Political correctness stops proper safety steps for vulnerable groups

This is a - slight - side topic to the one started by the learned PG.
Please bear with me - but I am depressed at today’s world.

I know these two items are from the DM (no comments please) - but they are FACTS - and have been reported in other newspapers.

And before anyone shouts at me, before making a comment rather reading the articles - do me the courtesy please of reading them - and then tell me why I am wrong in feeling so confused about today’s society.

We have been advised that there are certain groups more vulnerable than others to this — virus.
In the interests of their health they have been advised to take extra precautions; not for anyone else’s sake - but their own. (And just in case, here I’m referring to the Golden Oldies, the 60plus or those younger with health problems - I hope that is clear).

So how is it that a vulnerable group, which has been identified not just in the UK - and has been given special advice for their own benefit -

why does it suddenly become ‘rascist’ to try and protect that vulnerable group ?

And why is it that only a member of that vulnerable community is allowed to point out the facts - without being accused of being rascist.

I truly believe that this PC nonsense, where every little group can turn any fact into a ‘rascist’ attack has gone way, way too far.
There is no longer any reasonable, common-sense, decent conversation to be had any more…
Sorry - I know it’s the UK; but you can’t tell me similar silencing of the facts hasn’t taken place right across europe.
What a stupid, stupid world.
I’m out of step; sometimes I think of that Tony Newley song -
‘Stop the World I wanna Get Off’ - …


I find this to be typical DM reporting. Look at this excerpt, talking about Muslim practices around death:

“We lost a member of our congregation two weeks ago and there were 50 people gathered at his house to express their sympathies.’ A single road in Bradford registered an astonishing 17 coronavirus cases within six days, it has emerged. “

By putting these two sentences together you are being lead to believe that the 17 cases in the single road were muslims. Given the behaviour of the younger population (all races) in Bradford this hotspot could have nothing to do with a muslim death ceremony.

It is a sad fact that socio-economic issues have a huge effect, and it seems to have been shown that the reason the BAME population has been so heavily hit is because they suffer from disproportional deprivation, and lifestyles that make them more prone to obesity and high BP not because of the colour of their skin.

I can’t read any more from DM.


I have to agree with you Jane. This was probably my favourite from the first article.
“It is also the case that, before the clampdown on global travel at the end of March, Asians were arriving in large numbers here from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Without any proper checks at airports, that will inevitably have pushed up infection rates.”
There is absolutely no evidence of that at all. Just a throw away comment to lead their right-wing readers to the inevitable conclusion that it must be the Asians to blame. This rag makes me sick.
Izzy x


Racist. No S. I am sorry to be pedantic.

The two articles are very different - one is saying that some people are disproportionately affected by the virus for x and y reasons, the second says the same thing but in a pejorative way.
If you can’t see the difference between a member of a group which faces discrimination saying something and a member of a group which doesn’t face discrimination saying something similar but othering, then I am not surprised you are confused.
It is a bit like a British person living in France saying that some British people drink a bit too much of the locally available, inexpensive wine, and me or my friends saying ah là là les anglais tous des alcoolos ils passent la journée à écluser des cubis de rosé.


Girls - please - you’re missing the point.
Forget it’s the DM - please.
It’s also been similarly reported in the Gurdian, and the bbc -

for some reason the BAME groups have been hit hardest.
We had the ‘vulnerable groups should be more careful’ warnings; it now seems that these groups do seem (for reasons the medics and scientists are trying to work out why) - to be more vulnerable. Why - and this is where I am confused - why, for their own health and safety, and that of their families, why is it being deemed ‘rascist’ to try and ensure this group takes special care of themselves?
How is that rascist ?
I would have thought it seems to be more caring and helpful than anything else.
Why is it wrong to be caring of a vulnerable group ?


Yes it’s true that BAME people are more affected by the virus. But the accusation of The Daily Fail, and the nasty racist (note the correct spelling) Whittaker, is that it is because they are not respecting the rules rather than the genetic, social and cultural reasons suggested by experts.
I doubt they were among the hordes on UK beaches or getting pissed in city centres over the last few weeks.
Perhaps the Government should be concentrating on trying to find the reasons why BAME people are more affected rather than criticising the communities suffering these higher rates of infections and deaths.
Also, what @vero said above.
Izzy x


Errm…I’m not a girl.

And I do get the point. But you are missing it.


I think Tiger lily has the right point it is the racist press that is twisting it

If I understand correctly, that’s your key question, and your others are variations or developments of that.

I’m not sure that I agree that it is considered racist by anyone to try to protect ethnic minorities. Is there some evidence that it is (apart from the DM)?

(I agree that it is regrettable that only people like Bp Michael Nasir Ali and Nazir Afzal are “allowed” to make criticism of bad behaviour by members of ethnic minorities which are peculiar to or highly prevalent in those communities, but that is a different matter.)

I wonder if part of the problem for BAME people is that
systemic racism - that is, discrimination not on a personal basis but because society is set up in a certain way - means they are disproportionately affected (crummy jobs, having to use public transport) as well as
multigenerational living and
having - it seems - some sort of vulnerability linked to race.


Totally agree about large number of Brits also, in last few days, behaving stupidly - no time for that at all.
But there were scenes of young asian/bame groups also indulging in outside drinking - behaving just as badly as some of the Brits.
I also accept that there are/could be social, economic reasons for the higher concentration of covid incidents amongst the bame group.
But it is not just the uk that has seen this concentration, is it ?
And I don’t think the life style of uk bame people can be replicated across the world can it ?
It just is sad that there are higher incidences among a particular group; and any effort to try and protect those who are more at risk in the bame group gets jumped on as being ‘rascist’. That the only people ‘allowed’ to highlight this are those from the bame group itself - doesn’t that strike anyone as wrong, and immoral ?
That is my contention; scientists are trying to work out if it is down to genetics, to ethnicity - because it’s happened not just in the uk.

My point - we do not seem to be allowed to speak the truth - anything that highlights a particular group is now seized upon as being ‘rascist’ when it is not.
I get the feeling that everyone can criticise the uk white people; that only the non-whites can criticise themselves, but the non-whites can criticise anyone, from any ethnic group - and not be called out on it.

Why have we reached this point when truth can be distorted, and dismissed, and sneered at.
It is wrong, and it is certainly not helping the vulnerable within the bame group, is it ?

1 Like

Presumably, by Brits you mean white people? Those Asian/BAME groups aren’t Brits? Really!!!

Your source for this please.


Izzy - you state - Perhaps the Government should be concentrating on trying to find the reasons why BAME people are more affected rather than criticising the communities suffering these higher rates of infections and deaths.
Izzy - you have answered your own question; finding the reasons could well include highlighting the bame group because they have close family ties - which is lovely, which is to be envied - but might be a possible part reason for why there is the concentration. Don’t think criticising comes into it - if it is a potential risk then it’s not a criticism but a reasonable statement.

It is not criticising their life-style - it is a way of trying to understand why this particular group have suffered more than others.
If it is suspected by the medical and science people that this particular group’s family way of life has led them to be more vulnerable to this virus then why the shout-out when attempts are made to try and help protect them.

1 Like

Stevie - quite agree with you about crummy jobs etc - but doesn’t that also apply to large numbers of non-bame people as well ?
Your final sentence - ‘…some sort of vulnerability linked to race.’ - is exactly my point.
You will not be allowed to say that in mixed society; you would not dare write that on the Guardian comment pages; you would marched away by the ‘thought police’ if you said that in public and the women at the bbc would be having fainting fits for you daring to raise the fact.

Now can you understand - reasonable debate has been stifled by political correctness - try your comment on the Guardian and you’d be banned.


The Guardian has been raising the issue for a lot longer than DM.


I think you should reconsider that statement. it does not reflect well on you.


Anne @TigerLily can’t get her head round the fact that by making a distinction between Asian men and "Brits’ is an indelibly racist position. Being unaware of being racist or denying one is racist while suggesting the people of oriental, African or Asian descent are not really British is the hall-mark of a 24 carat dyed-in-the-wool racist.

Poor thing! Wake up and smell the coffee, @TigerLily :coffee::stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:


So according to you, they aren’t Brits, these young brown people? I find the terminology you use very revealing, and it demonstrates that supposedly innocent concerned remarks along the lines of ‘why would somebody trying to protect vulnerable groups be taxed with racism’ are actually disingenuous in the extreme.


I didn’t ask any questions. That was you.
I fear you are tying yourself up in knots in an attempt to prove that you are not racist. It’s not going well.


You see @TigerLily, no-one is accusing you of wickedness. Only pointing to your unaware ignorance of what racism is. It’s a failure to see.

Racism is having an unquestioned belief that people of colour are not British in the same way that white peope are British. Black and brown youngsters may "officially’ be British, hold British passports and speak English as their first language (or even their only language), but they’re British in a name-only way, and certainly not English. To be English you have to be err… English; and genuine English people are white-skinned. It’s common sense!

I think that’s what your common sense tells you, I think. Tell me I’m wrong, Anne.

Of course, some people go further by thinking that non-White people are of a different and, in some respects, a slightly inferior breed. They may copy or adopt white manners or customs, and behave like white people, but they are just pretending, and can never actually be the equal of the Brits or English ladies and gentlemen whose language, ways of dressing, and homes and life-style that they adopt and copy. They are still not-really-like - us, and never will be the genuine article. It’s a copy-cat thing, and it makes us uncomfortable when they try it on, and try to draw us in to their psychodrama.

Doesn’t it for you?


I think this conversation is wandering. Again we are seeing assumptions being made on probably/possibly unclear posting?
I personally didn’t read into the bame and asian referral to being related to Brits. Maybe as I tend to think of BAME being ‘Black Americans’ and Asians - well, those in Asia?
I could of course be completely wrong.
Going back to Peter’s original overtly provocative post, he knows as well as anybody, that the restrictions he refers to simply wouldn’t work. We all of us just need to look around to see some people just won’t wear masks for whatever reasons. At the risk of being accused yet again of being a fuddy-duddy, there are huge social distinctions and needs between the old and the young. There is also a vast gap of risk assessment brought about by the media mainly, which has (apparently incorrectly) shown that only old people were at risk, and that young people were practically immune.

As we have seen worldwide people like crowds - certainly when compared to isolation, and this is particularly the case with the young. Many of these crowds are energetic, and where wearing a mask is surely almost impossible? In my own case wearing a mask on a bicycle (before the crash) at my own slow speed was quite unpleasant - and on empty country roads, I stopped wearing one. I really don’t know how hospital and care personnel - and those in shops etc. cope with wearing these all day.

The younger people are blessed with a sense of their own invulnerability which is the way of humanity, and although this could be seen as misplaced is still largely supported by the numbers. Plus every day now we are hearing of vaccine developments, which we can only hope are true and imminent.
But no matter there will still be those who don’t believe in them, as well as those who are simply in denial of the whole thing. I really don’t see how these can be ‘ordered’ in this area. Beatings of bus drivers trying to enforce the laws already in existence is evidence of that.
Finally I can’t see this ‘racist’ bit at all. It seems more likely that economics plays a greater part than ethnicity or colour of one’s’ skin. Notably where rich and poor are so evident and comparable.
However I do make a caveat for the religious argument that also exists, and which again would override ‘common sense’ - as we are seeing today in America.