Obelix Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Ok, I see that argument. But since, in his absence, things have just got worse since Saturday night, it couldn't possibly have done any harm for him to come back sooner - and it might have reassured the substantial portion of the electorate that thinks he doesn't give a crap about poor people/Labour voters. Now those people just have more ammunition for their belief that Cameron and the rest of his government aren't concerned with social inequality. An own goal on his part. To be fair this didn't really start to look like being serious until about 3pm this afternoon - it certainly wasnt spreading far and wide until then. At that point he was already saying he was coming back. Sigh - it's kicking off in Ealing now - that's fairly close to my hotel. It's been a long time since I packed a bag for a midnight exit at speed from a hotel but I'm doing it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Yes, undoubtedly he could. He could also have provided a statement at any point over the last three days, just to show he wasn't face deep in a plate of risotto and a litre of Chianti. But no. Why not? What possible reason could a Prime Minister have for not making a statement about massive civil unrest in his capital city? The deputy Prime Minister did instead, that's his job when the Prime Minister is away. This management structure is used all over by businesses and governments worldwide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Ok the floor is yours, Blacks are over represented in the mental health system because ............................... Despite the advances in race relations over recent years, many people still perceive blacks as more dangerous and threatening than whites. Many white members of the psychiatric services still don't properly understand the cultural norms and perceptions of the black community. An ex-colleague of mine working in psychiatry here in Sheffield produced a piece of academic research which established that blacks displaying very similar symptoms as whites were more likely to be sectioned and forcibly medicated than whites. My own personal experience as a worker in psychiatry over twenty years also supports this view. Why do you think this is? What evidence or experience do you base your views on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 No. BritPat implied that the reason there are a disproportionate number of black people in the mental health system is because they are mentally challenged. Can you not read? Britpat is wrong the reason that black people are over represented in the mental health system is because .................................................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shims Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I know what colour I'd prefer to be if I was in that area tonight...Sorry if you feel its racist, but its reality. Lets stick with the truth and get down to some hard facts..... Be good to see some from yourself. All we're 'learning' is that civil unrest is scarier if you're white and so on .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampent Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Brit Pat appears to suggest that this is because blacks are inherently more susceptible to mental illness. He's talking ****e. What?? Answer Franks post that you quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 No. BritPat implied that the reason there are a disproportionate number of black people in the mental health system is because they are mentally challenged. Can you not read? It was an obvious play on words... Haven't you ever done any basic psychology. He didn't say anything you didn't. In reality he was quite diplomatic, the setup was yours... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shims Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Go back,he's quoted shims original statement, where shim stated it as a fact. Personally I was going to ask for a reference, but he doesn't really do those... If you're talking about me, you've no idea whether I 'do' references or not. I doubt you do. You can't even get the meaning from a simple post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Yes, undoubtedly he could. He could also have provided a statement at any point over the last three days, just to show he wasn't face deep in a plate of risotto and a litre of Chianti. But no. Why not? What possible reason could a Prime Minister have for not making a statement about massive civil unrest in his capital city? Its politics. He wanted to see what was happening first. Would it get worse? If he made a statement saying the rioters would be dealt with severely if they continued and it got worse, he'd look weak. If he'd appealed for calm and they didnt listen, he'd look weak. He couldn't win. No Prime Minister would have got involved until they were sure of the situation.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 EDIT: Browser issues... No. BritPat implied that the reason there are a disproportionate number of black people in the mental health system is because they are mentally challenged. Can you not read? It was an obvious play on words... Haven't you ever done any basic psychology. He didn't say anything you didn't. In reality he was quite diplomatic, the setup was yours... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.