to wear a kilt (don't ask), but that doesn't make them British, nor does it stop them from being German. And at the same time, if I remove the kilt from a Brit, they do not stop being a Brit. They start being angry usually, but that's another story

[Ostroeuropa]

British culture is a set of local cultures that are complex. It's a series of notions, tendencies, and traits to varying degrees. You may as well ask me to describe the British Economy but act like it's incomprehensible as a concept because other places also have various industries and jobs so really there is just "The economy" and any notion of there being local variants is nonsense.

German culture is a set of local cultures that are complex. It's a series of notions, tendencies, and traits to varying degrees.

Yet, we can agree(I hope!) that British and German culture are not the same. So what is British which is not also German? And vice versa, what is German which is not also British.

Kilts. It's definitely something British (in a subset of its local cultures), but not German(at least, I never heard a German argue that kilts are part of their culture). Yet I feel it is more, because I can get a German to wear a kilt (don't ask), but that doesn't make them British, nor does it stop them from being German. And at the same time, if I remove the kilt from a Brit, they do not stop being a Brit. They start being angry usually, but that's another story

Nationalism is often esoteric. The kilts example is a pretty good one, because when a German wears a kilt their relationship to it is different to when a Brit wears one.

Another example would be my brother turning up to family dinner, and a random German doing so.

"Well what is your brother exactly? What makes him different to this random German?" JAQIng off would be seen as rightly ridiculous there. So it goes with culture.

Yes a German *can* wear a kilt. Yes they *can* come to my family dinner. But their relationship to those actions is different by virtue of their heritage, perspective, experience, and so on.

The experience of a German wearing a kilt will never be the same as the experience of a Briton doing so.

Culture is not merely a series of things, but a relationship to those things. Because it is partially based in subjective experience, post-modern questioning of it and demanding it be measured empirically or it must secretly just be racism is wholly misguided.

[The New California Republic]

Kilts. It's definitely something British (in a subset of its local cultures), but not German(at least, I never heard a German argue that kilts are part of their culture). Yet I feel it is more, because I can get a German to wear a kilt (don't ask), but that doesn't make them British, nor does it stop them from being German. And at the same time, if I remove the kilt from a Brit, they do not stop being a Brit. They start being angry usually, but that's another story

So much to unpack in this.

[The Blaatschapen]

Kilts. It's definitely something British (in a subset of its local cultures), but not German(at least, I never heard a German argue that kilts are part of their culture). Yet I feel it is more, because I can get a German to wear a kilt (don't ask), but that doesn't make them British, nor does it stop them from being German. And at the same time, if I remove the kilt from a Brit, they do not stop being a Brit. They start being angry usually, but that's another story

So much to unpack in this.

I know. Also glossing over a lot of things, but I do wonder what is a <national> culture. Personally, I'm not too into that topic, since it fractals out of control (says the southern Dutchie with catholic roots who migrated away), and it goes nowhere productive usually, but if someone wants to spread a <national> culture unironically, I have to ask it. Because there is something. Apparently. For them.

[The Archregimancy]

British culture is a set of local cultures that are complex. It's a series of notions, tendencies, and traits to varying degrees. You may as well ask me to describe the British Economy but act like it's incomprehensible as a concept because other places also have various industries and jobs so really there is just "The economy" and any notion of there being local variants is nonsense.

German culture is a set of local cultures that are complex. It's a series of notions, tendencies, and traits to varying degrees.

Yet, we can agree(I hope!) that British and German culture are not the same. So what is British which is not also German? And vice versa, what is German which is not also British.

Kilts. It's definitely something British (in a subset of its local cultures), but not German(at least, I never heard a German argue that kilts are part of their culture). Yet I feel it is more, because I can get a German to wear a kilt (don't ask), but that doesn't make them British, nor does it stop them from being German. And at the same time, if I remove the kilt from a Brit, they do not stop being a Brit. They start being angry usually, but that's another story

Is this where I cite my published work on the use of the kilt within negotiating Scottish and British identities, particularly the co-authored book chapter written with a German colleague that makes an explicit comparison between the kilt and lederhosen?

[Hirota]

Oh he won that did he? That's heartening.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44871799

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49576940


Edit:

See also formal police advice on naming on arrest...

https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-c ... -on-arrest


Versus naming on charge (including formal court summons)...

https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-c ... -on-charge

It looks like it's still being tested (see ZXC v Bloomberg LP in May of this year), but yeah it's a recent - and long overdue - development of judicial law.

[The Archregimancy]

It looks like it's still being tested (see ZXC v Bloomberg LP in May of this year), but yeah it's a recent - and long overdue - development of judicial law.

And of course the short version in terms of its applicability to the present case is that the decision not to name the MP in question is entirely in line with current - albeit recently revised - police guidance, and is not evidence of an attempt at a cover-up nor evidence of favouritism towards an MP.

As you've separately noted, should the MP be charged, then his name will be released.


There are grounds for perhaps looking at how quickly the Tory party leadership responded, but being a bit slow to respond is not the same thing as covering up the case or trying to arrange for favours for the accused.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

University bigots want to control minorities

The link is paywalled. If anyone has access to the full article, feel free to post it here. In the meantime, here's a grainy photo of the full article I took from the TV.

So Trevor Phillips, former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the UK and longtime civil rights activist, speaks out against his former comrades for indulging in a totalitarian cult of cultural Marxist, pseudo-progressive wokeness that dishonestly claims to champion the rights and dignity of women and minorities when they are politically useful to their eternal cultural revolution and casually discards them as Uncle Toms the moment they have outlived their usefulness. British academics have taken to indoctrinating their young, naive, impressionable charges into believing they are entitled to exclusionary race and gender quotas, welfare checks, affirmative action, and an undeserved leg up solely on account of their race or gender, that white men are the source of all that is wrong with this world, that sIlEnCe iS vIoLeNcE, and that anyone who disagrees is a racist or an Uncle Tom who deserves to be canceled, doxxed, harassed, and made to live under a bridge along with their family for the rest of their lives on account of their non-racist, non-sexist, non-bigoted, but insufficiently woke, opinions.

[Hirota]

University bigots want to control minorities

The link is paywalled. If anyone has access to the full article, feel free to post it here. In the meantime, here's a grainy photo of the full article I took from the TV.

So Trevor Phillips, former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the UK and longtime civil rights activist, speaks out against his former comrades for indulging in a totalitarian cult of cultural Marxist, pseudo-progressive wokeness that dishonestly claims to champion the rights and dignity of women and minorities when they are politically useful to their eternal cultural revolution and casually discards them as Uncle Toms the moment they have outlived their usefulness. British academics have taken to indoctrinating their young, naive, impressionable charges into believing they are entitled to exclusionary race and gender quotas, welfare checks, affirmative action, and an undeserved leg up solely on account of their race or gender, that white men are the source of all that is wrong with this world, that sIlEnCe iS vIoLeNcE, and that anyone who disagrees is a racist or an Uncle Tom who deserves to be canceled, doxxed, harassed, and made to live under a bridge along with their family for the rest of their lives on account of their non-racist, non-sexist, non-bigoted, but insufficiently woke, opinions.

Here you go:

Every scientist knows the Galileo story. When one of the greatest minds of the 17th (or any other) century concluded that, contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching, the Earth was not the still centre of the universe but just one satellite of the sun he was for the high jump. Subjected to six years at the hands of the Inquisition, character assassination and house arrest, he finally gave in and admitted his “wrongthink” but is reputed to have muttered under his breath “E pur si muove” — “Still, it moves”. The man whom Einstein called the father of modern science was said to be hurt most by the way his fellow philosophers abandoned him for fear of suffering the same fate.

Which is why some of the hostile reaction from university staff to Policy Exchange’s report on academic freedom was to be expected. In one of the largest surveys of British academic opinion, the think tank asked 820 staff about their experience of working in higher education. They are, on average, considerably to the left of the nation and, while they do not want their colleagues to be punished for wrongthink, they won’t do much to encourage diversity of thought. Left or right, all admit to putting their political prejudices before their regard for intellectual integrity.

In one extraordinary finding, up to half of the academics surveyed said they would discriminate against a colleague’s appointment to a post or application for a research grant on political grounds. If this were simply a matter of Corbynistas or Faragistes attempting to drive out opponents it would be bad enough. But some of the detailed responses suggest that the motive is far more basic: the sheer bloody arrogance of a class of people who think they know better than the unwashed and unlettered.

One comment beneath the Times’s own report yesterday summed it up: “Maybe the greater proportion of academics who support Remain and broadly liberal ideals is because Remain makes (made) sense, and liberal ideals benefit a greater proportion of society. It would be comforting to think that those charged with the higher education of our young people recognise this.”

Along with this snobbishness goes a deep lack of curiosity. On the face of it, our universities are now run by a majority who believe they know it all and need to learn nothing. It makes you wonder about the point of the billions of pounds spent on research by people who seem to have all the answers already; it certainly doesn’t seem to be delivering scholarship. When asked by The Sunday Times to provide a list of anti-racist books everyone should read, one of our leading (black) academics managed to come up with more than a dozen (no doubt politically selected) titles which omitted not just one, but all three, of the black writers who have ever won the Nobel prize for literature.

Of course, most academics aren’t like this at all. There is a vocal minority that spends its time organising letters condemning colleagues, encouraging students to cancel speakers who do not display enough enthusiasm for this cause or that, and pulling down statues that cause unspeakable pain despite the fact that nobody had noticed their presence for half a century. We can’t legislate for silliness or ignorance, which are normal human failings. However, we do expect those paid to be grown-ups to do their jobs. Our university authorities have displayed the spinelessness of a ruling elite in decline, allowing themselves to be bullied by their own students and standing mute while some of their faculty rampage across social media denouncing people (like me) as racists (yes you, Cambridge University) or coon (I’m looking at you, Birmingham City University).

What is most disheartening is the widespread fiction that on one side stands an old guard, who allowed women and minorities to be bullied and mistreated, and on the other a brave new movement dedicated to sweeping away oppression. The truth is exactly the reverse. The fanatics who want to allow men to invade safe spaces for women are the ones creating an atmosphere of fear and exclusion for our sisters and daughters. The boycotts and disinvestment campaigns that are a whisker or less away from antisemitism. Those who claim that they are decolonising the curriculum to allow black students to be taught “their” history are, intentionally or not, excluding minorities from the rich store of shared knowledge that is their route out of the prison of their race in a white society.

The bigots who insist on stamping on any vestige of diversity of viewpoint are the modern face of authoritarianism in the West — the cousins of Putin, Xi and Orban in the East who have tamed higher education completely. The academy has always been the last redoubt of the free thinker, taking in men and women whose faces did not fit, whose understanding of the world rebelled against the orthodox. All too often these people saw the world differently because they were society’s outsiders: the lesbians and gays, the blacks, the women who refused to submit and, of course, the Jews. The grim truth is that the Policy Exchange survey shows our thinking institutions are in the grip of a doctrinaire cult, whose “thinking” is enforced by a new Inquisition.

Whatever they think they are achieving, their real target is not defending minorities but controlling them. The biggest losers here are the very people that the cult purports to defend. Yes, they will march alongside you if you are black, gay, lesbian, trans, female or disabled — but only so long as you shuffle along obediently to the beat of their dreary, robotic drum.

[Vassenor]

University bigots want to control minorities

The link is paywalled. If anyone has access to the full article, feel free to post it here. In the meantime, here's a grainy photo of the full article I took from the TV.

So Trevor Phillips, former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the UK and longtime civil rights activist, speaks out against his former comrades for indulging in a totalitarian cult of cultural Marxist, pseudo-progressive wokeness that dishonestly claims to champion the rights and dignity of women and minorities when they are politically useful to their eternal cultural revolution and casually discards them as Uncle Toms the moment they have outlived their usefulness. British academics have taken to indoctrinating their young, naive, impressionable charges into believing they are entitled to exclusionary race and gender quotas, welfare checks, affirmative action, and an undeserved leg up solely on account of their race or gender, that white men are the source of all that is wrong with this world, that sIlEnCe iS vIoLeNcE, and that anyone who disagrees is a racist or an Uncle Tom who deserves to be canceled, doxxed, harassed, and made to live under a bridge along with their family for the rest of their lives on account of their non-racist, non-sexist, non-bigoted, but insufficiently woke, opinions.

And what examples does he actually cite? A long list of "this is totally happening, trust me" isn't really all that useful.