Laurence Fox launches political party

[Rascal]

If you read the statement they also used the word ethically instead of ethnically, and finished off by mentioning they have an ethnicity pay gap.

I have read the statements and they have said they will be trying to address the ethnic pay gap. It shouldn't have been there in the first place and Sainsburys should be rightly ashamed of having such working practices in place.

 

[blueinsa]

It was not done so they could discuss BLM it was brought about by the effect of the BLM movement. That is a big difference.

Sainsburys clarified this in a tweet to the anti semitic holocaust denier Fox

The man is a charlatan working as a front for some particular dodgy right wing people who hope to use their influence and Fox's celebrity status to put pressure on the Tory party to become even more extreme than they are.

It was done so they could virtue signal via social media. It's a space In which companies reputations can be destroyed in a heartbeat so best they just do what the flaming torch and pitchfork brigade want and demand is now the default.

Work Russ. You get paid to work, not have meetings to discuss politics or political movements and it should be by nature a safe space for all employees and policies should ensure that all can report and discuss issues they have without the need to form groups based on gender or ethnicity because rather than unite, they divide and do the very thing no one wants.

 

[blueinsa]

I have read the statements and they have said they will be trying to address the ethnic pay gap. It shouldn't have been there in the first place and Sainsburys should be rightly ashamed of having such working practices in place.

If they have and admit to a ethnic pay gap then fucking shame on them. I don't believe they will have and that tweet is such a fucking mess from a corporate point of view I'm astounded it ever went out.

Did they mean to say a gender pay gap perhaps which might well exist? That issue is well documented. Who knows but to suggest Sainsbury's pays one worker less because they are black is nonsense imo.

 

[Rascal]

It was done so they could virtue signal via social media. It's a space In which companies reputations can be destroyed in a heartbeat so best they just do what the flaming torch and pitchfork brigade want and demand is now the default.

Work Russ. You get paid to work, not have meetings to discuss politics or political movements and it should be by nature a safe space for all employees and policies should ensure that all can report and discuss issues they have without the need to form groups based on gender or ethnicity because rather than unite, they divide and do the very thing no one wants.

It was not done to discuss political movements, it was done because of the effect of a political movement.

That is how progress has been made for centuries.

This is how Fox and his acolytes are twisting it.

Safe spaces by nature are places where one can be comfortable and express themselves without fear of retribution and expect empathetic support. Every work place has one, whether its slagging off management in the bogs or whether it was discussing strike action where I worked in the crew room. Its a room where workers can be ease.

I am a big believer in equality and there is no way I would support this if I thought it was an affront to equality, but equality comes in differing guises and sometimes the unequal have to meet to plan how they can become more equal to the majority. It has been blown out of all proportions by Fox and his acolytes because as I have posted repeatedly sometimes minorities have to meet in a safe space to discuss their issues because of the fear of retribution. I just wish I could say more about the safe space I was invited to visit in Oldham but I am bounded by confidentiality, what I can say is that safe space is very valuable in the fight against some of the extremism we have witnessed in this country.

 

[Fame Monster]

It was not done to discuss political movements, it was done because of the effect of a political movement.

That is how progress has been made for centuries.

This is how Fox and his acolytes are twisting it.

Safe spaces by nature are places where one can be comfortable and express themselves without fear of retribution and expect empathetic support. Every work place has one, whether its slagging off management in the bogs or whether it was discussing strike action where I worked in the crew room. Its a room where workers can be ease.

I am a big believer in equality and there is no way I would support this if I thought it was an affront to equality, but equality comes in differing guises and sometimes the unequal have to meet to plan how they can become more equal to the majority. It has been blown out of all proportions by Fox and his acolytes because as I have posted repeatedly sometimes minorities have to meet in a safe space to discuss their issues because of the fear of retribution. I just wish I could say more about the safe space I was invited to visit in Oldham but I am bounded by confidentiality, what I can say is that safe space is very valuable in the fight against some of the extremism we have witnessed in this country.

Whatever the intention or the meaning of Sainsbury's original post, would you be fine with the exclusion of other races from these 'safe spaces'?

 

[BobKowalski]

Whatever the intention or the meaning of Sainsbury's original post, would you be fine with the exclusion of other races from these 'safe spaces'?

What would be the rational for attending? If a group of disabled people wanted to hold a meeting, why would I attend? To get an insight into their problems or be hostile to some of the issues they may raise?

Would the disabled people feel comfortable with my presence or would they prefer to only discuss issues with people who face similar issues? Do I insist on going knowing it makes them uncomfortable or do I demand ’my right’ to attend on the basis I am being discriminated against? After all, why should they have their own special meeting place?

At the end of the day it is as much about courtesy and good manners vs being a colossal twat.

So, you have to ask yourself one question. Do I want to be a colossal twat? Well, do you, punk?

 

[Fame Monster]

What would be the rational for attending? If a group of disabled people wanted to hold a meeting, why would I attend? To get an insight into their problems or be hostile to some of the issues they may raise?

Would the disabled people feel comfortable with my presence or would they prefer to only discuss issues with people who face similar issues? Do I insist on going knowing it makes them uncomfortable or do I demand ’my right’ to attend on the basis I am being discriminated against? After all, why should they have their own special meeting place?

At the end of the day it is as much about courtesy and good manners vs being a colossal twat.

So, you have to ask yourself one question. Do I want to be a colossal twat? Well, do you, punk?

First things first, black people aren't disabled nor do they need treating like they are so it's a false equivalence. Therefore, the need for a 'safe space' doesn't exist in the way that it would for somebody with a disability who may be less able to defend themselves from physical danger or is emotionally predisposed to perceiving normal behaviour as threatening.

That said, even in the context of a disabled persons' safe space, it would be excessive and divisive to demand that no able-bodied person was allowed in there if, for example, an able-bodied person had spent the past 20 years caring for a disabled person and could contribute positively to the space.

My nephew has cerebral palsy and at no point has he ever requested a space comprised solely of other disabled people in order to feel safe. I can tell you right now with 100% certainty he would find the idea absolutely laughable.

Does that mean there shouldn't be meetings or days focused on disabilities or mechanisms for teaching and reporting racial discrimination? No, it doesn't. But there's a big difference between that and the toxic division of 'safe spaces' which preys on the age-old trope that 'the other' is a threat.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Tell you what - if the same or a similar level of discussion is replicated across the whole of the 'net the Sainsbury's will be well chuffed - massive discussion and interest in them - job done.

 

[BobKowalski]

First things first, black people aren't disabled nor do they need treating like they are so it's a false equivalence. Therefore, the need for a 'safe space' doesn't exist in the way that it would for somebody with a disability who may be less able to defend themselves from physical danger or is emotionally predisposed to perceiving normal behaviour as threatening.

That said, even in the context of a disabled persons' safe space, it would be excessive and divisive to demand that no able-bodied person was allowed in there if, for example, an able-bodied person had spent the past 20 years caring for a disabled person and could contribute positively to the space.

My nephew has cerebral palsy and at no point has he ever requested a space comprised solely of other disabled people in order to feel safe. I can tell you right now with 100% certainty he would find the idea absolutely laughable.

Does that mean there shouldn't be meetings or days focused on disabilities or mechanisms for teaching and reporting racial discrimination? No, it doesn't. But there's a big difference between that and the toxic division of 'safe spaces' which preys on the age-old trope that 'the other' is a threat.

And if you are a black person who has received racial abuse, or low level constant harassment then you also may be predisposed to perceiving behaviour, no matter how well intentioned, as threatening.

As for your nephew then while you may be 100% certain he would find ‘the idea laughable‘ I can’t help thinking his attitude may be also coloured by knowing what you think of the idea and answers accordingly.

Just a thought.

 

[Fame Monster]

And if you are a black person who has received racial abuse, or low level constant harassment then you also may be predisposed to perceiving behaviour, no matter how well intentioned, as threatening.

As for your nephew then while you may be 100% certain he would find ‘the idea laughable‘ I can’t help thinking his attitude may be also coloured by knowing what you think of the idea and answers accordingly.

Just a thought.

As for the latter point, definitely not. It's not something I've spoken about with him but I obviously know him very well and he's just a normal person who doesn't define himself by his disability, his race, his gender or anything else other than his character and personality so wheeling him into a room just because other disabled people are in there would be an insult to him. Rightly so imo.