Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RootsBooster

  • Rank
    Registered User

Personal Information

  • Location
    Something, something, danger zone?

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If you had read my post you would have noticed that I acknowledged this. From the web page here: "Please note that these sessions are only open to black and minority ethnic (BME) students." While it doesn't specifically state it, this effectively only excludes white people, which (like it or not) is racial discrimination. In your opinion, how many races/ethnicities are excluded? Your comparison is not like for like, if the meeting was about racism against minorities only, then you might have a point. By excluding any racial demographic it is racial discrimination. The fact that the meeting is about stopping racism adds a very ferrous tinge to the whole thing.
  2. So it has, hopefully reason has prevailed and they will accept white applicants too. The meeting about racism doesn't seem to be about providing a safe space for any minorities though, it seems to be about racism - something that happens to all races by one degree or another.
  3. Absolutely It technically and literally is, even if that is not the intention. Or, to be more accurate, excluding a single race from a meeting about racism is racial discrimination in itself. That would depend, if it's a meeting about domestic violence in general (as in my OP) then it would be discriminating to only permit women. If it was about domestic violence against women, it might be more understandable.
  4. I don't think the name of an organisation matters too much, it's the admittance policy that counts. The NBPA does appear to bend the rules a little, although white people can become members they have a different status within the organisation. I'm not sure how that stands legally but it seems to be accepted. This is unrelated to the thread topic though. (EDIT: There is pretty much a NWPA already, it's called the police force)
  5. There have been a couple of racist incidents that made the news in past years (there was the banana incident most recently) but I have no idea of the less news-worthy racism incidents which may or may not be reported. I think the goal is to tackle racism among students and the university environment in general, rather than just within the Union.
  6. I consider myself to be a fairly balanced person when it comes to politics and ideals. When I read about the following I felt it should be discussed, as I am interested in other peoples' opinions on such matters in this age of ever morphing societal values and principles. The Sheffield Students' Union is holding meetings next Monday (14/10/19) to discuss how they can "create an anti-racist Students’ Union". From the web page here: "Please note that these sessions are only open to black and minority ethnic (BME) students." While it doesn't specifically state it, this effectively only excludes white people, which (like it or not) is racial discrimination. Yes, white privilege can be a thing and yes, most racism is from white people. Racism against white people is also a thing though, and so is discrimination. By excluding a racial demographic from this meeting they are not building any bridges, quite the opposite, it is causing a division (intentional or not). It's like holding a meeting to tackle domestic violence but only permitting women to attend. In their own words, "A Bit Racist Is Still Racist" EDIT: I realise this is sensitive subject matter and would prefer if certain people didn't just use it as a platform to vent their own racist views, thus getting the thread locked/removed. To those people, I am not your ally or sympathiser.
  7. Promoting rational thought and helping to break the perpetuation of nonsense is always a worthwhile cause 😄 All too often people conflate coincidence with correlation. Conkers don't give off a gas that repels spiders (at least, not in their regular form, it may be possible that such a gas is given off when they are in a state of decomposition, but unlikely). See post #159
  8. I haven't seen a spider in my house in months but I haven't put down any conkers - so surely that means not putting down conkers keeps spiders away? Several studies have been carried out by universities and the findings were that spiders don't give a hoot about conkers. For a quick, simple test see this video done by school kids. Given the option of climbing over a small branch or a sea of conkers, spiders chose the conkers (if anything, that may be a link suggesting that they like conkers 😁) It could well be that some spider repellent brand claims the use of a chestnut extract, it would likely be a good selling point seeing as so many people believe the old wives' tale.
  9. A lot of people do say that, just like a lot of people say that crystals have healing properties. Neither are true though.
  10. Old thread, but I thought I should probably highlight a bit from the WD40 safety data sheet: Link
  11. Who is this question (or statement) to?
  12. One of the dumbest things I've read in a long time, I'm almost not even sure it's genuine. https://www.google.com/amp/s/road.cc/content/news/262249-30mph-cyclists-more-alarming-50mph-motorists-says-dartmoor-speedwatch-group%3famp The comments could have been taken out of context, there's no mention of the cars that were going much faster.
  13. Indeed, I'd never considered cycling to work until it occurred to me that I easily cover the same distance on my Saturday morning leisure ride. Before that, the thought of cycling into town had seemed like an incredible inconvenience. After I checked Google maps and saw that the estimated ride duration would be the same as driving (in morning traffic conditions), I decided to give it a go.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.