In today’s MetroTalk, a reader shares what they think to be the British view on white privilege and political correctness. Could it be that some of us find PC-ness challenging because it dares to prioritise the minority?
Meanwhile, readers are also discussing: the ways the wealthy and the lets say: less well off, game the system, whether to keep monuments to barbaric philanthropists, immigration and their memories of a Labour government.
And do you agree with the reader who says we should respect politicians as much as we respect scientists?
Share your thoughts in the comments.
'Fairness is giving everyone the same rights and opportunities, not just the majority or the minority...'
Bucknor (MetroTalk, Thu) misunderstands the argument regarding white privilege and political correctness.
Yes, Britain has definitely become more tolerant but it is not because of political correctness, it is despite it.
PC puts people’s noses out of joint and frustrates the tolerant majority, because it gives the overriding advantage to minority groups (of whatever kind) over the majority. This is blatantly seen as not right, either morally or democratically.
As for his comment on non-gender toilets somehow being a non-issue in constituting an encroachment on women’s safe spaces simply because disabled toilets are non-gender, he yet again demonstrates his ignorance.
Toilets are a private area and, when a disabled toilet is being used, it is only ever by one person and therefore automatically constitutes a safe space. The same cannot be said about a women’s toilet since it is occupied by multiple people.
His attitude is typical of those who believe that being ‘fair’ equates to giving up everyone else’s rights in favour of the minority. Fairness means giving everyone the same rights and opportunities, not just the majority or the minority, although sometimes this is difficult to translate into practical reality. Paul, London
METRO TALK - HAVE YOUR SAY
Let us know what you think...
Start a text with VIEWS followed by your comment, name and where you live to 65700. Standard network charge applies. Or email mail@ukmetro.co.uk Helpline for Views, Rush-Hour Crush and Good Deed Feed: 020 3615 0600.
Remember, you are more likely to be published if you provide your name and location with your
Full T&Cs here. Metro.co.uk is a member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation. Comments may be edited for reasons of legality, clarity or space.
Tax avoidance isn’t just for the wealthy
In response to comments about the wealthy manipulating tax systems (MetroTalk, Wed), I don’t believe they are the only ones who do this. I knew someone years back who claimed the dole but ‘worked’ on the side. And how many tradespeople charge less (VAT-free) and trouser their earnings? Do those who get tips declare it all? Bob, Hayes
‘Not every immigrant becomes a Mo Farah’
Ryan Cooper (MetroTalk, Tues) lectures us on the benefits of immigration and sums up with a command that, ‘It’s time to open our minds, open our hearts and open our borders.’
Could open-borders fanatics like him declare what scale of immigration they would prefer and what, if any, control over our borders there should be?
Has Ryan ‘opened his heart’ for the people who have lived in this country all of their lives, paid taxes and then found they can’t get a place at their local school, an appointment with the dentist, GP or hospital, or a place on the housing list, all because of the unprecedented growth in the UK population due to immigration?
Perhaps these things don’t affect open-border fanatics because they can afford to go private, or if they do, they are outweighed by the benefits of cheap labour from around the world, ransacking undeveloped countries for workers in something akin to latter-day imperialism.
Mr Cooper cherry picks the immigrants into this country that demonstrate his ‘net benefit’ analysis while ignoring the reality that for every Mo Farah there is also a Yaqub Ahmed (the Somalian rapist it took five years and a million pounds to deport). David, Durham
Does a slave-trader’s philanthropy mean we should ignore his atrocities?
In response to Mark Taha (MetroTalk, Tue) regarding statues.
I accept that we all have our own heroes, and there will be edge cases, where a controversial figure was admired by a number of people – in those instances, I’d be willing to give the benefit of the doubt and leave any monuments as they are.
Bristol slave trader Sir Edward Colston was absolutely not an ‘edge case’. He remorselessly subjected thousands of people to lifetimes of disgusting abuse.
Yes, it was legal at the time but so was burning ‘witches’ – does that legitimise it?
We should be celebrating the fact that we have moved on from this barbarity and now live in a fairer, safer, happier world.
I don’t care how Colston or anyone else used their ill-gotten gains. Heck, even Jimmy Savile raised cash for charity.Rob Slater, Norfolk
It’s not free speech people hate
Ben (MetroTalk, Wed) defends Nigel Farage, saying people just don’t like free speech. He is mixing up free speech with hate speech and lies, against which we have laws in this country. Kara, London
‘I fear the economical damage of another Tory government’
Kay (MetroTalk, Wed) says she is ‘horrified’ by the thought of a Labour government as she knows how ‘disastrous’ that has proved for working people.
Kay says she is in her 50s, so the only Labour government during her working life would be the New Labour government, led by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
I was working throughout the same period and my recollection is different.
There were certainly mistakes made but up until the credit crunch – a global phenomenon the UK entered with a AAA+ economic rating from all the recognised international credit rating agencies – the UK economy was growing much faster, and the GDP-to-debt ratio was far lower than it has been since 2010.
My fear is there would be even more damage done to the economy if we were to elect yet another Tory government. David, Eltham
Politicians have to consider more than just ‘the science’
Many people in Wednesday’s MetroTalk condemned politicians’ approach towards the pandemic after hearing scientists’ testimonies at the Covid Inquiry.
They all had sympathy towards scientists and hatred towards politicians.
The readers claim politicians must follow science. But what does science say about pandemics?
The scientists in Sweden did not recommend lockdown, whereas in many countries they did. Which recommendations should a politician follow? And in the end, Sweden did not perform any worse at all.
The fact is that politicians should collect scientific facts, get recommendations from scientists but ultimately it is the politicians who must decide.
Because a scientific adviser can only know their part while a politician has to take into account many factors – the cost of the lockdown, compensations for the affected people, economic results like shrinking of GDP, etc.
We must respect science but we must respect politicians, too. Murat Yildirimoglu, Bedford
MORE : UK pandemic plan was ‘woefully deficient’ even for flu pandemic
MORE : When is the next UK general election and could it be brought forward?
MORE : I’m A Celebrity’s Nella Rose tells Nigel Farage ‘Black people don’t like you’ in huge clash
