Aggy

I stopped posting in the main forum after receiving a load of insults for making the completely ludicrous and unreasonable suggestion that the keeper may possibly have been at least partly to blame for a couple of the six goals we conceded against Plymouth last year…

That’s rather different to ignoring things though (although I agree there isn’t much of value in this thread)

Yeah, if all his detractors ignore him then no doubt all his supporters will do so as well.

I agree with this statement but would argue it applies even among those who share a ‘culture’. I’m sure plenty of the Labour vs Tory support would say exactly that about the opposing party. “Culture” has very little to do with it (or, depending on your definition of “culture” you might argue the “right” and the “left” are different “cultures” themselves…) And your statement here is basically why I think claims like “multiculturalism has failed” are a bit silly. It’s not a “culture” issue - it’s just human nature to disagree about things and want to do things differently. Even the sharia law point - I don’t want it here but I also don’t want, for instance, the death penalty - not exactly the same point but not a million miles apart. I have a lot more time for people who can explain (for instance) genuine economic concerns about immigration than those who lap up sound bites without really understanding what they’re talking about. See this thread - a poster claims multiculturalism has failed, then has to have a number of attempts to even define multiculturalism, can’t even seem to decide whether he thinks Britain is multicultural or not, argues with their own previous definition, is unable or unwilling to define ‘culture’, and can’t explain why it has “failed”. There’s a sensible conversation to be had about education for ‘integration’ of young people (of all “cultures”) - but racist sound bites from people who just think there are too many muslims, like on this thread, isn’t that. (As an aside, I’d say the same about the use of ‘culture’ as I did about multiculturalism - it’s a label, a term, which can mean whatever you want it to mean. There are plenty of white English people who it would be very easy for me to argue are at least partially different to me ‘culturally’ depending on how I defined it.)

Took a while to get there, but glad we now have the answer as to why LYB thinks “multiculturalism has failed” - simply that there are too many Muslims.

Nothing vexatious about my initial questions. Had you had a genuine answer to them, we could have had a genuine discussion. There has been more sensible discussion from Fen in 2 posts than you’ve managed the whole thread… The issue you have though is evident in this post and the last couple… you can’t answer any of the questions because the only reason you think “multiculturalism has failed” is that you just dislike muslims and you’re not big enough to say it.

I don’t know any foreigners personally who want to live under sharia law. I do know one white English lad I went to school with who is currently doing time for murder… There will be individuals (and often groups of individuals) who always want to live outside of the law. That’s not a “multiculturalism’s issue though - it’s a human nature issue. edit rather than double post: the point you make about NI/Glasgow supporting this. Is that an example of ‘failed multiculturalism’? Should they ban Protestants/catholics from certain areas? Or is it just the case some humans will find something to fight about regardless of where they’re from..

If though you are asking what I would like from a “multicultural society” then either of the above would be fine in principle. Why would I care if there were multiple cultures living together within the country I am in? There are plenty of people from my “culture” (white, English) who I don’t have anything much in common with and who have very different principles to me. As long as they live within our system of laws (things like sharia law I do agree shouldn’t be here). Sectarianism etc happens regardless - we haven’t only had violent crime, gang warfare, football hooliganism etc since some foreigners came over. And we have, for instance, violent protest clashes between different groups of white English people…

I think there is some confusion here. I’m not interested in a semantic debate about what multiculturalism is. I’ve already said its a silly label that means whatever you want it to mean. The point is that if someone makes a claim such as “multiculturalism has failed” what they really mean is “my interpretation of multiculturalism has failed by these criteria I gave chosen” or “the form of multiculturalism we have is different to how I would like it”. LYB is getting closer to giving us his definition of multiculturalism but despite snarky comments and posts about dictionaries that he has contradicted without any argument from anyone, we still don’t actually know what he thinks multiculturalism is, or why he thinks it has failed. If he can explain that then I’ll happily discuss it. If he can’t explain it then we’d be discussing a sound bite he has copied from the internet, which he doesn’t understand and can’t explain, so what’s the point….

Sounds like you’re now arguing with your own dictionary definition…

Nobody has rejected the definition of multiculturalism you have copied from an online dictionary, which seems sensible. It is, however, slightly strange that you had to refer to a dictionary after you had already used the phrase multiculturalism - having claimed it has failed, why did you need to look up what it was? Given the definition in the dictionary you’ve eventually chosen defines multiculturalism as multiple cultures living together, I asked how you define “cultures” - which is a fairly essential component of that initial definition. Once you’ve chosen the definition of culture you want to use, perhaps you can then elaborate on why you think only a number of “pockets” in Britain are multicultural, and why you think multiculturalism has failed. Presumably by explaining what you think ‘success’ would look like and then showing that hasn’t happened in the “multicultural pockets” but has elsewhere. If you’d rather play silly idiots instead of having a sensible discussion around a claim you’ve made (or if you just simply don’t have any sensible points to make), then that’s fine, we can leave it here.

I think the use of terms and labels such as “multiculturalism” is pretty silly. They mean whatever you want them to mean. If you want me to answer why I think your definition of multiculturalism has ‘succeeded’ in specific “pockets” of the country, then you’ll have to actually answer some of the questions. I do though appreciate that means having an individual thought to support your position rather than just copying definitions from the internet.

When you last posted about it you were talking purely about skin colour - you were suggesting all your friends were bemused about adverts having people of so many different skin colours when it didn’t reflect the demographic. So is “culture” skin colour or something else? (Last time you got a bit stumped when Eastern Europeans came into the equation.) Then when youve decided how you’re defining “culture”, have a go at“multicultural”? Does having 99 per cent one culture and 1 per cent another culture make an area “multicultural”? What’s the cut off for multicultural vs not multicultural? You seem to think only a few areas are multicultural so what is the amount of multiple “cultures” or the number of people with a different “culture” that are permitted before an area becomes multicultural? Then how do you think multiculturalism has failed?

Go on then, I’ll play along. How has it clearly failed? And the other part of the question you ignored last time was how you define multicultural. As clearly a lot more places than the four towns youve listed have people from more than one “culture”.

When you say “most people”, do you only mean those people who make posts about multiculturalism having failed in Britain, despite also arguing Britain isn’t multicultural, then waffle on for about ten posts on a messageboard trying to explain how their illogical racist nonsense did actually make sense (despite it not doing)?

Yes but compensation for terminating the contract would be calculated differently. A transfer fee currently is basically open market value and highest bidder wins (subject to players agreeing terms etc.). And if a club doesn’t want to pay the inflated price tag, the player doesn’t move.

Not sure the guardian article is all that clear. As I understand it, currently if a player unilaterally terminates his contract, both he and his new club would be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the old club. The new club would also potentially be liable for sporting sanctions (points deductions etc.) Diarra says that effectively stops new clubs from employing a player who has unilaterally terminated their contract, and is therefore an unfair restriction on trade. The bigger of the two to me seems to be the sporting sanctions. I suspect most players wouldn’t terminate their contract unless the new club would agree to pay the compensation. And as the compensation might be lower than a transfer fee, clubs might be happy to do so. But not if they’re going to get whacked with a points deduction…. Take the points deduction / sporting sanctions out of the equation though, and you would basically no longer have transfer fees as we know them. The selling club wouldn’t be able to set a price or refuse to sell. Players would just unilaterally terminate their contracts and then (probably backed by the new club) pay compensation. Probably though, to avoid litigation and uncertainty, there would still be an element of clubs agreeing the compensation payable (which might mean “transfer fees” aren’t hugely reduced). But it would mean more bargaining power for the buying club and the player in engineering a move (and potentially lower transfer fees?).

I’ve thought for a while 50 over cricket is the most at risk of fading into obscurity. I used to go with my dad as a kid with a packed lunch and make a day of it, but tbh now I can’t remember the last 50 over game - domestic or international - I watched. T20 you can go for the evening. Test is still for me the pinnacle. 50 over just a bit stuck in between. Aren’t they still talking about changing it to a t20 tournament when the current sky deal expires…. But still calling it the hundred….

At least you don’t bite though

Yes, it was a jokey response with a bit of self depreciating humour and suggesting you’re a bit dim. Looks like it landed about right.

If I ever have a good argument/rebuttal I won’t bother wasting it on you

He’s got an old school friend / neighbour / customer who knows far more about it than you though, so not much point.

Except there would never be a party realistically whose manifesto you agree with 100 per cent. There might be a party more aligned to your views in a PR system, but that party might get a tiny percentage of the vote. You’re then hoping the other similar-ish parties can all agree to work together in a coalition that works more soundly than a coalition of parties who you completely disagree with. And if your party is having to compromise to make a coalition work, then is it really that different? Add to that the electorate probably wouldn’t have any say in how the coalitions are formed - and you might be wishing you had the ability to vote tactically to keep out Labour/the Tories rather than ending up with a coalition which allows more extreme parties to have a seat at the table despite having tiny vote shares.

Good job you’ve raised this with them privately then rather than announcing it publicly on a public message board to try and get a few likes. 🙄

Correct. With no disrespect meant to you personally, I don’t really care what your (or anyone else’s) opinion is. I come to read opinions and agree or disagree with them - the poster is irrelevant and so I have no interest in taking the discussion “offline” with any individual.