Because the data is pretty clear that it exists and is problematic. A panel of experts who have a prior that agrees with this would likely do so a a result of a knowledge of the academic literature not necessarily an ideological commitment to a position.
This sort of push for balance only works when 1) the truth is genuinely somewhere around the midpoint of the two PoVs, and 2) the respective PoVs were arrived at a result of the same rigorous analysis of the data.
I think a commission needs to be able to be objective. When is headed by those with extreme views (either way) any objectivity is likely to be lost.
There are videos of her questioning if nigger is offensive (giving equivalence to being called fat), or arguing in favour of a professor stating black people have a lower average IQ, that he should be allowed free speech and keep his job.
Those are views at the extremes of society, like those supporting the BNP (whose leader she also defended).
The perception of her being on the fringes in its self is damaging to any outcome. Like being headed by Katie Hopkins.
Fair play to them but it doesn’t half create an awkward situation now.
This quotation is from the Times. Written by Duncan Craig. It’s common place and really pisses me off
*“However, while the weather holds, it’s all rather lovely — winding tracks along which cows nonchalantly slurp from big yellow grit-salt tubs; hills of glossy, well-watered green; a regular supply of castles so old that you can no longer work out where bluff ends and fortification begins.
“We drop down into villages with names of cat-walking-across-the-keyboard impenetrability (Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen; Ystradgynlais), then climb lanes so narrow that the breeze-stirred branches on each side almost meet, leaning in like an excitable Tour de France crowd*
I look at the way the head injury protocol has been gamed by teams (feigning a head injury to get the game stopped, and prevent an opposition attack) and think this is a completely unmanageable situation.
It doesn’t matter whether the rule ends up favouring the alleged transgressor or the transgressed, it will go straight into the Sergio Ramos copybook of ‘shit you pull to win at all costs’.
Yeah. I wasn’t quite thinking that far but it’s certainly possible. Also, say an investigation finds no evidence of racial abuse. What then? Play the game again, share the points or possibly more damaging award the points to the opposition.
I’m thinking back to the Firmino incident with Everton.
Bloodgate all over again.
Are you referring to the rugby union bloodgate saga? Pretty epic cheating in that instance
I thought this was a really great conversation on the related issue of how do we decide what speech is allowable and who makes the decision.
Ostensibly, it’s a conversation in which a black Ivy League professor of linguistics argues that the line has been drawn too aggressively in ways that demean the people who are supposedly the beneficiaries of this approach, with a white coastal elite man arguing otherwise.
Tomorrow’s listening whilst setting up a new server 
Taslima Nasreen is still alive??? And still at it too.
For those who don’t know, it’s about Trent and Naby.
This is just not acceptable. They might have played poorly last night, but so did the majority of the team, and nothing justifies targeting their race or colour.
Ban all those responsible.
what did i miss there?
she ended up with the comfy chair…there was no real hint she missed out simply becuase she was a woman either.
unless ive missed something isnt that just finding an issue where there isnt one?
It’s causing quite the stir. Von der Leyen is, in theory, the most senior representative of the EU at a meeting between the EU and Turkey.
The real error is with Turkey only setting out 2 chairs when 3 may have been more appropriate. But having done so it really wasn’t for Michel (The President of the EU Council) to take the chair in priority to VdL (The President of the EU Commission) and effectively relegate her to a position “off-stage”, if you like. He should either have insisted on her having the chair or should have insisted that Turkey provide a third chair before sitting down.
Not only because of their respective status but also because it’s simply ungentlemanly (you could argue sexist) for him to grab the chair before VdL. He actually spots the layout of the chairs and speeds up to get ahead of VdL to grab one of the only two available!
That is the point. So Michel should have ensured that VdL and himself were at least treated with parity. Instead, he does the opposite.