I agree that big Companies do exploit workers, and customers a like. Eg A pair of Nike Air Max 2017 retail for about £140.00 they only cost Nike £27.00 to make. On every pair they make over £110 clear profit, that is pure greed plain and simple. And I do believe that is wrong.

However and this is where we differ wildly nick, who are you to say who deserves what luxuries in life and whether or not they deserve them. If I work hard and make a success of my life and can afford nice stuff because of the effort I put in to better myself, why should some fat tipex sniffing lazy KFC munching waster get the same as me.

f*** that.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Completely agree, I'm not saying lazy wasters should get the same as someone what works hard, but not everyone gets the same life chances.

What do you mean by 'fairer'? Would you say that Soviet Russia was 'fairer' economically than Tsarist Russia, and if so, was the millions of deaths and the general awfulness of Soviet life worth it?

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Actually, no, because the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the crime was 'racially' motivated - and that the crime existed. An assault charged as a hate crime, must first meet the legal requirement of being an assault, and then prove that the assault occurred because of the perpetrators specific hatred and prejudice.

Where as thought crime has no victim, nor necessity to prove or fair trial. If hate crimes were thought crimes, then they would not require proof of a crime being committed, only that the individual may be exhibiting unacceptable thoughts deemed so by the state. In deed the only crime that Winston Smith commits is one that the state has in effect entrapped him into making.

The point of Thought Crime, isn't about the crime or the victim, but the power of the state to do as it wishes with impunity. Which is utterly a contradiction to protecting citizens of society from being targeted by crimes based entirely on superficial factors of their being (ie their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation).

Thought crime, is the perpetration of hate, not the protection of society from people who act out their hate.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

All the Russian revolution did was swap one tsar for another. Fairness had precious little to do with it. However you highlight a genuine point. Fairness has many different meanings and is not exactly a very helpful political slogan though still better than the devil-take-the-hindmost neo-liberalism that we have seen stuck with since the eighties and which Donald Trump himself claims to want to bury. Whether he will remains to be seen

What's this we business. The white man, and the black man, don't own or improve music, musicians do, irrespective of their race or gender. Rick Rubin is as important to hip hop as Chuck Berry is to rock. The whole point about music really is that its an art that is a cultural melting pot.

The only real race issues around music tend to have been about exploitation of black artists, and even then most of the labels of their day were progressive by societies general standards.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]