leicsmac

Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in! To be clear, I have no issue whatsoever with the facts of demographic change in the city that are being talked about. Nor with the increased levels of deprivation being witnessed. What I do have an issue with is the inference that any particular racial group is any more inherently given to causing that kind of deprivation than any other. That has absolutely no basis in evidence.

I appreciate the compliment, but if I was actually smart on this topic I wouldn't be on here simply talking about it. And yeah, that's my worldview, and I've explained why I hold it quite a few times and so the only thing I'll add is that the day I stop holding it is the day you can measure me for pine, because without "live and let live" that's where everyone else is heading anyway. As for the specific topic, the only other thing I'll add there is that there are in all likelihood socioeconomic issues that go far beyond race demographics also playing a large part.

Or it's an anecdotal account coupled with a value judgement against every race demographic except for one based upon it. Which, of course in a free society a person is entitled to do and I'll leave it at that. Other people can draw their own conclusions.

The inference here that it is uniquely nonwhite demographics that lead to such deprivation is...a point of view, certainly. I don't and I've no reason to disbelieve you here, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the point being made.

And I admire your straight honesty regarding self-interest. Most people dress it up. As things were, then.

Then perhaps a closer look at what it is, means and the current activity is warranted. In any case, I'm not sure the cost of such schemes are less expensive than the cost of adapting to a vastly changed nation and world where the average temperature is higher by 2.5 degrees C or more. Buy now, or pay much more later.

I wasn't aware that particular single ethnic group moves into one area ----> poverty pipeline was limited only to the "Asian" demographic.

And this is where a big issue is arising. The Trump administration, along with their friendly media contacts and other useful contributors, are using that uncertainty to try to rewrite the entire narrative of that day. The intent being, of course, to paint Trump as at least simply an innocent bystander while things were happening, and at most a tragically wronged man of peace victimised by paid infiltrators and agitators. Neither of those things are true, of course - anyone who witnessed the events of the day would know that - but memories are short and digital information is forever, so they have seen the opportunity to twist pretty much every truth about that day. And, without news agencies like the Beeb to hold them to account, they could well succeed. This is about so much more than this one event. This is about highly malicious people seeking to control the very idea of truth, so they can lie and abuse their power as they wish for their own self interest. That's the kind of stuff you read about in dystopia stories, pretty much to the letter, with all the same consequences. And there appear to be so many people either wittingly or unwittingly complicit in all that, both abroad and in the UK itself. I'd like one, because as I've said before in absence of it I'm having to draw my own conclusions, and I have a very big pencil. See above.

And this is why when science mixes with democratic policymaking, the results can be...mixed.

I've said before - Treat them the same way the UK treats the Chinese, a potentially hostile belligerent who shares few of the UKs ethical values but with whom some cooperation on global matters is needed.

"The Mail on Sunday, external reports that the White House is angry that Dutch author Rutger Bregman - who it describes as a fierce critic of Donald Trump - has been asked to deliver the annual Reith lectures. The paper says he used the events to draw parallels between Trump's America and the rise of fascism in the 1930s. The BBC said the views expressed were always those of the speaker, not the corporation." I'm sorry...where is the lie there? I don't see one. There are numerous obvious parallels.

Additional great resources are: https://phys.org/earth-news/ https://drawdown.org/ https://www.climatechangenews.com/

Related to the above: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wv4dx05q5o

Taking this as rote for a moment, I'm inclined to think there's a difference in that there was at least admission of guilt and efforts at reform on the part of the Beeb. That being said, I'm still looking for an answer from those looking to kneecap the BBC regarding the wider picture of news sources and truth here.

Edit: cleaned up.

Fair comment mate. Reverend Thomas Malthus it is, then. After all, he did appear to put a lot of effort into worshiping and deifying death and it seems that there are still quite a few bound and determined to follow his example. Speaking of which... https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-assessment-of-flood-and-coastal-erosion-risk-in-england-2024/national-assessment-of-flood-and-coastal-erosion-risk-in-england-2024 https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/how-is-climate-change-affecting-river-and-surface-water-flooding-in-the-uk/ https://www.gov.uk/government/news/report-warns-of-widespread-drought-in-2026-without-a-wet-winter https://ahdb.org.uk/climate-adaptation-report https://eciu.net/media/press-releases/2025/farmer-confidence-battered-by-climate-change-new-research Yes...great news.

Ah, thank you! Actually, looking at the records SA have a pretty good record in India as well. Clearly have some kind of Kryptonite factor for them.

India seem to struggle in SA quite often, not sure why.

NB. The problem going forward may end up being paradoxical - too little water, and too much as well. That's one of the chief dangers of climate change - more extremes of weather at all ends causing damage to agriculture and infrastructure, not simply one particular style of event or another.

And that would be indicative of whatever particular location it is not taking the problem seriously either, rather than the problem not existing at all.

Of course, seeing as a national government has an obligation to serve its own citizens first. The problem is when you have a global issue like this, that kind of mentality might not end well for a great many people.

And all the time, that base supply of water is dwindling due to the obvious cause (which the Telegraph and at least some of their readership still appear to deny) as well. Indeed. I also wonder how ethically acceptable it is to buy into the Malthusian idea that there's "too many people" and that a catastrophic population crash is not only inevitable but desirable. Perhaps better resource management and actually addressing the problem that is causing that diminished water supply at the base level is a better idea?

Sorry, to clarify: By "your mileage may vary" I mean that the idea you put forward that "challenging the left wing narrative gets you banned" is clearly open to debate, given that it's clearly untrue for at least some posters. And for the last section, that's me saying there are some issues too important to be left to daft "left" or "right" political compassing and it's annoying how pretty much every public issue, including those issues, appear to have a political slant these days.

Well, Prussian and a few others appear to not have had that particular difficulty, so I guess your mileage may vary on that one? Is thinking that a fair few matters really should transcend political compassing itself a political position? One for the philosophers, that, I reckon.

Again, only speaking for myself here but for me it's a simple matter of necessity when the world is what it is and the stakes are so high. Pretty much anything that can actually limit the damage the ideology that the current US government embodies is causing is pretty much fair, I think.