In article ,
MIG wrote:

Tiny grants to mythical black lesbians of less than the Mayor's lunch
expenses may make headlines for the Mail and the Standard, but they
don't really compare with how much of our money goes at ludicrous
rates of interest to even smaller numbers of directors and
shareholders of private companies under PPP and the like, out of the
budget that should have been used to maintain and run services.

I appreciate and agree with your sentiment, but would add that plenty
of these minority groups are far from mythical. I'm a member of one
such myself, and yes, we have received some small grants from the
GLA. They're tiny amonunts of money in the grand scheme of things, but
can literally make the difference between life and death for some very
vulnerable people who find themselves in a really **** situation
through no fault of their own.

On May 5, 11:31*pm, Sarah Brown
wrote:
In article ,

MIG wrote:

Tiny grants to mythical black lesbians of less than the Mayor's lunch
expenses may make headlines for the Mail and the Standard, but they
don't really compare with how much of our money goes at ludicrous
rates of interest to even smaller numbers of directors and
shareholders of private companies under PPP and the like, out of the
budget that should have been used to maintain and run services.

I appreciate and agree with your sentiment, but would add that plenty
of these minority groups are far from mythical. I'm a member of one
such myself, and yes, we have received some small grants from the
GLA. They're tiny amonunts of money in the grand scheme of things, but
can literally make the difference between life and death for some very
vulnerable people who find themselves in a really **** situation
through no fault of their own.

You misunderstand (or I was unclear) about where I felt that the myth
was.

My point was that that the kind of money that would allow a community
group (typically stereotyped as "black lesbians"*, regardless of what
they actually do, hence the myth) to book rooms for a year, and
therefore continue to exist, is tiny compared with the amount that any
politician claims on expenses in the same period.

But the former is presented as throwing money away, while the latter
is presented as normal running costs.

And both are miniscule compared with the amount of public money given
away to private companies in interest on PPP deals. The people
benefiting from that really are a minority, and getting very rich.

*I heard exactly that phrase from an intelligent person only recently
and had to make the same argument.

In article ,
MIG wrote:

You misunderstand (or I was unclear) about where I felt that the myth
was.

My point was that that the kind of money that would allow a community
group (typically stereotyped as "black lesbians"*, regardless of what
they actually do, hence the myth) to book rooms for a year, and
therefore continue to exist, is tiny compared with the amount that any
politician claims on expenses in the same period.

Oh, OK. I thought the suggestion was that these groups didn't actually
exist and the money (albeit a tiny amount) is just
disappearing. Thanks for the clarification.

But the former is presented as throwing money away, while the latter
is presented as normal running costs.

Yeah. Vulnerable people make easy scapegoats for disguising a lack of
policies. :-(