Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

I suppose it comes down to whether or not you believe the sincerity of his, admittedly much later, full apology. He also didn't handle that part well, to be sure. But from what I've seen of him over the years, and various progressive/lefty types coming to his defense, I'm inclined to believe him. YMMV, of course.

Yeah, I don't know him from Adam, so I can only judge by what he said and how he acted. His full apology appears to have only come begrudgingly after his firing and the story still had legs.  Note, as I said to Sheilbh, I don't think whether a person racist at heart or not is important. He shared racist content and then only gave a real apology days after lots of petulant commentary from his side.

And I don't think you should necessarily sack someone for making a mistake, especially a first offence. I'm sure the twitterverse has combed through his online past, finding nothing odious as far as I know.

I'm sure we can all agree that you don't need to necessarily sack someone for making a mistake, but there a plenty of circumstances where it is warranted and I think this was one of them, particularly in light of his reaction to it until after his sacking.

Also, prior employment issues with BBC probably didn't help him.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

It's the second time Baker has been axed by 5 Live and is the third time he has left the BBC.

In 1997, he was fired for encouraging football fans to make a referee's life hell after the official had awarded a controversial penalty in an FA Cup tie.

He later claimed he had never incited fans to attack the referee, only that he would have understood if they had.

In 2012, two weeks before he was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame, he was was back in the news after an on-air rant in which he resigned and branded his bosses at BBC London "pinheaded weasels". The outburst came after Baker had been asked to move from a weekday programme to a weekend.

[Richard Hakluyt]

His sacking is a matter of professionalism rather than racism I think. If you are a presenter employed by the state broadcaster then you are held to more rigorous standards than the general populace.

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/10/two-teenagers-placed-in-foster-care-after-weight-loss-plan-fails

Just what the hell. The civil court judge highlights that the kids are in a loving family and very polite and nicely brought up, but since the parents didn't manage to make them lose weight, they are being placed into long term foster care. 

It must be tough as you have to balance the negative impact care system will have on child's life but also extent to which child will actually live if the morbid obesity isn't brought under control. I think I'd need to know more about how long this had been going on to judge.

That article cites a 5 year old girl previously taken into care who was 10 stone 5lbs (145 lbs, 65.8 kg) and that does seem like it would be a problem to keep children in that situation.

[Sheilbh]

It must be tough as you have to balance the negative impact care system will have on child's life but also extent to which child will actually live if the morbid obesity isn't brought under control. I think I'd need to know more about how long this had been going on to judge.

That article cites a 5 year old girl previously taken into care who was 10 stone 5lbs (145 lbs, 65.8 kg) and that does seem like it would be a problem to keep children in that situation.

Yeah I agree. I thought it sounded ridiculous and then I got to that example and I'm not sure. That feels to me like neglect albeit of a different type to a very malnourished child.

[Tamas]

For sure, but I am not sure about the intention.

Unless the parents were physically preventing the kids from excersise and/or force-feeding them insane amounts of food, what the decision says is that the parents were unable to sufficiently force the kids to change their lifestyle, and now foster parents will be required to discipline them.

It might be necessary in the case of these kids but I am really uncomfortable with the thought that "too fat" is a sufficient reason for children to be taken from parents.

[garbon]

For sure, but I am not sure about the intention.

Unless the parents were physically preventing the kids from excersise and/or force-feeding them insane amounts of food, what the decision says is that the parents were unable to sufficiently force the kids to change their lifestyle, and now foster parents will be required to discipline them.

It might be necessary in the case of these kids but I am really uncomfortable with the thought that "too fat" is a sufficient reason for children to be taken from parents.

But that's because you've boiled it down to a bumper sticker statement. It seems like in the circumstances described the children are at risk of serious illness and death because of parental neglect with regards to nutrition and exercise.

[Sheilbh]

For sure, but I am not sure about the intention.

Unless the parents were physically preventing the kids from excersise and/or force-feeding them insane amounts of food, what the decision says is that the parents were unable to sufficiently force the kids to change their lifestyle, and now foster parents will be required to discipline them.

It might be necessary in the case of these kids but I am really uncomfortable with the thought that "too fat" is a sufficient reason for children to be taken from parents.

I get that. But I tink the issue is if it's as bad as that example then the kids' health is at risk - which I think is neglect even if it's a weird type of over-caring neglect as opposed to not feeding your kid.

By the sounds of it they've had social workers involved, the council are paying for gym membership, there have been plans for them to deal with the issue and they've not worked or not been followed. At a point for the social workers the choice becomes: do we let this neglect/risk to the kids' health carry on with their loving parents, or is it better to put the kids into foster care and try to work from there? It's horrible - and you can definitely see how care departments or courts could easily get this stuff wrong with the best intentions.

It is pretty awful - but I can see it and why there's been about 75 similar cases in the last 5 years.

[Tamas]

For sure, but I am not sure about the intention.

Unless the parents were physically preventing the kids from excersise and/or force-feeding them insane amounts of food, what the decision says is that the parents were unable to sufficiently force the kids to change their lifestyle, and now foster parents will be required to discipline them.

It might be necessary in the case of these kids but I am really uncomfortable with the thought that "too fat" is a sufficient reason for children to be taken from parents.

But that's because you've boiled it down to a bumper sticker statement. It seems like in the circumstances described the children are at risk of serious illness and death because of parental neglect with regards to nutrition and exercise.

Yeah, but "nutrition and excercise" at this stage I imagine means the parents (and now the foster parents) denying access to food for the children when they are hungry, and forcing them to excersise when they don't want to.

Which is obviously what the kids need to reduce their (extreme) health risk, but at the end of the day, the children are taken away because the parents have been unwilling or unable to be disciplining them sufficiently as judged by the state.

[garbon]

I'm not sure what's new about that.

[The Brain]

Something is weird. If they're loving, why don't they act to reduce the severe health risks of the kids? You are what you do.

[Maladict]

Well, that settles it. The prince has spoken. Carry on 

Prince William says royal family is 'very much not a racist family'

[Grey Fox]

You know, it might just be old fashion elitism. We are all beneath them.

[Tamas]

You know, it might just be old fashion elitism. We are all beneath them.

In some way it is indeed odd to complain that the royal family might consider itself above certain people. The form of government itself confirms them as being above everyone.

[Sheilbh]

Speaking of which - Britain Thinks did their every ten-year polling and focus groups on how Brits view themselves in class terms. And my main takeaway is that people in Britain (including me) kind of understand what is meant by this breakdown of working and middle class into six sub-classes


A thread from someone in the Times about it:

Matt Chorley
@MattChorley
EXCLUSIVE: The march of the middle class

Massive new study into class for @timesradio by @BritainThinks reveals the middle class is growing, but more are still working class.

45% middle class up from 38% in 2011
54% working class down from 62% in 2011
https://thetimes.co.uk/article/call-yourself-middle-class-the-study-that-tells-us-why-xsf3lbcwq
1/7
Income matters, but not as much as you think

38% of those earning under £21k say they are middle class; and 28% on £62K+ say they are working class

Biggest divide is geography: 60%+ in north are working class; 50%+ in south are middle class 2/7
It varies by age: while 18 to 24-years-olds are split 50-50 between being working class and middle class, about two thirds of those aged 35 to 54 say they are working class, while almost as many of the over-65s say they are middle class.
3/7
40% of graduates say that they are working class
33% of non-graduates are middle class.

30% of working-class people think that they have had fewer advantages in life than the average person; among middle-class people it was just 18% 4/7
Working class are prouder than middle class, and more likely to see work as a "means to an end".

Middle class more likely to feel guilty 

All groups think Labour is no longer working class, and politics has become "blurred"

5/7
You are what you eat: 1 in 5 say the food you eat says more about your class than your income does.

In the focus groups "show and tell", one working class man brought a tin of sausages and beans; middle class man brought a teacake for afternoon tea 6/7

[HVC]

what the hell is upper working class?