This poll resolves true if Keir Starmer refers to any of the views of any anti-immigration protestor groups/ gatherings, including the so called “far right” as “legitimate” or “genuine”, in these terms. These terms must be used as a genuine assertion, for example it does not count if they are used in a statement such as “Many of the protestors believe that they have legitimate / genuine concerns”.
To classify, the terms must be used in clear reference to a group who has protested that is on the anti-immigration side. This includes peaceful protest.
Examples of what would not be a resolution:
Stating that there are “legitimate” or “genuine” concerns as a blanket statement that isn’t directed at protestors specifically (it does not need to be a single group of protestors, but it cannot be a statement generally saying that there are legitimate concerns about migration across the country, for example).
Referring to any group that is not calling for reduced migration in this way
I will also accept these terms as equivalents for a resolution:
“Reasonable” concerns
“Understandable” concerns
“Fair” concerns
I will accept other terms that have a meaning identical to any of these words or these words in combination, but it must be a completely identical meaning.
1,000
3.00@OP I think this comes under these parts of the criteria:
To classify, the terms must be used in clear reference to a group who has protested that is on the anti-immigration side. This includes peaceful protest.
And
Examples of what would not be a resolution:
Stating that there are “legitimate” or “genuine” concerns as a blanket statement that isn’t directed at protestors specifically (it does not need to be a single group of protestors, but it cannot be a statement generally saying that there are legitimate concerns about migration across the country, for example).
Happy to discuss with others if it’s felt this should come under the criteria, but my immediate feeling is that it doesn’t.
It’s a tough one, as is classic with politicians it’s crafted to be ambiguous but I do feel that it’s a classic dividing statement to say that many are “fearful” and the fear is understandable - in my opinion referring to fear from the awful attack itself, but that some are using it to cause division, which in this reading says that those being devisive are not understandable and therefore separating them out as a group from the previous statement of “understandable”.
What I’m saying is that anti-migrant views are now quite common in the UK public, and certainly more than that are disgusted/ fearful from the attack. I feel this refers to the savoury view, that of course there is fear caused by it, which is understandable, but then goes on to essentially say the opposite of those who are protesting against migration.
I’m a bit torn though, I would encourage other views from those who bid on the market.
I will not be trading on this market due to the resolution criteria necessitating some level of judgement from me
Do either of these count? He’s repeatedly called the motivating emotion behind the riots “understandable”, but fallen short of endorsing pogroms.
At a press conference in Downing Street, the prime minister said “fear is an understandable reaction” to the attack, but called on everyone to give families the space to grieve and authorities time to do their job.
Britain, he said, is "a country that will not allow understandable fear to curdle into division and hate in our communities, and that will not permit under any circumstances a breakdown in law and order on our streets."
https://www.politico.eu/article/keir-starmer-nigel-farage-social-media-far-right-roils-uk/
@OP I think this comes under these parts of the criteria:
To classify, the terms must be used in clear reference to a group who has protested that is on the anti-immigration side. This includes peaceful protest.
And
Examples of what would not be a resolution:
Stating that there are “legitimate” or “genuine” concerns as a blanket statement that isn’t directed at protestors specifically (it does not need to be a single group of protestors, but it cannot be a statement generally saying that there are legitimate concerns about migration across the country, for example).
Happy to discuss with others if it’s felt this should come under the criteria, but my immediate feeling is that it doesn’t.
It’s a tough one, as is classic with politicians it’s crafted to be ambiguous but I do feel that it’s a classic dividing statement to say that many are “fearful” and the fear is understandable - in my opinion referring to fear from the awful attack itself, but that some are using it to cause division, which in this reading says that those being devisive are not understandable and therefore separating them out as a group from the previous statement of “understandable”.
What I’m saying is that anti-migrant views are now quite common in the UK public, and certainly more than that are disgusted/ fearful from the attack. I feel this refers to the savoury view, that of course there is fear caused by it, which is understandable, but then goes on to essentially say the opposite of those who are protesting against migration.
I’m a bit torn though, I would encourage other views from those who bid on the market.