Social media posts recounting a Christmas day walk up Mam Tor organised by the group Muslim Hikers received a series of derogatory comments last weekend. In response, the outdoor community rallied to support the group and condemned the views of the 'racist minority' in their attempt to exclude ethnically diverse walkers from the hills.
Blows my mind that anyone with even a hint of knowledge of the history of the Peak and its role in access rights can tall someone else they shouldn't be enjoying their access rights, purely on the basis of demographics.
I think the 'proper walkers' should ' off and leave the place alone for people who are going to climb it properly.
🙄
Disgusting idiots.
One or two of the negative replies I've seen have been from names I recognise from the Peak District Moorland Group page.. they're largely not keen on anyone enjoying 'their' hills so their complaints aren't entirely based on race, even if it is a factor.
I have found whenever there is an access story on Twitter, you tend to hear pro goml comments from the usual footbally, brexity, Covid fan boys. Also libertarians can be strongly against anyone enjoying access rights unless they have bought them.
> One or two of the negative replies I've seen have been from names I recognise from the Peak District Moorland Group page.. they're largely not keen on anyone enjoying 'their' hills so their complaints aren't entirely based on race, even if it is a factor.
I had a quick look, and the majority of the abuse seemed to be the usual "all these people on the hills spoil it for me when I ( a PROPER walker) go out" and "eroding the countryside" types you get on every FB page about walking.
Good job no one tripped up, otherwise there would have been the "foolhardy", "badly equipped", "in winter!!" and "I hope they made a BIG donation to MRT" comments to deal with too.
Unfortunately a small number of genuine racists in the mix too.
The old "I'm stuck in traffic" paradox!
It's a part of the soundscape of the Peak District isn't it? The wind, the curlew, the grouse, and the tutting from the red sock brigade.
Methinks there is a bit of click baiting going on here. The abuse doesn't appear to be specifcially racial in nature. It does appear to be targeted at large groups or groups of outsiders. In a world where protecting our environment is so important the objection to large groups has a certain validity and as we do live in a society where we are supposed to respect the views etc of others it is not respectful to be unpleasant about any viewpoint no matter what its nature.
I for one object strongly to large groups of noisy people in the country side. However my stereotypical view, albeit based on much experience, is that I seriously doubt that this group would cause me any objection.
On the erosion front, while it is a valid concern, 100 people is probably less than 0.001% of the total people who walk on the great ridge each year. I can't help but feel the people claiming erosion here are blowing it out of proportion, and question why they have been so vocal in this case and silent in others.
As for being pleasant regarding other people's viewpoints, when those viewpoints are that these individuals should 'stay home', 'leave the hills for the proper walkers' and are 'like wilderbeast', I draw a line. If the people leaving these foul comments cannot show any respect, why do they deserve any in return?
> Unfortunately a small number of genuine racists in the mix too.
Not all cnuts are racist, but all racists are...
So far as erosion of paths goes, the horse has well and truly bolted in this area and most of the path is now flags and cobbles.
Once this group gets established and introduces a few people to the wonders of the countryside around them, some won't return, some will get hooked and many will start splitting into smaller groups and visiting more niche locations to avoid the crowds found in places like Mam Tor.
Solidarity indeed.
Whenever racism in the outdoors is mentioned, the majority get on their high horse: "what racism? I [as a white person] have never experienced racism in the outdoors. Stop talking about this right now. Everyone's welcome, on paper at least. Let's leave the politics out of it." But, here you are. Maureen and Dave and Rick mouthing off, "I'm not racist but... get lost, you're not welcome."
Racism is something we still need to deal with as an outdoor community.
I'm amazed in this day and age a person would openly post racist abuse on social media and expect to get away with it considering the police are actively investigating hate crime /non crime hate speech online. Amazes me even more there are a minority that still spew this poison after all the work done to help everybody embrace diversity.
Pleased to hear that much of the abuse wasn't to do with race but disappointed the comments went up anyway, regardless of their narrow minded motivation.
As a privileged white male, if I've learned one thing about racism this year from Black Lives matter and others, it's that for BAME people in this country the experience of these constant tangential racist comments, deliberately off the direct target and therefore deniable if challenged, but with clear intent, is one of the tiring, distressing and debilitating features of life.
But all wildebeest are gnus, and as far as the crowd haters are concerned, no gnus is good news......
> Methinks there is a bit of click baiting going on here. The abuse doesn't appear to be specifcially racial in nature.
The "wildebeest" comment is blatantly racist.
> Why?
’Cos they’re foreign, innit. They could have referenced an honest, British trampling herd animal that wouldn’t have any undertones of criticism of things alien. Like Holsteins.
It's got to be a case of a very loud 1% being tools. As a member of the quiet 99%, I'd like to say get your self in the hills.
Whoever you are, get in the hills. It's food for the soul.
Bloody Canadians, coming over here, eating our grass.
I'm guessing that it's because wildebeest come from Africa, same as monkeys, which are often used in racist chants. They could have used pretty much any herd creature from the "Dark Continent" and those looking to uncover racism would have called it evidence.
Next step in the rationale is to accuse you, mattsccm and anyone else who questions the assertion of being racist themselves simply for demurring.
As Jonathan Pie says, "into the furnace you must go"
Let's be honest, only the person commenting knows. They may or may not have meant to be racist. We can say that they are both racist and not racist. Like Schroedinger's Cat (or not!) both states are true until you look inside.
I think it is far from clearcut but wildebeest is an odd and unflattering choice of comparison to say the least. They may be regretting that and wishing they'd said "en masse" or "sheep" on reflection.
So, I'm feeling both sorry for them and angry at them depending on whether they are a bit silly or actually racist. I can do both until evidence emerges either way!
> Why?
Probably because it was coined by the same people who gave us apartheid.
Interesting that the dozens of charity and competitive events (all involving hundreds of people) that use the "great ridge" every year don't seem to draw the same kind of negative comment!
I think it's suggestive of racism rather than blatant. It is, however, blatantly stupid and unpleasant.
> I think it is far from clearcut but wildebeest is an odd and unflattering choice of comparison to say the least. They may be regretting that and wishing they'd said "en masse" or "sheep" on reflection.
Wildebeest is pretty standard imagery for a roaming crowd though. I think sheep would be more offensive.
> The "wildebeest" comment is blatantly racist.
Might be a Fawlty Towers reference?
> Next step in the rationale is to accuse you, mattsccm and anyone else who questions the assertion of being racist themselves simply for demurring.
I don't think any of it is blatantly racist, but I doubt a crowd of white people would have attracted the same abuse.
> As Jonathan Pie says, "into the furnace you must go"
Probably.
A little follow-up in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2021/dec/31/the-muslim-hiker-inspiring-h...
Sone of those gamekeeper names will no doubt be familiar to me too. A very unpleasant bunch.
Happy New Year by the way Phil!
> The "wildebeest" comment is blatantly racist.
As a Naturalist I immediately thought how appropriate the term was when applied to a large group of people (any people) following the same route.
Look out some footage of wildebeest on migration and you will understand.
From my point of view, everybody, absolutely everybody, is welcome to enjoy the great outdoors. I won't be telling people to "get lost, you're not welcome" whatever the colour of their skin is, and neither will I seek to exclude them because of their religion or their politics.
> I don't think any of it is blatantly racist, but I doubt a crowd of white people would have attracted the same abuse.
I think you have called it correctly. None of the tweets would be judged as racist in a court of law but to me they have racist undertones.
On a slightly different note, a well known Scottish hill walking writer and journalist has tweeted tonight about Aviemore being "jam packed" with English people hoping to enjoy a quiet COVID free New Year. Nothing overtly xenophobic here but.....
> Whoever you are, get in the hills. It's food for the soul.
I have a happy memory from a few years back of passing a large group of orthodox Jewish people walking up the zigzag path from Llanberis to the slate quarries
They were clearly away from what they were used to and having a great day
> On a slightly different note, a well known Scottish hill walking writer and journalist has tweeted tonight about Aviemore being "jam packed" with English people hoping to enjoy a quiet COVID free New Year. Nothing overtly xenophobic here but.....
It's disheartening on a whole variety of levels that he's come to be regarded as the voice of the Scottish hills by so many people.
I thought Tom in Edinburgh was an engineer?
> I have a happy memory from a few years back of passing a large group of orthodox Jewish people walking up the zigzag path from Llanberis to the slate quarries
> They were clearly away from what they were used to and having a great day
We get some here too in the Ochils - they have a conference or a gathering of some kind at Stirling Uni every August. I like to see them - interesting/unusual in a hill context, eg just normal street clothes (not sure about the footwear) and occasionally pushing old-fashioned prams up and down slopes where no pram has even been before. There's also an Orthodox Jewish chap on the cover of the OS map of the Lawers hills, sitting just below the top of Ben Challum looking down Glen Lochay:
https://shop.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/map-of-ben-lawers-glen-lyon/
> On a slightly different note, a well known Scottish hill walking writer and journalist has tweeted tonight about Aviemore being "jam packed" with English people hoping to enjoy a quiet COVID free New Year. Nothing overtly xenophobic here but.....
I suppose it would depend on whether or not it is true.
What is the big problem with Cameron McNeish? I asked a week or two ago on another thread why all the hate and got a load of "likes" but no replies.
> What is the big problem with Cameron McNeish? I asked a week or two ago on another thread why all the hate and got a load of "likes" but no replies.
It's certainly not hate from my point of view, just long-term despondency.
> It's certainly not hate from my point of view, just long-term despondency.
Why?
> I thought Tom in Edinburgh was an engineer?
Misread that as TIE being English....
> but to me they have racist undertones.
For the benefit of those of us whose radar is calibrated differently, could you go into more detail about the racist undertones? Or is it more of a gut feeling kind of thing?
> I suppose it would depend on whether or not it is true.
How does the tweeter know the visitors are English people? Did he ask them? Was it because of their accents? How many of them live elsewhere in Scotland? He can't possibly know.
People from England have been coming to Aviemore for years to ski, climb, etc for years at New Year before COVID came around. How does the tweeter know they are in Aviemore for a quiet COVID free New Year?
'Jsm packed" Is a pejorative term at a time when we are being asked to social distance. How can people go to Aviemore a quiet COVID free New Year and also be "jam packed"? If they are jam packed in the bars and restaurants in Aviemore then the bars and restaurants then the bars and restaurants must be breaking the Scottish Government regulations. If the visitors are jam packed in rented accommodation how would the tweeter know?
I have gone on long enough except for one final point. The tweeter has talked about banning "unionists" from seeing his tweets if they engage in discussions with him on Twitter about his tweet. (I don:t remember the correct Twitter term.) He does not say people who are abusive, just "unionists" who argue with him. - A bit like the way I am arguing with you just now, politely I hope.
Gut feeling.
Excuse the typos. Using a phone and eye sight not so good.
> 'Jam packed" Is a pejorative term at a time when we are being asked to social distance. How can people go to Aviemore a quiet COVID free New Year and also be "jam packed"?
I think it is clear he meant they had gone for an anything but quiet new year.
> I think it is clear he meant they had gone for an anything but quiet new year.
I'm sorry but if he meant that why did he not say that?
WE have different guts, obviously. But I bet mine's bigger than yours. Happy New Year.
> I'm sorry but if he meant that why did he not say that?
I assume it was sarcasm because, as you said, it would not have made sense if it wasn't.
> WE have different guts, obviously. But I bet mine's bigger than yours. Happy New Year.
All the best to you as well.
> I assume it was sarcasm because, as you said, it would not have made sense if it wasn't.
Perhaps you are correct but if that is the case then it is anything but clear.
> What is the big problem with Cameron McNeish? I asked a week or two ago on another thread why all the hate and got a load of "likes" but no replies.
I seem to recall there were some issues with regards plagiarism. The Angry Corrie covered them in some detail iirc.
Back issues available here: http://theangrycorrie.epizy.com
Impressive that the authors compiled all these and made them available for minimal cost. Even more impressive that they put them online, and that around 10 years after their last edition they're still online. My hat is suitably tipped.
> I seem to recall there were some issues with regards plagiarism. The Angry Corrie covered them in some detail iirc.
Thanks. Just googled "Cameron McNeish plagiarism". Quite interesting; I was never aware of any of these spats.
I think there are issues of content, presentation and ubiquity too.
I can think of 2 particularly prominent outdoor journalists/writers in Badenoch and Strathspey. You could frame their styles in a similar way to Bear Grylls vs Ray Mears. CM is definitely the BG side of that coin.
Add a degree of ubiquity to a media savvy style and it can set teeth grinding a little in some.
> On a slightly different note, a well known Scottish hill walking writer and journalist has tweeted tonight about Aviemore being "jam packed" with English people hoping to enjoy a quiet COVID free New Year. Nothing overtly xenophobic here but.....
I wonder if this was his response to the BBC news story about Carlisle being packed with Scottish NYE revellers?... A particular gem of which was the young Glaswegian lass who said words to the effect that "All of my friends have got COVID, so we've decided to come here... (Ha ha!)".
> Next step in the rationale is to accuse you, mattsccm and anyone else who questions the assertion of being racist themselves simply for demurring.
Persecution complex, much? A day on, and many replies later, if anyone's accused Robert of racism I've missed it.
> I wonder if this was his response to the BBC news story about Carlisle being packed with Scottish NYE revellers?... A particular gem of which was the young Glaswegian lass who said words to the effect that "All of my friends have got COVID, so we've decided to come here... (Ha ha!)".
Does it matter? This is a thread which is clear that bigotry isn't acceptable. Bemoaning the presence of identifiable subgroups isn't acceptable.
If you replaced "English" in Cameron's tweet with "homosexuals", "Asians", "Blacks", "Catholics" then there would be an immediate backlash to clear bigotry. Cameron is dog whistling and whipping up anti-English bigotry IMO. Truly the Scottish "Daily Mail" voice of the Outdoors.
....I'll stick with his near neighbour, Chris Townsend.
Not so much Robert, but if you read Rip Van Winkle's post of 9.59 Thursday I think you might agree that it is largely directed at Mattsccm post of 1648 Wednesday where he disagrees about there being a racist element in the abuse. This in turn is characterised ( I think) by RVW as one of the "constant tangential racist comments " which do so much harm.
Of course, if RVW is not referring to Mattsccm's demurral then I am wrong and apologise unreservedly. But I'd like to know which comments in this thread he was actually referring to in that case, or even in the whole Twitter extract.
I read two comments, one about a herd if wildebeest and one about " betting they don't help fix the paths"
Are they the comments that have caused the concern, or were there others?
( not wanting you to spread them, just wondering if there are others)
< not got twitter>
Wow, I'm shocked. It's 2021/22 and people still have that mindset. Muslim Hikers Group - please don't be put off by a minority of people in an otherwise friendly and inclusive bunch of people.
> If you replaced "English" in Cameron's tweet with "homosexuals", "Asians", "Blacks", "Catholics" then there would be an immediate backlash to clear bigotry.
Indeed - or "folk fae Govan colonising the Highlands"!
I don't see how you can read RvW's comment as accusing any of the posts or people on here of racism. The accusation read, to me, as clearly directed towards the comments that were the subject of the story. Obviously either of us could be interpreting somebody else's words incorrectly but I can't see at all how you linked RvW's post to Matt's on Wednesday.
I engaged with CMcN and a bunch of Albanauts on Twitter. I found the one way assumption of purity annoying. Whose to say you can’t catch it in Aviemore and take it back?
They gave off a real feel for bringing back the postcode lottery, and lots of crap about closing the border.
Just like my awful racist Brexity relatives……
Wonder if he blocked me? Been too busy cleaning my timeline of antivaxxers to notice.
Found this reply to presumably one of us here from CMcN
”So, a tweet that points out the irony of people coming to a place like Aviemore for a quiet Covid free Hogmanay gets equated with Muslim racism? I don't think I want the likes of you on my timeline. Blocked.”
Yes, it's possible I was wrong, I already conceded that, so it would be helpful if it was made clear what exactly were the "constant tangential racist comments" referred to?
Whatever the comments on this groups feed, it's brought the group a lot of support and given them publicity money can't buy. So whilst the minority of comments that started this whole story off are rather nasty, the result could be that they are able to assist more people to get outdoors who wouldn't normally. Every cloud.....
Did a bit of searching and found the tweet which annoyed C McN. From a well-known hill walker who has a great knowledge of Scottish hills based on years of experience. - And a great photographer as well!
Some of the tweets on C McN's Twitter timeline on this subject make make me despair. - Apparently all the English visitors in the Highlands are not wearing masks in shops. One tweet even talks about banning Scotland to "foreigners" after independence and only allowing in people with Scottish and EU passports. None of the people making these tweets appear to be blocked.
That may be the case but treads very thin ice. The RLNI have also benefitted from a small number of people being mean to them resulting in higher than normal donations from people with opposing views but it could easily go wrong very quickly and of course we could just promote people doing well without the bile.
> Some of the tweets on C McN's Twitter timeline on this subject make make me despair.
And to think this is the guy who got Tom Weir's gig in the Scots Magazine. Re Kinley's point upthread about ubiquity, this has long been the case. Twenty years ago, when I was working in newspapers, my editor - on seeing endless McN stuff of dismal quality in a rival publication - said "Gah, he's like a rash, gets everywhere".
I once walked up Glenfeshie with Cameron, I was amazed about how ignorant he seemed about the natural history of the Cairngorms for a self-proclaimed expert on all things related to Scottish mountains. The comparison with Dick Balharry (also in the group) wasn't in Cameron's favour.
You're absolutely right but I'd never heard of this group until it hit the news. Now I'm not really the target audience for the group but I wonder how many people might use their encouragement and services as a result of the exposure for sadly the wrong reasons, hence my phrase 'every cloud'. Another benefit is that it galvanises the civilized majorty with communities like these.
I thought it was pretty clear in RvW's comment that they were referring to the unpleasant comments on the post by the Muslim Hikers and more widely to similar unpleasant but deniable comments across society. I remain utterly baffled about how you concluded it referred to anyone here, let alone that specific post by Matt which it never refers to at all, or how you think it backed up your suggestion that people would be accused of racism themselves simply for questioning whether the comments on the Muslim Hikers are actually racist. I think you're clutching at straws to defend your original post.
Which of the unpleasant comments are tangentially racist and for what reason?
So far no -one has explained this and when someone else said that the wildebeest comment was "blatantly " racist, even you stepped in and said that it wasn't and that rather it was "suggestive " of racism.
I didn't find it suggestive of racism but I'd like to hear an explanation of why it was.
My comment about people being accused of racism simply for not seeing it where others see it isn't something I just pulled out of the air. I can remember a thread earlier in the year where a UKC er was accused of making "racist adjacent comments" for just that reason. I think it was connected to football. If you think I'm imagining things , look it up.
The wildebeest comment was clearly facetious. Like many a satirical remark, it took a true premise (wildebeest is an Afrikaans word) and drew from it a ridiculous conclusion (apartheid is an Afrikaans word; apartheid is racist; ergo, wildebeest is racist). Or at least, that is my interpretation.
You're right that it was @Mattscm's post that triggered my reply, but I should say straight away that I did not intend any criticism of that post itself. When @Mattscm says "The abuse doesn't appear to be specifically racial in nature. It does appear to be targeted at large groups or groups of outsiders" he is correct. It doesn't *appear* that way, but if you were a member of a minority group who have experienced racism - overt and covert - all your life you would feel it was directed at you because you are pretty sure that (as others have remarked), there wouldn't have been the same criticism of a large group of white people.
I am 100% with @Mattscm when he says "I seriously doubt that this group would cause me any objection. "
The way I see it is this. It's nothing to do with wildebeest being African animals, it's tangentially racist because wildebeest come in colossal herds (which of course was the whole point of the metaphor, that the walkers were a group of far too many people) and it plays into racist tropes about the UK being overrun with immigrants. Like Nigel Farage's "Breaking Point" poster.
If the comment was racist it's dogwhistle stuff, not overt. I was just reading another thread and thinking about climate change, so here's an analogy:
Weather is not climate, and you can't say that any one storm was caused by climate change, but when you look at the larger pattern of many unusual events in the weather the pattern is clear. That's how it is with comments like the 'wildebeest' thing - impossible to say whether any one such comment is rooted in racism*, but when you see a whole lot of such comments it's undeniable. (Except, as with climate change, there will still be those who do deny it.)
* Unlike Katie Hopkins's "cockroaches" metaphor with which, after carefully staying just the right side of the line of plausible deniability, she went beyond the pale even for the Daily Mail. She wasn't sacked for being racist, she was sacked for being so overtly racist that their core readership of mostly normal decent people couldn't ignore it, couldn't fail to notice it, and being basically decent people were not happy about it.
So she had to go, her career as a columnist regularly spewing out loads of blatantly racist 'dogwhistle' stuff that the bulk of the basically decent readership could cheerfully remain oblivious to (even if it required a little bit of mental gymnastics from time to time) was over.
Whomever wrote the derogatory comments will just be some keyboard warrior looking for someone to blame for all the ills in their life. I doubt it has anything to do with them being hikers, those type of people would also say they aren't allowed in 'English pubs', 'English Tea shops'.
To find such an esoteric page as 'Muslim Hikers', he would have been trolling anything Muslim and throwing his hatred at it.
The best thing to do is let the communications authority trace it and quietly prosecute him. Don't give them the media space, just shut them down in silence.
Well RvW has expanded on his original comment now and clarified that he definitely wasn't accusing anyone on here of racism, certainly not for just questioning whether someone else was being racist.
I did look for the thread you were referring to and I think I found it, but most of the relevant comments have been moderated away. Some evidence of the disagreement remains in the form of later replies and references to it but I have no idea what the original accusation was any more, or what post triggered it.
https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/racism_letting_the_side_down-73...
That comment was mine, I don't remember the exact details either but it wasn't an accusation exactly and I think the assumption that it was is part of the problem. 'Racist' is not a binary thing, it isn't like 'pregnant' or 'dead' - it's perfectly possible to be a little bit racist and I suspect to some extent we all are.
"That comment was a little bit racist" is not an accusation of something unspeakable, and it's broadly unhelpful that we're always so defensive about it.
We'll never get anywhere if we can't even talk about these issues without collectively losing our shit. Erm.. there's a thing where Trevor Noah talks about this, hang on..
Here: (8 minutes in - but the whole thing is worth watching, v funny.)
youtube.com/watch?v=LoBJOkhtDQQ&
In tangentially related news..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59727161
Yes! Get in!
>- it's perfectly possible to be a little bit racist and I suspect to some extent we all are.
Couldn't agree more. That's why I can't see any point in people who are a little bit racist themselves ( you/me/ most of UKC )calling out others for what are , at worst, "tangential" or "racist adjacent" comments.
I'm sure there's a proverb out there to cover this sort of thing.
Because racism doesn't go away if you ignore it, it grows. Those who are much more than a little bit racist are doing their level best to make it grow, and they're happy to have the tacit support of those who would prefer to look the other way. So when we see it, it is necessary to call it out.
(I often fail in this, as in other things that you might call a moral duty - sometimes on account of just plain chickening out. But on a good day, I try.)
When we deny that racism is a problem, we become part of the problem.
> .. it's perfectly possible to be a little bit racist and I suspect to some extent we all are.
Hm.. I'll try to clarify this bit of my earlier post a little I think..
Actually I don't believe we're all a little bit racist to some extent. Not exactly.
This is not a well developed theory and I have no qualifications for saying it, but what I do believe is that as a tribal animal we're instinctively a little bit xenophobic. Not towards foreigners, countries being a relatively recent invention in the history of our species, but towards those we perceive as not of our tribe. It just so happens that for most of us racism is an obvious expression of that.
I don't think that anyone is denying that racism is a problem. But some people see racism where others think there is none. (Or at least, none worth making a fuss about)And making a fuss about tangential racist adjacent stuff like the wildebeest comment, which most of us are now conceding is not actually racist in itself, is playing into the hands of the real racists who can then point at the examples of racism we are quoting and laugh their heads off at the barrel scraping we are resorting to in an attempt to further our cause.
Where there are genuine racist feelings expressed, by all means call them out, but looking to find offence in every nuance is not benefiting the anti-racist movement one bit.
I don’t think people are likely to say online ‘I’m posting abusive messages to you because you are Muslim and I am a racist’.
However, given that the stand out thing about this walking group is they are focused around Muslims, and the fact that they have done nothing wrong or different to other groups I don’t think it’s scrapping the barrel to assume that this abuse is racially motivated.
> (Or at least, none worth making a fuss about)
Ok dude, you win. Next time I see something a little bit racist and I'm thinking about calling it out I'll just run it by you first to see if it's "worth making a fuss about".
The obvious course of action is to do what you think best, at the same time allowing for the idea that others might not think the same as you without actually being racists themselves.
> I don’t think people are likely to say online ‘I’m posting abusive messages to you because you are Muslim and I am a racist’.
People are quite likely to say an awful lot worse than that online, and do so all the time.
In reply to Tom Valentine:
> People are quite likely to say an awful lot worse than that online, and do so all the time .
Okay fair point.
It still doesn’t change the point that if a Muslim group is getting a negative reaction to doing something that a mainly white group do all the time with no negative reaction, the reason behind that is most likely racism.
I wouldn't say there hasn't been a negative reaction to the massive influx of white people into our hills since the start of Covid.
You didn't have to go far before you came across a "Let's hope they all go back to Benidorm when the flights start up again" type complaint and I don't think that comments along those lines were directed at the Muslim/Asian community.
The second BMC Members Open Forum webinar took place on 20 March. Recently-appointed BMC CEO Paul Ratcliffe, President Andy Syme and Chair Roger Murray shared updates on staff changes, new and ongoing initiatives, insurance policy changes and the current...