Jeremy Corbyn might actually win?

[shuttlt]

I do not want blacks only carriages or whites only carriages. I'm surprised you need me to state that explicitly. But I'll say it five times if you need me to do so.

From a capacity management point of view, this would be a terrible idea.

 

[baron]

I do not want blacks only carriages or whites only carriages. I'm surprised you need me to state that explicitly. But I'll say it five times if you need me to do so.

Once is sufficient. So I take it you view segregation based on race, to combat racism, far more contentious than segregation based on gender, to combat harassment. Why is this?

 

[Craig B]

Once is sufficient. So I take it you view segregation based on race, to combat racism, far more contentious than segregation based on gender, to combat harassment. Why is this?

Stop posting drivel.

 

[shuttlt]

Once is sufficient. So I take it you view segregation based on race, to combat racism, far more contentious than segregation based on gender, to combat harassment. Why is this?

Any absolute segregation is going to lead to increased queuing. It would be better, as in the women's carriage example, to give the smaller oppressed group dedicated carriage space that is insufficient at peak times and allow them to overspill into the general carriages.

 

[baron]

Stop posting drivel.

Par for the course. You'd think the law of averages would allow you to put forward one valid point but it appears not.

 

[baron]

Any absolute segregation is going to lead to increased queuing. It would be better, as in the women's carriage example, to give the smaller oppressed group dedicated carriage space that is insufficient at peak times and allow them to overspill into the general carriages.

Probably best just to have alternate days, men one day, women the next. Then there will be no crime.

 

[Darat]

Once is sufficient. So I take it you view segregation based on race, to combat racism, far more contentious than segregation based on gender, to combat harassment. Why is this?

Crafty bit of trying to move the goalposts, from what I gather the women groups that have proposed this idea do so to stop assaults. Only you seem to be adding it is to stop harassment alone.

 

[baron]

Crafty bit of trying to move the goalposts, from what I gather the women groups that have proposed this idea do so to stop assaults. Only you seem to be adding it is to stop harassment alone.

Eh? What does this mean? I wasn't the one who first used that word. Substitute assaults, then. Makes no difference.

 

[trustbutverify]

Actually it isn't. If it was akin to that it would be suggesting women not be allowed on public transport. This idea is to deal with an apparently serious problem that actually exists. Is it an ideal solution of course not but for me the test would be will it work whilst we try to tackle the problems in other ways?

I'm open to it being discussed and if it can be shown to work then why would I oppose it?

This seems reasonable to me. It isn't an ideal approach, but it gives females an alternative to feeling sick every time they use public transport, hoping not to be harassed, humiliated or assaulted.

 

[shuttlt]

This keeps reminding me of a Victoria Wood sketch. A couple are having sex on a busy train. Everybody tries to ignore them and pretends to read their newspapers and such. At the end they light up and a woman leans over and says "excuse me, this is a no smoking carriage".

Is the idea that people would fail to stop a sexual assault, but would prevent a man going into a woman only carriage? Or that the kind of person who would sexually assault someone on a train would demure from entering a woman only carriage?

 

[Craig B]

Probably best just to have alternate days, men one day, women the next. Then there will be no crime.

Are you inviting me to "groundhog" my "drivel" observation?

 

[Rat]

Once is sufficient. So I take it you view segregation based on race, to combat racism, far more contentious than segregation based on gender, to combat harassment. Why is this?

It was assaults and actual safety that was given as the reason for the proposal. I disagree, at least instinctively, with the idea of segregating sexes or races on public transport. But if there was a particular history of physical attacks towards a specific 'race', particularly on public transport, and some people of that race put forward the idea of their having a safe space on public transport, it is not an idea that I would immediately reject, even though I disagree with it. I would hope to discuss it with them, and explain why I believed it to be the wrong approach, while listening to how they think it would help, plus any counterarguments to mine.

 

[MikeG]

Surely this deserves subject it's own thread? It isn't anything to do with whether or not Corbyn might win the Labour leadership election.

 

[The Atheist]

I do not want blacks only carriages or whites only carriages.

Well, duh! Of course not.

The white ones would be crowded to hell, what with all the women & darkies in different carriages and the black one would be empty!

It's not like the coons have jobs to go to.

 

[baron]

Are you inviting me to "groundhog" my "drivel" observation?

It would be about as informative as anything else you post, so go ahead.

 

[baron]

It was assaults and actual safety that was given as the reason for the proposal. I disagree, at least instinctively, with the idea of segregating sexes or races on public transport. But if there was a particular history of physical attacks towards a specific 'race', particularly on public transport, and some people of that race put forward the idea of their having a safe space on public transport, it is not an idea that I would immediately reject, even though I disagree with it. I would hope to discuss it with them, and explain why I believed it to be the wrong approach, while listening to how they think it would help, plus any counterarguments to mine.

Well, I don't agree that the idea of race and gender segregation should not be rejected out of hand for public areas (intentional double negative), but at least you answered my question.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The war criminal scumbag Blair is whining about Corbyn again...

 

[GlennB]

The war criminal scumbag Blair is whining about Corbyn again...

Yes, and a large part of that piece is classic "poisoning the well" by ranting about Trump et al. How Blair has the nerve to pipe up in public escapes me.

 

[MikeG]

Yebbut......

He won three elections. No Labour leader in history has done that, other than him. Take all the other stuff (uni fees, Iraq, misleading parliament, spin, spurious economic claims and on and on.....) as read. I can't stand the man now, but............

..........He won three elections. Therefore, on the subject of winning elections, he has credibility. I'll eat my hat if Corbyn can win one.

 

[GlennB]

Yebbut......

He won three elections. No Labour leader in history has done that, other than him. Take all the other stuff (uni fees, Iraq, misleading parliament, spin, spurious economic claims and on and on.....) as read. I can't stand the man now, but............

..........He won three elections. Therefore, on the subject of winning elections, he has credibility. I'll eat my hat if Corbyn can win one.

This misses the point entirely. None of the other three stands a chance either. More to the point, they stand no chance of rallying support to the Labour party such that any election might be won in the next few electoral cycles. Have you noticed how Labour membership has grown since Corbyn raised his head, especially among young voters?

I think you underestimate the utter despair that Blair and his ilk have brought to the left of British politics. Voting for another Tory-lite, corporate-friendly 'suit', whose only real ambition is to become leader, is a vote to continue that despair.