This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I can't find
it online, only references to it.
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I can't find
it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a vote held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you did? I'm not thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals who feel they have
the right to know why/how a person voted the way they did.
On 29 Apr 2025 at 23:08:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I can't
find it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a
vote held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you did?
I'm not thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals who
feel they have the right to know why/how a person voted the way they
did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right
to know. You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you
why they think you voted the way you did. That's annoying!
On 29 Apr 2025 at 23:08:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I can't find >>it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a vote >>held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you did? I'm not >>thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals who feel they have >>the right to know why/how a person voted the way they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right to
know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they think
you
voted the way you did. That's annoying!
On 29 Apr 2025 22:08:16 GMT, Jeff Gaines wrote...
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I can't find >>it online, only references to it.
That bit of your enquiry is easy.
This search:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/primary+secondary/1872?title=Ballot
....leads to a pdf of the Act:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/35-36/33/pdfs/ukpga_18720033 >_en.pdf
On 29/04/2025 in message <6506184370.df0ef605@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 23:08:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I can't find >>>it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a vote >>>held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you did? I'm not >>>thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals who feel they have >>>the right to know why/how a person voted the way they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right to >>know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they think >>you
voted the way you did. That's annoying!
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the
trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the
trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
On 30/04/2025 08:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the
trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because Parliament has not passed a law to make it illegal, and it's
not illegal under the common law.
Have I covered all the bases, or are there other ways something could
be illegal?
On 2025-04-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 30/04/2025 08:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the
trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because Parliament has not passed a law to make it illegal, and it's
not illegal under the common law.
Have I covered all the bases, or are there other ways something could
be illegal?
By-laws? Ecclesiastical law? EU law? Scottish and Welsh Acts? Equity?
On 30/04/2025 08:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the
trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because Parliament has not passed a law to make it illegal, and it's not illegal under the common law.
Have I covered all the bases, or are there other ways something could be illegal?
On 30 Apr 2025 07:12:41 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 in message <6506184370.df0ef605@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 23:08:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I can't >>>>find
it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a >>>>vote
held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you did? I'm not >>>>thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals who feel they have >>>>the right to know why/how a person voted the way they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right to >>>know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they think >>>you
voted the way you did. That's annoying!
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the
trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech. You are >not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no obligation to >answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret ballot is to ensure >that you can never be compelled to answer (or give a true answer to) such a >question.
On 30/04/2025 08:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the
trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because Parliament has not passed a law to make it illegal, and it's not >illegal under the common law.
Have I covered all the bases, or are there other ways something could be >illegal?
On 30/04/2025 in message <vusud6$34nv$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 30/04/2025 08:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the
trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because Parliament has not passed a law to make it illegal, and it's not
illegal under the common law.
Have I covered all the bases, or are there other ways something could be
illegal?
Not being illegal does not confer rights though does it?
On 30/04/2025 11:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 30/04/2025 08:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the
trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because Parliament has not passed a law to make it illegal, and it's
not illegal under the common law.
Have I covered all the bases, or are there other ways something could
be illegal?
By-laws? Ecclesiastical law? EU law? Scottish and Welsh Acts? Equity?
I think I'd better stay at home and not speak to anybody, then.
On 30/04/2025 in message <u1r31k9gjaqq3eg7qd33a1d38gfn7ngsd2@4ax.com>
Mark Goodge wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 07:12:41 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 in message <6506184370.df0ef605@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 23:08:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>> wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I
can't find
it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after
a vote
held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you did?
I'm not
thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals who feel they
have
the right to know why/how a person voted the way they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right to >>>> know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they
think
you
voted the way you did. That's annoying!
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the
trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech. You
are
not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no
obligation to
answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret ballot is to ensure
that you can never be compelled to answer (or give a true answer to)
such a
question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from
asking rather than having a right to ask.
On 30/04/2025 in message <u1r31k9gjaqq3eg7qd33a1d38gfn7ngsd2@4ax.com> Mark Goodge wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 07:12:41 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the >>>trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech. You
are not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no >>obligation to answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret
ballot is to ensure that you can never be compelled to answer (or give
a true answer to) such a question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from
asking rather than having a right to ask. From posts in here over time
it seems "Freedom of Speech" is somewhat ethereal!
I do not accept that I am not being harmed either, the law provides
for a secret ballot and being asked why/how I voted undermines that.
On 2025-04-30, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2025 in message <u1r31k9gjaqq3eg7qd33a1d38gfn7ngsd2@4ax.com> Mark >> Goodge wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 07:12:41 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>> Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the
trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech. You
are not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no
obligation to answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret
ballot is to ensure that you can never be compelled to answer (or give
a true answer to) such a question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from
asking rather than having a right to ask. From posts in here over time
it seems "Freedom of Speech" is somewhat ethereal!
It depends on what you mean by a "right". In one sense, everyone has the right to do anything which is not against the law. But these are tenuous rights, in that any law could abrogate them at any time. There are also specific enumerated rights, e.g. those in the Human Rights Act, which
would require very specific and deliberate legislation from Parliament
to remove.
I do not accept that I am not being harmed either, the law provides
for a secret ballot and being asked why/how I voted undermines that.
Surely it would depend on who is asking. If a family member casually enquired, I doubt you would feel much harmed. If a representative of
the state or a political party kept badgering you about it, then fair
enough, that would be initimidating and oppressive.
(When those people who hang around outside polling stations implying
that you have to tell them who you are ask me, I refuse to answer,
for example. If a representative from a recognised exit poll company
asked, I don't know if I would answer or not.)
On 2025-04-30, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2025 in message <u1r31k9gjaqq3eg7qd33a1d38gfn7ngsd2@4ax.com> Mark >>Goodge wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 07:12:41 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the >>>>trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech. You >>>are not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no >>>obligation to answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret >>>ballot is to ensure that you can never be compelled to answer (or give
a true answer to) such a question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from >>asking rather than having a right to ask. From posts in here over time
it seems "Freedom of Speech" is somewhat ethereal!
It depends on what you mean by a "right". In one sense, everyone has the >right to do anything which is not against the law. But these are tenuous >rights, in that any law could abrogate them at any time. There are also >specific enumerated rights, e.g. those in the Human Rights Act, which
would require very specific and deliberate legislation from Parliament
to remove.
On 30/04/2025 in message <u1r31k9gjaqq3eg7qd33a1d38gfn7ngsd2@4ax.com> Mark >Goodge wrote:
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech. You are >>not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no obligation to >>answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret ballot is to ensure >>that you can never be compelled to answer (or give a true answer to) such a >>question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from
asking rather than having a right to ask. From posts in here over time it >seems "Freedom of Speech" is somewhat ethereal!
I do not accept that I am not being harmed either, the law provides for a >secret ballot and being asked why/how I voted undermines that.
On 30/04/2025 08:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the
trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because Parliament has not passed a law to make it illegal, and it's not >illegal under the common law.
Have I covered all the bases, or are there other ways something could be >illegal?
On 30 Apr 2025 10:58:00 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2025 in message <u1r31k9gjaqq3eg7qd33a1d38gfn7ngsd2@4ax.com> Mark Goodge wrote:
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech.
You are not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no >>>obligation to answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret >>>ballot is to ensure that you can never be compelled to answer (or
give a true answer to) such a question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from >>asking rather than having a right to ask. From posts in here over time
it seems "Freedom of Speech" is somewhat ethereal!
In a Common Law jurisdiction, you have a right to do anything that is
neither expressly prohibited in legislation or contract nor conflicts
with another person's superior rights.
I do not accept that I am not being harmed either, the law provides
for a secret ballot and being asked why/how I voted undermines that.
The secret ballot is intended to prevent The Powers That Be from being
able to easily obtain information on your vote without your
permission. It isn't intended to stop canvassers, tellers, nosy
neighbours and inquisitive acquaintances from asking you how you
voted.
On 30/04/2025 in message <slrn101448j.28k.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2025 in message <u1r31k9gjaqq3eg7qd33a1d38gfn7ngsd2@4ax.com> Mark >>>Goodge wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 07:12:41 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the >>>>>trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech. You >>>>are not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no >>>>obligation to answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret >>>>ballot is to ensure that you can never be compelled to answer (or give >>>>a true answer to) such a question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from >>>asking rather than having a right to ask. From posts in here over time
it seems "Freedom of Speech" is somewhat ethereal!
It depends on what you mean by a "right". In one sense, everyone has the >>right to do anything which is not against the law. But these are tenuous >>rights, in that any law could abrogate them at any time. There are also >>specific enumerated rights, e.g. those in the Human Rights Act, which
would require very specific and deliberate legislation from Parliament
to remove.
I am treating "right" as something that can be legally enforced e.g.
the utility companies can apply for a warrant to enter my home to fit
a pre-payment meter if I am in debt. If I remember the four different
legal systems the UK one "allows" you to do anything that is not
prohibited in law whereas a "right" to me would mean somebody could
demand an answer.
On 30/04/2025 in message <u1r31k9gjaqq3eg7qd33a1d38gfn7ngsd2@4ax.com> Mark Goodge wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 07:12:41 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 in message <6506184370.df0ef605@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 23:08:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I can't >>>>>find
it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a >>>>>vote
held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you did? I'm not >>>>>thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals who feel they have >>>>>the right to know why/how a person voted the way they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right to >>>>know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they think >>>>you
voted the way you did. That's annoying!
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the >>>trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech. You are >>not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no obligation to >>answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret ballot is to ensure >>that you can never be compelled to answer (or give a true answer to) such a >>question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from
asking rather than having a right to ask. From posts in here over time it seems "Freedom of Speech" is somewhat ethereal!
I do not accept that I am not being harmed either, the law provides for a secret ballot and being asked why/how I voted undermines that.
On 2025-04-30, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/04/2025 in message <u1r31k9gjaqq3eg7qd33a1d38gfn7ngsd2@4ax.com>
Mark Goodge wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 07:12:41 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 29/04/2025 in message <6506184370.df0ef605@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 23:08:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" >>>>><jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I >>>>>>can't find it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a >>>>>>vote held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you >>>>>>did? I'm not thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals >>>>>>who feel they have the right to know why/how a person voted the way >>>>>>they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right >>>>>to know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they >>>>>think you voted the way you did. That's annoying!
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the >>>>trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech. You >>>are not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no >>>obligation to answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret >>>ballot is to ensure that you can never be compelled to answer (or give
a true answer to) such a question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from
asking rather than having a right to ask. From posts in here over time
it seems "Freedom of Speech" is somewhat ethereal!
I do not accept that I am not being harmed either, the law provides for
a secret ballot and being asked why/how I voted undermines that.
There's nothing to stop you from lying, telling them to stuff it, or
ignoring them.
On 29/04/2025 in message <6506184370.df0ef605@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 23:08:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I can't
find
it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a
vote
held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you did? I'm not >>> thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals who feel they have >>> the right to know why/how a person voted the way they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right
to know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they
think you
voted the way you did. That's annoying!
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the
trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I can't
find it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a
vote held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you did?
I'm not thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals who
feel they have the right to know why/how a person voted the way they
did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right
to know. You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you
why they think you voted the way you did. That's annoying!
On 30/04/2025 in message <u1r31k9gjaqq3eg7qd33a1d38gfn7ngsd2@4ax.com>
Mark Goodge wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 07:12:41 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 in message <6506184370.df0ef605@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 23:08:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>> wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I
can't find
it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after
a vote
held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you did?
I'm not
thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals who feel they
have
the right to know why/how a person voted the way they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right to >>>> know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they
think
you
voted the way you did. That's annoying!
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the
trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech. You
are
not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no
obligation to
answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret ballot is to ensure
that you can never be compelled to answer (or give a true answer to)
such a
question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from
asking rather than having a right to ask. From posts in here over time
it seems "Freedom of Speech" is somewhat ethereal!
I do not accept that I am not being harmed either, the law provides for
a secret ballot and being asked why/how I voted undermines that.
On 30/04/2025 11:58, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/04/2025 in message <u1r31k9gjaqq3eg7qd33a1d38gfn7ngsd2@4ax.com>
Mark Goodge wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 07:12:41 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>> On 29/04/2025 in message <6506184370.df0ef605@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 23:08:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>> wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I
can't find
it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after >>>>>> a vote
held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you did?
I'm not
thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals who feel
they have
the right to know why/how a person voted the way they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral
right to
know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they
think
you
voted the way you did. That's annoying!
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the
trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech.
You are
not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no
obligation to
answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret ballot is to
ensure
that you can never be compelled to answer (or give a true answer to)
such a
question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from
asking rather than having a right to ask.
What's the difference?
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I can't
find it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a
vote held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you did?
I'm not thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals who
feel they have the right to know why/how a person voted the way they
did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right
to know. You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you
why they think you voted the way you did. That's annoying!
The subject IS the ITN / MORI "exit polls", yes?
If not, which "individuals" are being referenced?
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 16:28:16 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/04/2025 in message <u1r31k9gjaqq3eg7qd33a1d38gfn7ngsd2@4ax.com>
Mark Goodge wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 07:12:41 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 29/04/2025 in message <6506184370.df0ef605@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>> Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 23:08:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines""
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I
can't find it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a >>>>>>> vote held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you >>>>>>> did? I'm not thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals >>>>>>> who feel they have the right to know why/how a person voted the way >>>>>>> they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right >>>>>> to know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they >>>>>> think you voted the way you did. That's annoying!
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the
trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech. You >>>> are not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no
obligation to answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret
ballot is to ensure that you can never be compelled to answer (or give >>>> a true answer to) such a question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from
asking rather than having a right to ask. From posts in here over time
it seems "Freedom of Speech" is somewhat ethereal!
I do not accept that I am not being harmed either, the law provides for
a secret ballot and being asked why/how I voted undermines that.
There's nothing to stop you from lying, telling them to stuff it, or
ignoring them.
Indeed.
I view the acid test of proffering "voluntary" information whether there
is any legal redress if you should deliberately supply an incorrect
answer.
Obviously when it comes to voting, there is no real way for the
interrogator to verify your response.
I remain perennially intrigued by the possible outcomes of providing incorrect information on these "diversity" forms they have these days.
The ones where they say the information is just for the lolz.
On 30/04/2025 08:12 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 29/04/2025 in message <6506184370.df0ef605@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 23:08:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I can't
find
it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a
vote
held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you did? I'm
not
thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals who feel they
have
the right to know why/how a person voted the way they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right
to know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they
think you
voted the way you did. That's annoying!
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the
trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Anyone can ask you how you voted if they want to. The secret ballot does
not and cannot prevent that. But the secret ballot is only your secret
to keep or not to keep as *you* choose.
I have been "exit polled" at least once (maybe twice). I was content to
tell ITN / MORI how I voted.
On 30/04/2025 16:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 16:28:16 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/04/2025 in message <u1r31k9gjaqq3eg7qd33a1d38gfn7ngsd2@4ax.com>
Mark Goodge wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 07:12:41 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 29/04/2025 in message <6506184370.df0ef605@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>>> Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 23:08:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines""
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I >>>>>>>> can't find it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a >>>>>>>> vote held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you >>>>>>>> did? I'm not thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals >>>>>>>> who feel they have the right to know why/how a person voted the way >>>>>>>> they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right >>>>>>> to know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they >>>>>>> think you voted the way you did. That's annoying!
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the >>>>>> trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech. You >>>>> are not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no
obligation to answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret
ballot is to ensure that you can never be compelled to answer (or give >>>>> a true answer to) such a question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from >>>> asking rather than having a right to ask. From posts in here over time >>>> it seems "Freedom of Speech" is somewhat ethereal!
I do not accept that I am not being harmed either, the law provides for >>>> a secret ballot and being asked why/how I voted undermines that.
There's nothing to stop you from lying, telling them to stuff it, or
ignoring them.
Indeed.
I view the acid test of proffering "voluntary" information whether there
is any legal redress if you should deliberately supply an incorrect
answer.
As a general rule, lying is *always* permitted except in a court of law,
but only if you have sworn an oath or made am affirmation; on a tax form
that you have signed; to police, but only if it constitutes a perversion
of the course of justice or wastes police time; and maybe in other circumstances.
Perhaps someone can provide a complete list.
Obviously when it comes to voting, there is no real way for the
interrogator to verify your response.
Irrelevant.
I remain perennially intrigued by the possible outcomes of providing
incorrect information on these "diversity" forms they have these days.
The ones where they say the information is just for the lolz.
Good question, especially as some of the ethnic groups are fictitious,
like "Irish" or "Roma". (Do Jews say "Jewish", or just white (or whatever).)
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 16:28:16 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I do not accept that I am not being harmed either, the law provides
for a secret ballot and being asked why/how I voted undermines that.
There's nothing to stop you from lying, telling them to stuff it, or
ignoring them.
Indeed.
I view the acid test of proffering "voluntary" information whether
there is any legal redress if you should deliberately supply an
incorrect answer.
Obviously when it comes to voting, there is no real way for the
interrogator to verify your response.
On 30/04/2025 12:36 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/04/2025 11:58, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/04/2025 in message <u1r31k9gjaqq3eg7qd33a1d38gfn7ngsd2@4ax.com> >>>Mark Goodge wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 07:12:41 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>On 29/04/2025 in message <6506184370.df0ef605@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>>Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 23:08:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>>wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I >>>>>>>can't find
it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after >>>>>>>a vote
held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you did? >>>>>>>I'm not
thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals who feel >>>>>>>they have
the right to know why/how a person voted the way they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral >>>>>>right to
know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they >>>>>>think
you
voted the way you did. That's annoying!
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the >>>>>trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech.
You are
not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no >>>>obligation to
answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret ballot is to >>>>ensure
that you can never be compelled to answer (or give a true answer to) >>>>such a
question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from >>>asking rather than having a right to ask.
What's the difference?
Is there one?
On 30/04/2025 16:54, JNugent wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I can't
find it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a
vote held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you did?
I'm not thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals who
feel they have the right to know why/how a person voted the way they
did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right
to know. You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you
why they think you voted the way you did. That's annoying!
The subject IS the ITN / MORI "exit polls", yes?
If not, which "individuals" are being referenced?
Maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller_(elections)
JNugent wrote:
On 30/04/2025 12:36 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/04/2025 11:58, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I >>>>>>>> can't find it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after >>>>>>>> a vote held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way >>>>>>>> you did?
I'm not thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals
who feel they have the right to know why/how a person voted the >>>>>>>> way they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral
right to know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they >>>>>>> think you voted the way you did. That's annoying!
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the >>>>>> trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech.
You are not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have
no obligation to answer it. One of the key reasons for having a
secret ballot is to ensure that you can never be compelled to answer >>>>> (or give a true answer to) such a question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from >>>> asking rather than having a right to ask.
What's the difference?
Is there one?
Yes, a right would be backed by some sort of legislation, otherwise it's
just bad manners/impertinence.
On 30/04/2025 16:57, JNugent wrote:
On 30/04/2025 08:12 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I can't >>>>> find it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a >>>>> vote held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you did? >>>>> I'm not thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals who feel >>>>> they have the right to know why/how a person voted the way they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right
to know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they
think you voted the way you did. That's annoying!
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the
trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Anyone can ask you how you voted if they want to. The secret ballot
does not and cannot prevent that. But the secret ballot is only your
secret to keep or not to keep as *you* choose.
I have been "exit polled" at least once (maybe twice). I was content
to tell ITN / MORI how I voted.
Why can't people just wait for the official result?
On 30/04/2025 16:57, JNugent wrote:
I have been "exit polled" at least once (maybe twice). I was content to tell ITN /
MORI how I voted.
Why can't people just wait for the official result?
I admit that I assumed he was asking about tellers at first. But as we all >know (or should know), tellers do not ask the voter how he has voted. And
it was that question which seemed to be the problem - so almost certainly >exit pollsters, who would be the only ones wanting to know for whom the
vote had been cast.
Only a polling organisation (ITN-MORI is an example) would ask how you
voted.
Perhaps your argument lies there, with them.
But you are entitled not to answer their question, as has been
repeatedly pointed out in this thread.
On the other hand, tellers for any of the parties standing a candidate
do NOT ask how you voted. They only want to know the polling register
number (most easily gained from your polling card) so that they can
cross your name off their compiled register of supporters so that they
don't have to disturb you later in the day or evening - which would in
any case happen only if you had already told them (on a prior occasion)
that you intended to vote for their candidate.
I'm not thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals who feel
they have the right to know why/how a person voted the way they did.
On 30/04/2025 05:56 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/04/2025 16:57, JNugent wrote:
I have been "exit polled" at least once (maybe twice). I was content
to tell ITN / MORI how I voted.
Why can't people just wait for the official result?
They are trying to be in a position to announce (or predict) it at 22:02
on the news or in the first moments of the election special programme.
On 30 Apr 2025 at 17:54:34 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2025 16:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 16:28:16 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/04/2025 in message <u1r31k9gjaqq3eg7qd33a1d38gfn7ngsd2@4ax.com> >>>>> Mark Goodge wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 07:12:41 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 29/04/2025 in message <6506184370.df0ef605@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>>>> Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 23:08:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines""
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I >>>>>>>>> can't find it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a >>>>>>>>> vote held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you >>>>>>>>> did? I'm not thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals >>>>>>>>> who feel they have the right to know why/how a person voted the way >>>>>>>>> they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right >>>>>>>> to know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they >>>>>>>> think you voted the way you did. That's annoying!
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the >>>>>>> trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech. You >>>>>> are not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no
obligation to answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret >>>>>> ballot is to ensure that you can never be compelled to answer (or give >>>>>> a true answer to) such a question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from >>>>> asking rather than having a right to ask. From posts in here over time >>>>> it seems "Freedom of Speech" is somewhat ethereal!
I do not accept that I am not being harmed either, the law provides for >>>>> a secret ballot and being asked why/how I voted undermines that.
There's nothing to stop you from lying, telling them to stuff it, or
ignoring them.
Indeed.
I view the acid test of proffering "voluntary" information whether there >>> is any legal redress if you should deliberately supply an incorrect
answer.
As a general rule, lying is *always* permitted except in a court of law,
but only if you have sworn an oath or made am affirmation; on a tax form
that you have signed; to police, but only if it constitutes a perversion
of the course of justice or wastes police time; and maybe in other
circumstances.
Perhaps someone can provide a complete list.
Obviously when it comes to voting, there is no real way for the
interrogator to verify your response.
Irrelevant.
I remain perennially intrigued by the possible outcomes of providing
incorrect information on these "diversity" forms they have these days.
The ones where they say the information is just for the lolz.
Good question, especially as some of the ethnic groups are fictitious,
like "Irish" or "Roma". (Do Jews say "Jewish", or just white (or whatever).)
Roma and Irish are no more nor less fictititious than any other racial groups.
What about the US and "Hispanic". Races are whatever people want them to be.
On 2025-04-30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 at 17:54:34 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>> On 30/04/2025 16:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
I remain perennially intrigued by the possible outcomes of providing
incorrect information on these "diversity" forms they have these days. >>>> The ones where they say the information is just for the lolz.
Good question, especially as some of the ethnic groups are fictitious,
like "Irish" or "Roma". (Do Jews say "Jewish", or just white (or whatever).)
Roma and Irish are no more nor less fictititious than any other racial groups.
What about the US and "Hispanic". Races are whatever people want them to be.
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have to
refer to races in the legislation against racial discrimination.
On 2025-04-30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 at 17:54:34 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>
On 30/04/2025 16:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 16:28:16 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/04/2025 in message <u1r31k9gjaqq3eg7qd33a1d38gfn7ngsd2@4ax.com> >>>>>> Mark Goodge wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 07:12:41 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 in message <6506184370.df0ef605@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>>>>> Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 23:08:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines""
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I >>>>>>>>>> can't find it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a >>>>>>>>>> vote held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you >>>>>>>>>> did? I'm not thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals >>>>>>>>>> who feel they have the right to know why/how a person voted the way >>>>>>>>>> they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right >>>>>>>>> to know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they >>>>>>>>> think you voted the way you did. That's annoying!
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the >>>>>>>> trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech. You >>>>>>> are not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no >>>>>>> obligation to answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret >>>>>>> ballot is to ensure that you can never be compelled to answer (or give >>>>>>> a true answer to) such a question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from >>>>>> asking rather than having a right to ask. From posts in here over time >>>>>> it seems "Freedom of Speech" is somewhat ethereal!
I do not accept that I am not being harmed either, the law provides for >>>>>> a secret ballot and being asked why/how I voted undermines that.
There's nothing to stop you from lying, telling them to stuff it, or >>>>> ignoring them.
Indeed.
I view the acid test of proffering "voluntary" information whether there >>>> is any legal redress if you should deliberately supply an incorrect
answer.
As a general rule, lying is *always* permitted except in a court of law, >>> but only if you have sworn an oath or made am affirmation; on a tax form >>> that you have signed; to police, but only if it constitutes a perversion >>> of the course of justice or wastes police time; and maybe in other
circumstances.
Perhaps someone can provide a complete list.
Obviously when it comes to voting, there is no real way for the
interrogator to verify your response.
Irrelevant.
I remain perennially intrigued by the possible outcomes of providing
incorrect information on these "diversity" forms they have these days. >>>> The ones where they say the information is just for the lolz.
Good question, especially as some of the ethnic groups are fictitious,
like "Irish" or "Roma". (Do Jews say "Jewish", or just white (or whatever).)
Roma and Irish are no more nor less fictititious than any other racial groups.
What about the US and "Hispanic". Races are whatever people want them to be.
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have to
refer to races in the legislation against racial discrimination.
On 2 May 2025 at 12:55:31 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 at 17:54:34 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2025 16:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 16:28:16 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/04/2025 in message <u1r31k9gjaqq3eg7qd33a1d38gfn7ngsd2@4ax.com> >>>>>>> Mark Goodge wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 07:12:41 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 in message <6506184370.df0ef605@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>>>>>> Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 23:08:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines""
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I >>>>>>>>>>> can't find it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a
vote held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you >>>>>>>>>>> did? I'm not thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals >>>>>>>>>>> who feel they have the right to know why/how a person voted the way >>>>>>>>>>> they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right >>>>>>>>>> to know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they >>>>>>>>>> think you voted the way you did. That's annoying!
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the >>>>>>>>> trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech. You >>>>>>>> are not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no >>>>>>>> obligation to answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret >>>>>>>> ballot is to ensure that you can never be compelled to answer (or give >>>>>>>> a true answer to) such a question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from >>>>>>> asking rather than having a right to ask. From posts in here over time >>>>>>> it seems "Freedom of Speech" is somewhat ethereal!
I do not accept that I am not being harmed either, the law provides for >>>>>>> a secret ballot and being asked why/how I voted undermines that.
There's nothing to stop you from lying, telling them to stuff it, or >>>>>> ignoring them.
Indeed.
I view the acid test of proffering "voluntary" information whether there >>>>> is any legal redress if you should deliberately supply an incorrect
answer.
As a general rule, lying is *always* permitted except in a court of law, >>>> but only if you have sworn an oath or made am affirmation; on a tax form >>>> that you have signed; to police, but only if it constitutes a perversion >>>> of the course of justice or wastes police time; and maybe in other
circumstances.
Perhaps someone can provide a complete list.
Obviously when it comes to voting, there is no real way for the
interrogator to verify your response.
Irrelevant.
I remain perennially intrigued by the possible outcomes of providing >>>>> incorrect information on these "diversity" forms they have these days. >>>>> The ones where they say the information is just for the lolz.
Good question, especially as some of the ethnic groups are fictitious, >>>> like "Irish" or "Roma". (Do Jews say "Jewish", or just white (or whatever).)
Roma and Irish are no more nor less fictititious than any other racial groups.
What about the US and "Hispanic". Races are whatever people want them to be.
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have to
refer to races in the legislation against racial discrimination.
And in the same legislation we refer to nationality as a category of race, so I can't really see what the previous poster doubts about anti-Irish racism.
On 02/05/2025 12:55, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 at 17:54:34 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 30/04/2025 16:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
I remain perennially intrigued by the possible outcomes of providing >>>>> incorrect information on these "diversity" forms they have these
days.
The ones where they say the information is just for the lolz.
Good question, especially as some of the ethnic groups are
fictitious,
like "Irish" or "Roma". (Do Jews say "Jewish", or just white (or
whatever).)
Roma and Irish are no more nor less fictititious than any other racial
groups.
What about the US and "Hispanic". Races are whatever people want
them to be.
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have to
refer to races in the legislation against racial discrimination.
Only people who like to think of themselves as "anti-racists" say that
races don't exist.
On 02/05/2025 12:55, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 at 17:54:34 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 30/04/2025 16:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
I remain perennially intrigued by the possible outcomes of providing >>>>> incorrect information on these "diversity" forms they have these days. >>>>> The ones where they say the information is just for the lolz.
Good question, especially as some of the ethnic groups are fictitious, >>>> like "Irish" or "Roma". (Do Jews say "Jewish", or just white (or
whatever).)
Roma and Irish are no more nor less fictititious than any other
racial groups.
What about the US and "Hispanic". Races are whatever people want
them to be.
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have to
refer to races in the legislation against racial discrimination.
Only people who like to think of themselves as "anti-racists" say that
races don't exist.
On Thu, 01 May 2025 00:29:02 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Only a polling organisation (ITN-MORI is an example) would ask how you
voted.
Perhaps your argument lies there, with them.
But you are entitled not to answer their question, as has been
repeatedly pointed out in this thread.
On the other hand, tellers for any of the parties standing a candidate
do NOT ask how you voted. They only want to know the polling register
number (most easily gained from your polling card) so that they can
cross your name off their compiled register of supporters so that they
don't have to disturb you later in the day or evening - which would in
any case happen only if you had already told them (on a prior occasion)
that you intended to vote for their candidate.
In the original post, the OP said:
I'm not thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals who feel
they have the right to know why/how a person voted the way they did.
So he's not referring to either tellers or pollsters. I presume he means family, friends, acquaintances, colleagues, drinking buddies, canvassers, social media posters, taxi drivers, etc.
On Thu, 01 May 2025 00:17:53 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2025 05:56 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/04/2025 16:57, JNugent wrote:
I have been "exit polled" at least once (maybe twice). I was content
to tell ITN / MORI how I voted.
Why can't people just wait for the official result?
They are trying to be in a position to announce (or predict) it at 22:02
on the news or in the first moments of the election special programme.
It's also a very good test of how well calibrated their polling is.
Forecast polls (asking someone how they intend to vote in a forthcoming election) are always vulnerable to people changing their mind (or not bothering to vote), even if they answer honestly at the time. Exit polls don't have that problem. They do, of course still also have the issue of people either being untruthful or refusing to answer. But that's precisely what they're using the data to control for. When exit polling data differs from the actual result, there are only two possible reasons: people are not being honest, or the sample is not representative. But if you then weight
the data to allow for that, you end up with a weighting that can also be applied to forecast polls in order to leave only the uncontrolled variables (eg, people changing their mind) as a potential distorting factor.
Polling is a hugely complex mathematical science. A lot of people are under the impression that it's just a case of asking a question and then using the raw figures - "45% of respondants said they were voting pink, 55% said they were voting purple, therefore we predict a win for purple". In reality, it's about feeding the response data into a mathematical model that allows for variables such as dishonesty, sample representativeness, etc and coming up with a prediction that may actually be quite some distance from the raw polling data.
So he's not referring to either tellers or pollsters. I presume he means >>family, friends, acquaintances, colleagues, drinking buddies, canvassers, >>social media posters, taxi drivers, etc.
IF that's the case, there's little more to be said.
On Fri, 02 May 2025 14:03:34 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 02/05/2025 12:55, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 at 17:54:34 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 30/04/2025 16:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
I remain perennially intrigued by the possible outcomes of providing >>>>>> incorrect information on these "diversity" forms they have these
days.
The ones where they say the information is just for the lolz.
Good question, especially as some of the ethnic groups are
fictitious,
like "Irish" or "Roma". (Do Jews say "Jewish", or just white (or
whatever).)
Roma and Irish are no more nor less fictititious than any other racial >>>> groups.
What about the US and "Hispanic". Races are whatever people want
them to be.
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have to
refer to races in the legislation against racial discrimination.
Only people who like to think of themselves as "anti-racists" say that
races don't exist.
Asking for a definitive scientific definition of race is not the same as denying it exists.
On 02/05/2025 14:50, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 14:03:34 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 02/05/2025 12:55, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 at 17:54:34 BST, "Max Demian"
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2025 16:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
I remain perennially intrigued by the possible outcomes of
providing incorrect information on these "diversity" forms they
have these days.
The ones where they say the information is just for the lolz.
Good question, especially as some of the ethnic groups are
fictitious,
like "Irish" or "Roma". (Do Jews say "Jewish", or just white (or
whatever).)
Roma and Irish are no more nor less fictititious than any other
racial groups.
What about the US and "Hispanic". Races are whatever people want
them to be.
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have to
refer to races in the legislation against racial discrimination.
Only people who like to think of themselves as "anti-racists" say that
races don't exist.
Asking for a definitive scientific definition of race is not the same
as denying it exists.
It's nice to have a wishy washy notion of race, as you can condemn
anyone you don't like very much, by saying they are racist.
On 02/05/2025 in message <m7k500Fm1jhU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
So he's not referring to either tellers or pollsters. I presume he means >>> family, friends, acquaintances, colleagues, drinking buddies,
canvassers, social media posters, taxi drivers, etc.
IF that's the case, there's little more to be said.
I have responded to this, perhaps you missed it?
On 02/05/2025 13:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 May 2025 at 12:55:31 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 at 17:54:34 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2025 16:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 16:28:16 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/04/2025 in message <u1r31k9gjaqq3eg7qd33a1d38gfn7ngsd2@4ax.com> >>>>>>>> Mark Goodge wrote:There's nothing to stop you from lying, telling them to stuff it, or >>>>>>> ignoring them.
On 30 Apr 2025 07:12:41 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 in message <6506184370.df0ef605@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>>>>>>> Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 23:08:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines""
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I >>>>>>>>>>>> can't find it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a
vote held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you >>>>>>>>>>>> did? I'm not thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals >>>>>>>>>>>> who feel they have the right to know why/how a person voted the way
they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right
to know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they >>>>>>>>>>> think you voted the way you did. That's annoying!
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the >>>>>>>>>> trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech. You
are not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no >>>>>>>>> obligation to answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret >>>>>>>>> ballot is to ensure that you can never be compelled to answer (or give
a true answer to) such a question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from >>>>>>>> asking rather than having a right to ask. From posts in here over time >>>>>>>> it seems "Freedom of Speech" is somewhat ethereal!
I do not accept that I am not being harmed either, the law provides for
a secret ballot and being asked why/how I voted undermines that. >>>>>>>
Indeed.
I view the acid test of proffering "voluntary" information whether there >>>>>> is any legal redress if you should deliberately supply an incorrect >>>>>> answer.
As a general rule, lying is *always* permitted except in a court of law, >>>>> but only if you have sworn an oath or made am affirmation; on a tax form >>>>> that you have signed; to police, but only if it constitutes a perversion >>>>> of the course of justice or wastes police time; and maybe in other
circumstances.
Perhaps someone can provide a complete list.
Obviously when it comes to voting, there is no real way for the
interrogator to verify your response.
Irrelevant.
I remain perennially intrigued by the possible outcomes of providing >>>>>> incorrect information on these "diversity" forms they have these days. >>>>>> The ones where they say the information is just for the lolz.
Good question, especially as some of the ethnic groups are fictitious, >>>>> like "Irish" or "Roma". (Do Jews say "Jewish", or just white (or whatever).)
Roma and Irish are no more nor less fictititious than any other racial groups.
What about the US and "Hispanic". Races are whatever people want them to be.
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have to
refer to races in the legislation against racial discrimination.
And in the same legislation we refer to nationality as a category of race, so
I can't really see what the previous poster doubts about anti-Irish racism.
If it doesn't refer to a race, it's not racism. It's something else. Xenophobia, perhaps, which is hatred or fear of strangers of foreigners.
On 2 May 2025 at 14:07:08 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
If it doesn't refer to a race, it's not racism. It's something else.
Xenophobia, perhaps, which is hatred or fear of strangers of foreigners.
Since no one has a particular right to say what a race is, a nationality qualifies as well as anything. The point I was making was slightly different, however - that it was included under race discrimination in the Equality Act.
On 02/05/2025 10:18 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 May 2025 at 14:07:08 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
[ ... ]
If it doesn't refer to a race, it's not racism. It's something else.
Xenophobia, perhaps, which is hatred or fear of strangers of
foreigners.
Since no one has a particular right to say what a race is, a
nationality qualifies as well as anything. The point I was making was
slightly different,
however - that it was included under race discrimination in the
Equality Act.
That's a peculiar right not to have, isn't it?
How did that come about?
And how can one be guilty of race discrimination (under any Act) if
no-one can tell one race from another?
On Sat, 03 May 2025 11:30:12 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 02/05/2025 10:18 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
If it doesn't refer to a race, it's not racism. It's something else.
Xenophobia, perhaps, which is hatred or fear of strangers of
foreigners.
Since no one has a particular right to say what a race is, a
nationality qualifies as well as anything. The point I was making was
slightly different,
however - that it was included under race discrimination in the
Equality Act.
That's a peculiar right not to have, isn't it?
How did that come about?
And how can one be guilty of race discrimination (under any Act) if
no-one can tell one race from another?
We need to bear in mind that in some places around the world, what *other people* said your race was had an existential bearing on your rights.
This is the root of the preposterous idea of "self identification". where
you can't call someone black, but they can. However this contradicts the previous status quo where you couldn't be "African" if you were white, despite being born there, while by the same token you were "African" if
you were black even if you were born in Knightsbridge.
And white or black. African or European. None of it has any bearing on
your intelligence.
On 2 May 2025 at 14:07:08 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 02/05/2025 13:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 May 2025 at 12:55:31 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>>If it doesn't refer to a race, it's not racism. It's something else.
On 2025-04-30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 at 17:54:34 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2025 16:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 16:28:16 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/04/2025 in message <u1r31k9gjaqq3eg7qd33a1d38gfn7ngsd2@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>> Mark Goodge wrote:There's nothing to stop you from lying, telling them to stuff it, or >>>>>>>> ignoring them.
On 30 Apr 2025 07:12:41 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 in message <6506184370.df0ef605@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 23:08:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines""
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
This seems to be the act that gave us secret ballots although I >>>>>>>>>>>>> can't find it online, only references to it.
Does it, or any later update, say anything about being asked after a
vote held under its auspices how (or why) you voted they way you >>>>>>>>>>>>> did? I'm not thinking of pollsters waiting outside but individuals
who feel they have the right to know why/how a person voted the way
they did.
People certainly have right to ask. And they can claim a moral right
to know.
You can of course decline to answer. And they can tell you why they
think you voted the way you did. That's annoying!
Why do they have a right to ask when the government has gone to the >>>>>>>>>>> trouble of ensuring I can vote in secret?
Because asking a simple question is a matter of freedom of speech. You
are not being harmed by being asked the question, and you have no >>>>>>>>>> obligation to answer it. One of the key reasons for having a secret >>>>>>>>>> ballot is to ensure that you can never be compelled to answer (or give
a true answer to) such a question.
OK. I would interpret that as a person not being prevented by law from
asking rather than having a right to ask. From posts in here over time
it seems "Freedom of Speech" is somewhat ethereal!
I do not accept that I am not being harmed either, the law provides for
a secret ballot and being asked why/how I voted undermines that. >>>>>>>>
Indeed.
I view the acid test of proffering "voluntary" information whether there
is any legal redress if you should deliberately supply an incorrect >>>>>>> answer.
As a general rule, lying is *always* permitted except in a court of law, >>>>>> but only if you have sworn an oath or made am affirmation; on a tax form >>>>>> that you have signed; to police, but only if it constitutes a perversion >>>>>> of the course of justice or wastes police time; and maybe in other >>>>>> circumstances.
Perhaps someone can provide a complete list.
Obviously when it comes to voting, there is no real way for the
interrogator to verify your response.
Irrelevant.
I remain perennially intrigued by the possible outcomes of providing >>>>>>> incorrect information on these "diversity" forms they have these days. >>>>>>> The ones where they say the information is just for the lolz.
Good question, especially as some of the ethnic groups are fictitious, >>>>>> like "Irish" or "Roma". (Do Jews say "Jewish", or just white (or whatever).)
Roma and Irish are no more nor less fictititious than any other racial groups.
What about the US and "Hispanic". Races are whatever people want them to be.
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have to
refer to races in the legislation against racial discrimination.
And in the same legislation we refer to nationality as a category of race, so
I can't really see what the previous poster doubts about anti-Irish racism. >>
Xenophobia, perhaps, which is hatred or fear of strangers of foreigners.
Since no one has a particular right to say what a race is, a nationality qualifies as well as anything. The point I was making was slightly different, however - that it was included under race discrimination in the Equality Act.
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have to
refer to races in the legislation against racial discrimination.
On Fri, 02 May 2025 12:55:31 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have to
refer to races in the legislation against racial discrimination.
This is an argument about word meanings, rather than an argument about substance.
Ethnicity objectively exists; in many cases it's readily observable (eg, in
a person's skin colour and facial shape) but even when it isn't it's
amenable to DNA testing. So the thing that's commonly referred to as "race" indisputably exists.
The problem is that "race" has a specific meaning in biology, and the biological sense of the word doesn't equate to ethnicity. That's why scientists will tell you, correctly, that homo sapiens doesn't have races. And that's why some people object to using the word to apply to humans.
That argument, though, ignores the fact that words can, and do, have different meanings, and in particular the colloquial use of a word can often be different to the scientic use of a word. And there's a very long literary tradition of using the word "race" to refer to human ethnicity. Shakespeare used it in that sense, as did Charles Dickens, Jonathan Swift, Arthur Conan Doyle and Thomas Hardy. You can argue that they were authors rather than scientists, but it's hard to argue that their use of English was flawed.
Legislation uses the colloquial and literary rather than scientific meaning of "race". And there isn't really anything wrong with that. Lots of words
and phrases in legislation take their legal meaning from the common usage rather than the technical or scientific definition.
FWIW, if I was in charge of rewriting the Equality Act, I'd probably try to avoid using the word "race". Even though it's an acceptable term in colloquial English, its use in the Act provokes a strong response in two completely different groups of people: those who think it's wrong to use the word to mean ethnicity (because that's not how scientists use the word), and those who think it's wrong to use the word to mean anything other than ethnicity (eg, by including nationality as an aspect of race). And when you get those two groups arguing at each other it invariably generates far more heat than light.
But, it is what it is. If the Equality Act does ever get updated then it
will be worth having the debate about what wording to use. In the meantime, though, arguing about the meaning of the word "race" is just pedantic nitpickery, and has no bearing on the legal position.
Mark
On 3 May 2025 at 20:00:03 BST, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
FWIW, if I was in charge of rewriting the Equality Act, I'd probably try to >> avoid using the word "race". Even though it's an acceptable term in
colloquial English, its use in the Act provokes a strong response in two
completely different groups of people: those who think it's wrong to use the >> word to mean ethnicity (because that's not how scientists use the word), and >> those who think it's wrong to use the word to mean anything other than
ethnicity (eg, by including nationality as an aspect of race). And when you >> get those two groups arguing at each other it invariably generates far more >> heat than light.
But, it is what it is. If the Equality Act does ever get updated then it
will be worth having the debate about what wording to use. In the meantime, >> though, arguing about the meaning of the word "race" is just pedantic
nitpickery, and has no bearing on the legal position.
That is fair. What I was arguing with is dogmatists who think they know what >race means, and therefore think they know who belongs to their own "race", and >therefore think anti-Irish sentiment can't be racism because they are "white >like us". Shame they weren't around in the 50s to tell white landladies in >London that!
On 3 May 2025 20:35:00 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 at 20:00:03 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
FWIW, if I was in charge of rewriting the Equality Act, I'd probably try to >>> avoid using the word "race". Even though it's an acceptable term in
colloquial English, its use in the Act provokes a strong response in two >>> completely different groups of people: those who think it's wrong to use the
word to mean ethnicity (because that's not how scientists use the word), and
those who think it's wrong to use the word to mean anything other than
ethnicity (eg, by including nationality as an aspect of race). And when you >>> get those two groups arguing at each other it invariably generates far more >>> heat than light.
But, it is what it is. If the Equality Act does ever get updated then it >>> will be worth having the debate about what wording to use. In the meantime, >>> though, arguing about the meaning of the word "race" is just pedantic
nitpickery, and has no bearing on the legal position.
That is fair. What I was arguing with is dogmatists who think they know what >> race means, and therefore think they know who belongs to their own "race", and
therefore think anti-Irish sentiment can't be racism because they are "white >> like us". Shame they weren't around in the 50s to tell white landladies in >> London that!
The law doesn't define "racism", merely "race". The Equality Act doesn't actually outlaw sentiment and prejudice. It merely outlaws acting on sentiment and prejudice in such a way as to discriminate on the basis of
race (and other categories).
"Racist", therefore, really does mean whatever society thinks it means. And society doesn't necessarily have a consensus on that. It is fair to say
that, historically, it has typically meant prejudice specifically on the basis of skin colour rather than any other ethnic or national attributes. That's not to say that other forms of prejudice are not equally as damaging. But they may not necessarily be quite the same thing.
Mark
On Fri, 02 May 2025 12:55:31 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have to
refer to races in the legislation against racial discrimination.
This is an argument about word meanings, rather than an argument
about substance.
Ethnicity objectively exists; in many cases it's readily observable
(eg, in a person's skin colour and facial shape) but even when it
isn't it's amenable to DNA testing. So the thing that's commonly
referred to as "race" indisputably exists.
The problem is that "race" has a specific meaning in biology, and the biological sense of the word doesn't equate to ethnicity. That's why scientists will tell you, correctly, that homo sapiens doesn't have
races. And that's why some people object to using the word to apply
to humans.
That argument, though, ignores the fact that words can, and do, have different meanings, and in particular the colloquial use of a word
can often be different to the scientic use of a word. And there's a
very long literary tradition of using the word "race" to refer to
human ethnicity. Shakespeare used it in that sense, as did Charles
Dickens, Jonathan Swift, Arthur Conan Doyle and Thomas Hardy. You can
argue that they were authors rather than scientists, but it's hard to
argue that their use of English was flawed.
Legislation uses the colloquial and literary rather than scientific
meaning of "race". And there isn't really anything wrong with that.
Lots of words and phrases in legislation take their legal meaning
from the common usage rather than the technical or scientific
definition.
FWIW, if I was in charge of rewriting the Equality Act, I'd probably
try to avoid using the word "race". Even though it's an acceptable
term in colloquial English, its use in the Act provokes a strong
response in two completely different groups of people: those who
think it's wrong to use the word to mean ethnicity (because that's
not how scientists use the word), and those who think it's wrong to
use the word to mean anything other than ethnicity (eg, by including nationality as an aspect of race). And when you get those two groups
arguing at each other it invariably generates far more heat than
light.
But, it is what it is. If the Equality Act does ever get updated then
it will be worth having the debate about what wording to use. In the meantime, though, arguing about the meaning of the word "race" is
just pedantic nitpickery, and has no bearing on the legal position.
Mark
On 3 May 2025 at 20:00:03 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
But, it is what it is. If the Equality Act does ever get updated then it
will be worth having the debate about what wording to use. In the meantime, >> though, arguing about the meaning of the word "race" is just pedantic
nitpickery, and has no bearing on the legal position.
Mark
That is fair. What I was arguing with is dogmatists who think they
know what race means, and therefore think they know who belongs to
their own "race", and therefore think anti-Irish sentiment can't be
racism because they are "white like us". Shame they weren't around in
the 50s to tell white landladies in London that!
On 2025-05-03, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 at 20:00:03 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
But, it is what it is. If the Equality Act does ever get updated then it >>> will be worth having the debate about what wording to use. In the meantime, >>> though, arguing about the meaning of the word "race" is just pedantic
nitpickery, and has no bearing on the legal position.
Mark
That is fair. What I was arguing with is dogmatists who think they
know what race means, and therefore think they know who belongs to
their own "race", and therefore think anti-Irish sentiment can't be
racism because they are "white like us". Shame they weren't around in
the 50s to tell white landladies in London that!
Racists don't use "white" as a colour; they use it to mean "people
I consider to be part of my superior group". So, for example, to a
racist, Western Europeans are "white" but Eastern Europeans are
"not white", even though to a person who naively thinks white is
a colour the latter are just as white as the former, if not more so.
On 2025-05-03, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 at 20:00:03 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
But, it is what it is. If the Equality Act does ever get updated then it >>> will be worth having the debate about what wording to use. In the meantime, >>> though, arguing about the meaning of the word "race" is just pedantic
nitpickery, and has no bearing on the legal position.
Mark
That is fair. What I was arguing with is dogmatists who think they
know what race means, and therefore think they know who belongs to
their own "race", and therefore think anti-Irish sentiment can't be
racism because they are "white like us". Shame they weren't around in
the 50s to tell white landladies in London that!
Racists don't use "white" as a colour; they use it to mean "people
I consider to be part of my superior group". So, for example, to a
racist, Western Europeans are "white" but Eastern Europeans are
"not white", even though to a person who naively thinks white is
a colour the latter are just as white as the former, if not more so.
On 04/05/2025 12:57, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-03, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 at 20:00:03 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
But, it is what it is. If the Equality Act does ever get updated then it >>>> will be worth having the debate about what wording to use. In the meantime,
though, arguing about the meaning of the word "race" is just pedantic
nitpickery, and has no bearing on the legal position.
Mark
That is fair. What I was arguing with is dogmatists who think they
know what race means, and therefore think they know who belongs to
their own "race", and therefore think anti-Irish sentiment can't be
racism because they are "white like us". Shame they weren't around in
the 50s to tell white landladies in London that!
Racists don't use "white" as a colour; they use it to mean "people
I consider to be part of my superior group". So, for example, to a
racist, Western Europeans are "white" but Eastern Europeans are
"not white", even though to a person who naively thinks white is
a colour the latter are just as white as the former, if not more so.
So what your saying is that "racist" is a label you place on people with different political views you vehemently disagree with?
Most would agree that name calling is the result of a lost argument.
On 3 May 2025 at 20:00:03 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 12:55:31 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have to
refer to races in the legislation against racial discrimination.
This is an argument about word meanings, rather than an argument about
substance.
Ethnicity objectively exists; in many cases it's readily observable (eg, in >> a person's skin colour and facial shape) but even when it isn't it's
amenable to DNA testing. So the thing that's commonly referred to as "race" >> indisputably exists.
The problem is that "race" has a specific meaning in biology, and the
biological sense of the word doesn't equate to ethnicity. That's why
scientists will tell you, correctly, that homo sapiens doesn't have races. >> And that's why some people object to using the word to apply to humans.
That argument, though, ignores the fact that words can, and do, have
different meanings, and in particular the colloquial use of a word can often >> be different to the scientic use of a word. And there's a very long literary >> tradition of using the word "race" to refer to human ethnicity. Shakespeare >> used it in that sense, as did Charles Dickens, Jonathan Swift, Arthur Conan >> Doyle and Thomas Hardy. You can argue that they were authors rather than
scientists, but it's hard to argue that their use of English was flawed.
Legislation uses the colloquial and literary rather than scientific meaning >> of "race". And there isn't really anything wrong with that. Lots of words
and phrases in legislation take their legal meaning from the common usage
rather than the technical or scientific definition.
FWIW, if I was in charge of rewriting the Equality Act, I'd probably try to >> avoid using the word "race". Even though it's an acceptable term in
colloquial English, its use in the Act provokes a strong response in two
completely different groups of people: those who think it's wrong to use the >> word to mean ethnicity (because that's not how scientists use the word), and >> those who think it's wrong to use the word to mean anything other than
ethnicity (eg, by including nationality as an aspect of race). And when you >> get those two groups arguing at each other it invariably generates far more >> heat than light.
But, it is what it is. If the Equality Act does ever get updated then it
will be worth having the debate about what wording to use. In the meantime, >> though, arguing about the meaning of the word "race" is just pedantic
nitpickery, and has no bearing on the legal position.
That is fair. What I was arguing with is dogmatists who think they know what race means, and therefore think they know who belongs to their own "race", and
therefore think anti-Irish sentiment can't be racism because they are "white like us". Shame they weren't around in the 50s to tell white landladies in London that!
I don't say people can't use race colloquially for socially-defined minority groups, just that they should avoid dogmatic certainties about what race people belong to according to whatever half-baked theories of race they seem to believe are self-evidently true.
I really fail to comprehend how anyone whatever could seriously think that prejudice against Roma isn't racism, though. Is it just based on skin colour?
On 04/05/2025 12:57, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-03, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 at 20:00:03 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
But, it is what it is. If the Equality Act does ever get updated
then it will be worth having the debate about what wording to use.
In the meantime, though, arguing about the meaning of the word
"race" is just pedantic nitpickery, and has no bearing on the legal
position.
Mark
That is fair. What I was arguing with is dogmatists who think they
know what race means, and therefore think they know who belongs to
their own "race", and therefore think anti-Irish sentiment can't be
racism because they are "white like us". Shame they weren't around in
the 50s to tell white landladies in London that!
Racists don't use "white" as a colour; they use it to mean "people
I consider to be part of my superior group". So, for example, to a
racist, Western Europeans are "white" but Eastern Europeans are
"not white", even though to a person who naively thinks white is
a colour the latter are just as white as the former, if not more so.
So what your saying is that "racist" is a label you place on people with different political views you vehemently disagree with?
On 4 May 2025 at 15:56:14 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 04/05/2025 12:57, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-03, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 at 20:00:03 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
But, it is what it is. If the Equality Act does ever get updated
then it will be worth having the debate about what wording to use.
In the meantime, though, arguing about the meaning of the word
"race" is just pedantic nitpickery, and has no bearing on the
legal position.
Mark
That is fair. What I was arguing with is dogmatists who think they
know what race means, and therefore think they know who belongs to
their own "race", and therefore think anti-Irish sentiment can't be
racism because they are "white like us". Shame they weren't around in
the 50s to tell white landladies in London that!
Racists don't use "white" as a colour; they use it to mean "people
I consider to be part of my superior group". So, for example, to a
racist, Western Europeans are "white" but Eastern Europeans are
"not white", even though to a person who naively thinks white is
a colour the latter are just as white as the former, if not more so.
So what your saying is that "racist" is a label you place on people with
different political views you vehemently disagree with?
Most would agree that name calling is the result of a lost argument.
I really don't think he said anything whatever to imply that he called racists racists for any other reason than that they were racists. What
it has to do with disagreeing with him politically I really cannot see.
On 03/05/2025 21:35, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 May 2025 at 20:00:03 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 12:55:31 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have to
refer to races in the legislation against racial discrimination.
This is an argument about word meanings, rather than an argument about
substance.
Ethnicity objectively exists; in many cases it's readily observable (eg, in >>> a person's skin colour and facial shape) but even when it isn't it's
amenable to DNA testing. So the thing that's commonly referred to as "race" >>> indisputably exists.
The problem is that "race" has a specific meaning in biology, and the
biological sense of the word doesn't equate to ethnicity. That's why
scientists will tell you, correctly, that homo sapiens doesn't have races. >>> And that's why some people object to using the word to apply to humans.
That argument, though, ignores the fact that words can, and do, have
different meanings, and in particular the colloquial use of a word can often
be different to the scientic use of a word. And there's a very long literary
tradition of using the word "race" to refer to human ethnicity. Shakespeare >>> used it in that sense, as did Charles Dickens, Jonathan Swift, Arthur Conan >>> Doyle and Thomas Hardy. You can argue that they were authors rather than >>> scientists, but it's hard to argue that their use of English was flawed. >>>
Legislation uses the colloquial and literary rather than scientific meaning >>> of "race". And there isn't really anything wrong with that. Lots of words >>> and phrases in legislation take their legal meaning from the common usage >>> rather than the technical or scientific definition.
FWIW, if I was in charge of rewriting the Equality Act, I'd probably try to >>> avoid using the word "race". Even though it's an acceptable term in
colloquial English, its use in the Act provokes a strong response in two >>> completely different groups of people: those who think it's wrong to use the
word to mean ethnicity (because that's not how scientists use the word), and
those who think it's wrong to use the word to mean anything other than
ethnicity (eg, by including nationality as an aspect of race). And when you >>> get those two groups arguing at each other it invariably generates far more >>> heat than light.
But, it is what it is. If the Equality Act does ever get updated then it >>> will be worth having the debate about what wording to use. In the meantime, >>> though, arguing about the meaning of the word "race" is just pedantic
nitpickery, and has no bearing on the legal position.
That is fair. What I was arguing with is dogmatists who think they know what >> race means, and therefore think they know who belongs to their own "race", and
therefore think anti-Irish sentiment can't be racism because they are "white >> like us". Shame they weren't around in the 50s to tell white landladies in >> London that!
Irish were once part of the Celtic race of Roman Britain before they got thoroughly mixed with the invading Anglo-Saxons. Now they're just a nationality.
I don't say people can't use race colloquially for socially-defined minority >> groups, just that they should avoid dogmatic certainties about what race
people belong to according to whatever half-baked theories of race they seem >> to believe are self-evidently true.
I really fail to comprehend how anyone whatever could seriously think that >> prejudice against Roma isn't racism, though. Is it just based on skin colour?
We all know the problems with "travellers" setting up camp on public
land. Some may call themselves Roma or Gypsies. Whatever they are, they
don't constitute a race, however defined.
Just stop using the word "racism" if you don't have a meaningful
definition of the term race.
Call people something else, like fascist or commie. There are plenty of
names to call people.
On 03/05/2025 21:35, Roger Hayter wrote:
I really fail to comprehend how anyone whatever could seriously think that >> prejudice against Roma isn't racism, though. Is it just based on skin colour?
We all know the problems with "travellers" setting up camp on public
land. Some may call themselves Roma or Gypsies. Whatever they are, they
don't constitute a race, however defined.
Just stop using the word "racism" if you don't have a meaningful
definition of the term race.
Call people something else, like fascist or commie. There are plenty of
names to call people.
On 2 May 2025 at 14:07:08 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 02/05/2025 13:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 May 2025 at 12:55:31 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 at 17:54:34 BST, "Max Demian"
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2025 16:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
[SNIP]
I remain perennially intrigued by the possible outcomes of
providing incorrect information on these "diversity" forms they
have these days. The ones where they say the information is
just for the lolz.
Good question, especially as some of the ethnic groups are
fictitious, like "Irish" or "Roma". (Do Jews say "Jewish", or
just white (or whatever).)
Roma and Irish are no more nor less fictititious than any other
racial groups. What about the US and "Hispanic". Races are
whatever people want them to be.
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have
to refer to races in the legislation against racial
discrimination.
And in the same legislation we refer to nationality as a category
of race, so I can't really see what the previous poster doubts
about anti-Irish racism.
If it doesn't refer to a race, it's not racism. It's something else.
Xenophobia, perhaps, which is hatred or fear of strangers of
foreigners.
Since no one has a particular right to say what a race is, a
nationality qualifies as well as anything. The point I was making was slightly different, however - that it was included under race
discrimination in the Equality Act.
On 03/05/2025 21:35, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 May 2025 at 20:00:03 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 12:55:31 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have to
refer to races in the legislation against racial discrimination.
This is an argument about word meanings, rather than an argument about
substance.
Ethnicity objectively exists; in many cases it's readily observable (eg, in >>> a person's skin colour and facial shape) but even when it isn't it's
amenable to DNA testing. So the thing that's commonly referred to as "race" >>> indisputably exists.
The problem is that "race" has a specific meaning in biology, and the
biological sense of the word doesn't equate to ethnicity. That's why
scientists will tell you, correctly, that homo sapiens doesn't have races. >>> And that's why some people object to using the word to apply to humans.
That argument, though, ignores the fact that words can, and do, have
different meanings, and in particular the colloquial use of a word can often
be different to the scientic use of a word. And there's a very long literary
tradition of using the word "race" to refer to human ethnicity. Shakespeare >>> used it in that sense, as did Charles Dickens, Jonathan Swift, Arthur Conan >>> Doyle and Thomas Hardy. You can argue that they were authors rather than >>> scientists, but it's hard to argue that their use of English was flawed. >>>
Legislation uses the colloquial and literary rather than scientific meaning >>> of "race". And there isn't really anything wrong with that. Lots of words >>> and phrases in legislation take their legal meaning from the common usage >>> rather than the technical or scientific definition.
FWIW, if I was in charge of rewriting the Equality Act, I'd probably try to >>> avoid using the word "race". Even though it's an acceptable term in
colloquial English, its use in the Act provokes a strong response in two >>> completely different groups of people: those who think it's wrong to use the
word to mean ethnicity (because that's not how scientists use the word), and
those who think it's wrong to use the word to mean anything other than
ethnicity (eg, by including nationality as an aspect of race). And when you >>> get those two groups arguing at each other it invariably generates far more >>> heat than light.
But, it is what it is. If the Equality Act does ever get updated then it >>> will be worth having the debate about what wording to use. In the meantime, >>> though, arguing about the meaning of the word "race" is just pedantic
nitpickery, and has no bearing on the legal position.
That is fair. What I was arguing with is dogmatists who think they know what >> race means, and therefore think they know who belongs to their own "race", and
therefore think anti-Irish sentiment can't be racism because they are "white >> like us". Shame they weren't around in the 50s to tell white landladies in >> London that!
Irish were once part of the Celtic race of Roman Britain before they got thoroughly mixed with the invading Anglo-Saxons. Now they're just a nationality.
I don't say people can't use race colloquially for socially-defined minority >> groups, just that they should avoid dogmatic certainties about what race
people belong to according to whatever half-baked theories of race they seem >> to believe are self-evidently true.
I really fail to comprehend how anyone whatever could seriously think that >> prejudice against Roma isn't racism, though. Is it just based on skin colour?
We all know the problems with "travellers" setting up camp on public
land. Some may call themselves Roma or Gypsies. Whatever they are, they
don't constitute a race, however defined.
Just stop using the word "racism" if you don't have a meaningful
definition of the term race.
Call people something else, like fascist or commie. There are plenty of
names to call people.
On 22:18 2 May 2025, Roger Hayter said:
On 2 May 2025 at 14:07:08 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 02/05/2025 13:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 May 2025 at 12:55:31 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 at 17:54:34 BST, "Max Demian"
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2025 16:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
[SNIP]
I remain perennially intrigued by the possible outcomes of
providing incorrect information on these "diversity" forms they >>>>>>>> have these days. The ones where they say the information is
just for the lolz.
Good question, especially as some of the ethnic groups are
fictitious, like "Irish" or "Roma". (Do Jews say "Jewish", or
just white (or whatever).)
Roma and Irish are no more nor less fictititious than any other
racial groups. What about the US and "Hispanic". Races are
whatever people want them to be.
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have
to refer to races in the legislation against racial
discrimination.
And in the same legislation we refer to nationality as a category
of race, so I can't really see what the previous poster doubts
about anti-Irish racism.
If it doesn't refer to a race, it's not racism. It's something else.
Xenophobia, perhaps, which is hatred or fear of strangers of
foreigners.
Since no one has a particular right to say what a race is, a
nationality qualifies as well as anything. The point I was making was
slightly different, however - that it was included under race
discrimination in the Equality Act.
Surely nationality relates to nation?
So, Zulus are members of the Zulu nation.
Furthermore, a Zulu would still be part of the Zulu nation even if he
didn't live in KwaZulu-Natal but instead lived in Istanbul.
On 4 May 2025 at 17:42:11 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 03/05/2025 21:35, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 May 2025 at 20:00:03 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 12:55:31 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have to >>>>> refer to races in the legislation against racial discrimination.
This is an argument about word meanings, rather than an argument about >>>> substance.
Ethnicity objectively exists; in many cases it's readily observable (eg, in
a person's skin colour and facial shape) but even when it isn't it's
amenable to DNA testing. So the thing that's commonly referred to as "race"
indisputably exists.
The problem is that "race" has a specific meaning in biology, and the
biological sense of the word doesn't equate to ethnicity. That's why
scientists will tell you, correctly, that homo sapiens doesn't have races. >>>> And that's why some people object to using the word to apply to humans. >>>>
That argument, though, ignores the fact that words can, and do, have
different meanings, and in particular the colloquial use of a word can often
be different to the scientic use of a word. And there's a very long literary
tradition of using the word "race" to refer to human ethnicity. Shakespeare
used it in that sense, as did Charles Dickens, Jonathan Swift, Arthur Conan
Doyle and Thomas Hardy. You can argue that they were authors rather than >>>> scientists, but it's hard to argue that their use of English was flawed. >>>>
Legislation uses the colloquial and literary rather than scientific meaning
of "race". And there isn't really anything wrong with that. Lots of words >>>> and phrases in legislation take their legal meaning from the common usage >>>> rather than the technical or scientific definition.
FWIW, if I was in charge of rewriting the Equality Act, I'd probably try to
avoid using the word "race". Even though it's an acceptable term in
colloquial English, its use in the Act provokes a strong response in two >>>> completely different groups of people: those who think it's wrong to use the
word to mean ethnicity (because that's not how scientists use the word), and
those who think it's wrong to use the word to mean anything other than >>>> ethnicity (eg, by including nationality as an aspect of race). And when you
get those two groups arguing at each other it invariably generates far more
heat than light.
But, it is what it is. If the Equality Act does ever get updated then it >>>> will be worth having the debate about what wording to use. In the meantime,
though, arguing about the meaning of the word "race" is just pedantic
nitpickery, and has no bearing on the legal position.
That is fair. What I was arguing with is dogmatists who think they know what
race means, and therefore think they know who belongs to their own "race", and
therefore think anti-Irish sentiment can't be racism because they are "white
like us". Shame they weren't around in the 50s to tell white landladies in >>> London that!
Irish were once part of the Celtic race of Roman Britain before they got
thoroughly mixed with the invading Anglo-Saxons. Now they're just a
nationality.
I don't say people can't use race colloquially for socially-defined minority
groups, just that they should avoid dogmatic certainties about what race >>> people belong to according to whatever half-baked theories of race they seem
to believe are self-evidently true.
I really fail to comprehend how anyone whatever could seriously think that >>> prejudice against Roma isn't racism, though. Is it just based on skin colour?
We all know the problems with "travellers" setting up camp on public
land. Some may call themselves Roma or Gypsies. Whatever they are, they
don't constitute a race, however defined.
Just stop using the word "racism" if you don't have a meaningful
definition of the term race.
Call people something else, like fascist or commie. There are plenty of
names to call people.
Let me explain the discrimination law (the one that mentions race) a bit more.
Suppose you don't like travellers of an Irish persuasion or Gipsies because
they are all lawless and make a mess and you refuse to allow them in your village shop when they are unlawfully camping nearby. Then you can be sued for
direct racial discrimination because the fact that there at least 2 distinct ethnic or national groups you dislike and you don't know which they are doesn't make it any less unlawful racial discrimination.
Suppose you successfully convince the judge that you don't like campers in general, even if they are retired bank managers from Godalming, or thoroughly white British hippies. Then if you put up a no campers sign in your village shop you can claim you aren't directly discriminating. But an Irish Traveller who wants to buy something from your shop (which for the sake of argument may be the only one for miles) can still sue you for indirect racial discrimination because such a policy disproportionately affects his people who
are much more likely to be camping near remote villages than the general population. And you are unlikely to be able to prove you have a legitimate need to refuse service to campers.
Does this clarify why you don't need to believe that travellers are a distinct
race, or that they are the same race as gipsies, in order to be guilty of unlawful racial discrimination? Only the court needs to believe that Irish travellers or gipsies are a distinct race/ethnic or national group from the national population. And they don't need a spurious science of valid human races to do so. Just common sense.
On 4 May 2025 at 17:42:11 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 03/05/2025 21:35, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 May 2025 at 20:00:03 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 12:55:31 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have to >>>>> refer to races in the legislation against racial discrimination.
This is an argument about word meanings, rather than an argument about >>>> substance.
Ethnicity objectively exists; in many cases it's readily observable (eg, in
a person's skin colour and facial shape) but even when it isn't it's
amenable to DNA testing. So the thing that's commonly referred to as "race"
indisputably exists.
The problem is that "race" has a specific meaning in biology, and the
biological sense of the word doesn't equate to ethnicity. That's why
scientists will tell you, correctly, that homo sapiens doesn't have races. >>>> And that's why some people object to using the word to apply to humans. >>>>
That argument, though, ignores the fact that words can, and do, have
different meanings, and in particular the colloquial use of a word can often
be different to the scientic use of a word. And there's a very long literary
tradition of using the word "race" to refer to human ethnicity. Shakespeare
used it in that sense, as did Charles Dickens, Jonathan Swift, Arthur Conan
Doyle and Thomas Hardy. You can argue that they were authors rather than >>>> scientists, but it's hard to argue that their use of English was flawed. >>>>
Legislation uses the colloquial and literary rather than scientific meaning
of "race". And there isn't really anything wrong with that. Lots of words >>>> and phrases in legislation take their legal meaning from the common usage >>>> rather than the technical or scientific definition.
FWIW, if I was in charge of rewriting the Equality Act, I'd probably try to
avoid using the word "race". Even though it's an acceptable term in
colloquial English, its use in the Act provokes a strong response in two >>>> completely different groups of people: those who think it's wrong to use the
word to mean ethnicity (because that's not how scientists use the word), and
those who think it's wrong to use the word to mean anything other than >>>> ethnicity (eg, by including nationality as an aspect of race). And when you
get those two groups arguing at each other it invariably generates far more
heat than light.
But, it is what it is. If the Equality Act does ever get updated then it >>>> will be worth having the debate about what wording to use. In the meantime,
though, arguing about the meaning of the word "race" is just pedantic
nitpickery, and has no bearing on the legal position.
That is fair. What I was arguing with is dogmatists who think they know what
race means, and therefore think they know who belongs to their own "race", and
therefore think anti-Irish sentiment can't be racism because they are "white
like us". Shame they weren't around in the 50s to tell white landladies in >>> London that!
Irish were once part of the Celtic race of Roman Britain before they got
thoroughly mixed with the invading Anglo-Saxons. Now they're just a
nationality.
I don't say people can't use race colloquially for socially-defined minority
groups, just that they should avoid dogmatic certainties about what race >>> people belong to according to whatever half-baked theories of race they seem
to believe are self-evidently true.
I really fail to comprehend how anyone whatever could seriously think that >>> prejudice against Roma isn't racism, though. Is it just based on skin colour?
We all know the problems with "travellers" setting up camp on public
land. Some may call themselves Roma or Gypsies. Whatever they are, they
don't constitute a race, however defined.
Just stop using the word "racism" if you don't have a meaningful
definition of the term race.
Call people something else, like fascist or commie. There are plenty of
names to call people.
Wanting to legally stop people camping where it is unlawful may not be racism.
Refusing to serve one of them in a shop, or setting fire to their vehicles at
night definitely is racism. Is this hard to understand?
Let me explain the discrimination law (the one that mentions race) a bit more.
Suppose you don't like travellers of an Irish persuasion or Gipsies because
they are all lawless and make a mess and you refuse to allow them in your village shop when they are unlawfully camping nearby. Then you can be sued for
direct racial discrimination because the fact that there at least 2 distinct ethnic or national groups you dislike and you don't know which they are doesn't make it any less unlawful racial discrimination.
On 04/05/2025 22:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
Let me explain the discrimination law (the one that mentions race) a bit more.
Suppose you don't like travellers of an Irish persuasion or Gipsies because
they are all lawless and make a mess and you refuse to allow them in your
village shop when they are unlawfully camping nearby. Then you can be sued for
direct racial discrimination because the fact that there at least 2 distinct >> ethnic or national groups you dislike and you don't know which they are
doesn't make it any less unlawful racial discrimination.
What a fine example you give there of how bonkers Britain has become!
We pretend, against all available evidence, that we're all as nice as
each other, when that is plainly not the case. And we punish those who
dare to speak the truth and act in accordance with it.
Is that the sort of society you think we should be?
On 5 May 2025 at 09:00:34 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 04/05/2025 22:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
Let me explain the discrimination law (the one that mentions race) a bit more.
Suppose you don't like travellers of an Irish persuasion or Gipsies because
they are all lawless and make a mess and you refuse to allow them in your >>> village shop when they are unlawfully camping nearby. Then you can be sued for
direct racial discrimination because the fact that there at least 2 distinct
ethnic or national groups you dislike and you don't know which they are
doesn't make it any less unlawful racial discrimination.
What a fine example you give there of how bonkers Britain has become!
We pretend, against all available evidence, that we're all as nice as
each other, when that is plainly not the case. And we punish those who
dare to speak the truth and act in accordance with it.
Is that the sort of society you think we should be?
How does refusing to serve people in a shop that you don't know personally because of their family background amount to "speaking the truth"? I'm confused.
On 4 May 2025 at 19:35:40 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 22:18 2 May 2025, Roger Hayter said:
On 2 May 2025 at 14:07:08 BST, "Max Demian"
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 02/05/2025 13:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 May 2025 at 12:55:31 BST, "Adam Funk"
<a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 at 17:54:34 BST, "Max Demian"
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2025 16:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
[SNIP]
I remain perennially intrigued by the possible outcomes of
providing incorrect information on these "diversity" forms
they have these days. The ones where they say the information >>>>>>>>> is just for the lolz.
Good question, especially as some of the ethnic groups are
fictitious, like "Irish" or "Roma". (Do Jews say "Jewish", or
just white (or whatever).)
Roma and Irish are no more nor less fictititious than any other
racial groups. What about the US and "Hispanic". Races are
whatever people want them to be.
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we
have to refer to races in the legislation against racial
discrimination.
And in the same legislation we refer to nationality as a category
of race, so I can't really see what the previous poster doubts
about anti-Irish racism.
If it doesn't refer to a race, it's not racism. It's something
else. Xenophobia, perhaps, which is hatred or fear of strangers of
foreigners.
Since no one has a particular right to say what a race is, a
nationality qualifies as well as anything. The point I was making
was slightly different, however - that it was included under race
discrimination in the Equality Act.
Surely nationality relates to nation?
So, Zulus are members of the Zulu nation.
Furthermore, a Zulu would still be part of the Zulu nation even if
he didn't live in KwaZulu-Natal but instead lived in Istanbul.
Indeed if he is a naturalised Turkish citizen (or even seems to be
one) he can be discriminated against either because of his Zulu
nationality, or his Turkish nationality or his colour. And perhaps
even because he is a man. If he has to complain about his treatment
then it is up to the court to decide on the evidence presented which
of his characteristics has led to unlawful discrimination, if any. So
I don't really understand the point you are making. Are you
suggesting that being a Zulu disqualifies him from being Turkish?
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
We all know the problems with "travellers" setting up camp on public
land. Some may call themselves Roma or Gypsies. Whatever they are, they
don't constitute a race, however defined.
Just stop using the word "racism" if you don't have a meaningful
definition of the term race.
Call people something else, like fascist or commie. There are plenty of
names to call people.
Wanting to legally stop people camping where it is unlawful may not be racism.
Refusing to serve one of them in a shop,
or setting fire to their vehicles at
night definitely is racism. Is this hard to understand?
Let me explain the discrimination law (the one that mentions race) a bit more.
Suppose you don't like travellers of an Irish persuasion or Gipsies because
they are all lawless and make a mess and you refuse to allow them in your village shop when they are unlawfully camping nearby. Then you can be sued for
direct racial discrimination because the fact that there at least 2 distinct ethnic or national groups you dislike and you don't know which they are doesn't make it any less unlawful racial discrimination.
I was addressing your earlier comment that "nationality" qualifies as
well as anything to refer to race as I believe that's too imprecise to
be useful.
On 04/05/2025 22:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
Let me explain the discrimination law (the one that mentions race) a
bit more.
Suppose you don't like travellers of an Irish persuasion or Gipsies
because they are all lawless and make a mess and you refuse to allow
them in your village shop when they are unlawfully camping nearby.
Then you can be sued for direct racial discrimination because the
fact that there at least 2 distinct ethnic or national groups you
dislike and you don't know which they are doesn't make it any less
unlawful racial discrimination.
What a fine example you give there of how bonkers Britain has become!
We pretend, against all available evidence, that we're all as nice as
each other, when that is plainly not the case. And we punish those
who dare to speak the truth and act in accordance with it.
Is that the sort of society you think we should be?
On 09:00 5 May 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 04/05/2025 22:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
Let me explain the discrimination law (the one that mentions race) a
bit more.
Suppose you don't like travellers of an Irish persuasion or Gipsies
because they are all lawless and make a mess and you refuse to allow
them in your village shop when they are unlawfully camping nearby.
Then you can be sued for direct racial discrimination because the
fact that there at least 2 distinct ethnic or national groups you
dislike and you don't know which they are doesn't make it any less
unlawful racial discrimination.
What a fine example you give there of how bonkers Britain has become!
We pretend, against all available evidence, that we're all as nice as
each other, when that is plainly not the case. And we punish those
who dare to speak the truth and act in accordance with it.
Is that the sort of society you think we should be?
Which reminds me of the "Modern Parents" cartoon strip in Viz, who were politically correct but nutty as a fruit cake. I wonder if it's still
going strong.
There was also a comic strip in Viz about gypsies.
On 06/05/2025 10:29 AM, Pamela wrote:
On 09:00 5 May 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 04/05/2025 22:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
Let me explain the discrimination law (the one that mentions race)
a bit more.
Suppose you don't like travellers of an Irish persuasion or
Gipsies because they are all lawless and make a mess and you
refuse to allow them in your village shop when they are unlawfully
camping nearby. Then you can be sued for direct racial
discrimination because the fact that there at least 2 distinct
ethnic or national groups you dislike and you don't know which
they are doesn't make it any less unlawful racial discrimination.
What a fine example you give there of how bonkers Britain has
become! We pretend, against all available evidence, that we're all
as nice as each other, when that is plainly not the case. And we
punish those who dare to speak the truth and act in accordance with
it.
Is that the sort of society you think we should be?
Which reminds me of the "Modern Parents" cartoon strip in Viz, who
were politically correct but nutty as a fruit cake. I wonder if it's
still going strong.
You use that "but" as though there were some sort of illogicality
involved in being PC and nutty as a fruitcase.
There was also a comic strip in Viz about gypsies.
I haven't seen Viz in years. Must look out for it.
On 5 May 2025 at 12:25:04 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
I was addressing your earlier comment that "nationality" qualifies
as well as anything to refer to race as I believe that's too
imprecise to be useful.
If you think so then you need to take that up with the people who
drafted the Equality Act. Clue: I was not involved.
On 3 May 2025 at 20:00:03 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 12:55:31 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have to
refer to races in the legislation against racial discrimination.
This is an argument about word meanings, rather than an argument about
substance.
Ethnicity objectively exists; in many cases it's readily observable (eg, in >> a person's skin colour and facial shape) but even when it isn't it's
amenable to DNA testing. So the thing that's commonly referred to as "race" >> indisputably exists.
The problem is that "race" has a specific meaning in biology, and the
biological sense of the word doesn't equate to ethnicity. That's why
scientists will tell you, correctly, that homo sapiens doesn't have races. >> And that's why some people object to using the word to apply to humans.
That argument, though, ignores the fact that words can, and do, have
different meanings, and in particular the colloquial use of a word can often >> be different to the scientic use of a word. And there's a very long literary >> tradition of using the word "race" to refer to human ethnicity. Shakespeare >> used it in that sense, as did Charles Dickens, Jonathan Swift, Arthur Conan >> Doyle and Thomas Hardy. You can argue that they were authors rather than
scientists, but it's hard to argue that their use of English was flawed.
Legislation uses the colloquial and literary rather than scientific meaning >> of "race". And there isn't really anything wrong with that. Lots of words
and phrases in legislation take their legal meaning from the common usage
rather than the technical or scientific definition.
FWIW, if I was in charge of rewriting the Equality Act, I'd probably try to >> avoid using the word "race". Even though it's an acceptable term in
colloquial English, its use in the Act provokes a strong response in two
completely different groups of people: those who think it's wrong to use the >> word to mean ethnicity (because that's not how scientists use the word), and >> those who think it's wrong to use the word to mean anything other than
ethnicity (eg, by including nationality as an aspect of race). And when you >> get those two groups arguing at each other it invariably generates far more >> heat than light.
But, it is what it is. If the Equality Act does ever get updated then it
will be worth having the debate about what wording to use. In the meantime, >> though, arguing about the meaning of the word "race" is just pedantic
nitpickery, and has no bearing on the legal position.
Mark
That is fair. What I was arguing with is dogmatists who think they know what race means, and therefore think they know who belongs to their own "race", and
therefore think anti-Irish sentiment can't be racism because they are "white like us". Shame they weren't around in the 50s to tell white landladies in London that!
I don't say people can't use race colloquially for socially-defined minority groups, just that they should avoid dogmatic certainties about what race people belong to according to whatever half-baked theories of race they seem to believe are self-evidently true.
On Fri, 02 May 2025 12:55:31 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
Races don't really exist, but unfortunately racists do, so we have to
refer to races in the legislation against racial discrimination.
This is an argument about word meanings, rather than an argument about substance.
Ethnicity objectively exists; in many cases it's readily observable (eg, in
a person's skin colour and facial shape) but even when it isn't it's
amenable to DNA testing. So the thing that's commonly referred to as "race" indisputably exists.
The problem is that "race" has a specific meaning in biology, and the biological sense of the word doesn't equate to ethnicity. That's why scientists will tell you, correctly, that homo sapiens doesn't have races. And that's why some people object to using the word to apply to humans.
That argument, though, ignores the fact that words can, and do, have different meanings, and in particular the colloquial use of a word can often be different to the scientic use of a word. And there's a very long literary tradition of using the word "race" to refer to human ethnicity. Shakespeare used it in that sense, as did Charles Dickens, Jonathan Swift, Arthur Conan Doyle and Thomas Hardy. You can argue that they were authors rather than scientists, but it's hard to argue that their use of English was flawed.
Legislation uses the colloquial and literary rather than scientific meaning of "race". And there isn't really anything wrong with that. Lots of words
and phrases in legislation take their legal meaning from the common usage rather than the technical or scientific definition.
FWIW, if I was in charge of rewriting the Equality Act, I'd probably try to avoid using the word "race". Even though it's an acceptable term in colloquial English, its use in the Act provokes a strong response in two completely different groups of people: those who think it's wrong to use the word to mean ethnicity (because that's not how scientists use the word), and those who think it's wrong to use the word to mean anything other than ethnicity (eg, by including nationality as an aspect of race). And when you get those two groups arguing at each other it invariably generates far more heat than light.
But, it is what it is. If the Equality Act does ever get updated then it
will be worth having the debate about what wording to use. In the meantime, though, arguing about the meaning of the word "race" is just pedantic nitpickery, and has no bearing on the legal position.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 12:00:33 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
I agree that it doesn't affect the legal position, but I think it is
worth educating most people that what they think of as "race" is
meaningless.
The problem with that is there an entire industry built around it.
And trust me, the most impossible task in the world is to convince
someone whose job relies on black being white, that they are different colours.
I agree that it doesn't affect the legal position, but I think it is
worth educating most people that what they think of as "race" is
meaningless.
On 16 Jun 2025 at 12:23:00 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 12:00:33 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
I agree that it doesn't affect the legal position, but I think it is
worth educating most people that what they think of as "race" is
meaningless.
The problem with that is there an entire industry built around it.
And trust me, the most impossible task in the world is to convince
someone whose job relies on black being white, that they are different
colours.
To be fair, knowing that skin-defined race is meaningless biologically
does not affect the fact that skin colour is highly meaningful sociologically.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 11:47:23 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 at 12:23:00 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 12:00:33 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
I agree that it doesn't affect the legal position, but I think it is
worth educating most people that what they think of as "race" is
meaningless.
The problem with that is there an entire industry built around it.
And trust me, the most impossible task in the world is to convince
someone whose job relies on black being white, that they are different
colours.
To be fair, knowing that skin-defined race is meaningless biologically
does not affect the fact that skin colour is highly meaningful
sociologically.
Well yes. Only the race "industry" is based on antithesis of that.
The TL;DR is that the genes that make us seem different - skin colouring, hair types etc - are nothing to do with the genes that affect
intelligence "etc". It's a little akin to thinking that a vehicles tyre pressure has any effect on it's weight.
On 16 Jun 2025 at 12:23:00 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 12:00:33 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
I agree that it doesn't affect the legal position, but I think it is
worth educating most people that what they think of as "race" is
meaningless.
The problem with that is there an entire industry built around it.
And trust me, the most impossible task in the world is to convince
someone whose job relies on black being white, that they are different
colours.
To be fair, knowing that skin-defined race is meaningless biologically does >not affect the fact that skin colour is highly meaningful sociologically.
On 16 Jun 2025 11:47:23 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 at 12:23:00 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 12:00:33 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
I agree that it doesn't affect the legal position, but I think it is
worth educating most people that what they think of as "race" is
meaningless.
The problem with that is there an entire industry built around it.
And trust me, the most impossible task in the world is to convince
someone whose job relies on black being white, that they are different
colours.
To be fair, knowing that skin-defined race is meaningless biologically does >> not affect the fact that skin colour is highly meaningful sociologically.
Skin *colour* isn't meaningless biologically. People with darker skin are more likely to suffer Vitamin D deficiency in more northern latitudes, but, conversely, are less likely to suffer from melanoma where sunlight is stronger. That is, after all, precisely the reason biologists will give you when explaining how different skin colours evolved.
Using skin colour alone to define race is meaningless, both biologically and colloquially. But that doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
Mark
Using skin colour alone to define race is meaningless, both biologically
and colloquially. But that doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 29:49:17 |
| Calls: | 9,797 |
| Calls today: | 16 |
| Files: | 13,749 |
| Messages: | 6,188,690 |