If Shamima Begum Managed To Smuggle...
ChatterBank23 mins ago
Can We Just Stop With This Nonsense.
the attacker as in his 30s or 40s, with short, dark, curly hair, a tanned complexion and a short beard.
https:/
a tanned complexion For Funks Sake
https:/
a tanned complexion For Funks Sake
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by -Talbot-. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Ellipsis, // But they've arrested the guy! //
Good. Just as well they knew who they were looking for even if they didn’t tell the rest of us! The point is they didn’t advertise the likelihood that he was Asian because that is detrimental to social cohesion – hence for public viewing he became ‘tanned’. Gosh this is difficult.
Good. Just as well they knew who they were looking for even if they didn’t tell the rest of us! The point is they didn’t advertise the likelihood that he was Asian because that is detrimental to social cohesion – hence for public viewing he became ‘tanned’. Gosh this is difficult.
-- answer removed --
spath, well I know the establishment is big on encouraging and preserving social cohesion. So many Muslim terrorists have mental health issues - not their fault then - and the government won't give Asia Bibi asylum in case it upsets Muslims already here, so it's an educated guess that keeping the peace is rather high on the agenda.
Talbot - having 'a tanned complexion' and 'having a tan' are 2 different things.
The Police couldn't say he was a Muslim because being a Muslim is a 'religious' attribute *not* an ethnic one....
They couldn't say he was black because that would include Afro-Caribbean men. They could say he was brown, I suppose, but then that's back to being 'tanned'....
His defence team (should it ever get that far) would leap on anything the Police said if they thought it would help their client. Not every case can yet rely exclusively on DNA. There may be none in this one....
The Police couldn't say he was a Muslim because being a Muslim is a 'religious' attribute *not* an ethnic one....
They couldn't say he was black because that would include Afro-Caribbean men. They could say he was brown, I suppose, but then that's back to being 'tanned'....
His defence team (should it ever get that far) would leap on anything the Police said if they thought it would help their client. Not every case can yet rely exclusively on DNA. There may be none in this one....
> The point is they didn’t advertise the likelihood that he was Asian because that is detrimental to social cohesion
You're making that up. It's one of the worst conspiracy theories I've seen. It doesn't even make sense. If they were that worried about social cohesion, what would they gain by lying? Hoping to turn the whole of society against them when they were found out? Or hoping they wouldn't be found out ... In which case, why would they arrest the guy soon after? Doesn't that expose their lie?
You're making that up. It's one of the worst conspiracy theories I've seen. It doesn't even make sense. If they were that worried about social cohesion, what would they gain by lying? Hoping to turn the whole of society against them when they were found out? Or hoping they wouldn't be found out ... In which case, why would they arrest the guy soon after? Doesn't that expose their lie?
Ellipsis, you're over-doing the dramatics somewhat. For reasons I've explained more than once, the establishment clearly feels that the promotion and maintenance of social cohesion is paramount which is why appalling crimes have been ignored – and they have – we know that - and why the government has abandoned what I see as a human moral duty in favour of capitulation to the will of madmen. No conspiracy theory there.
For the last decade or so there has been an almost World wide programme in effect whereby it is discouraged to criticise a nation or culture based on their skin colour or demographic origins. This has been seized upon, enthusiastically, by our own law and order organisations from top to bottom. (Starting at the top). Any misgivings, or ill ease, regarding multiple real crimes committed by certain identifiable "groups" are and will be treated as crime itself and great lengths are taken by our forces of law and order, main stream media, and politicians not to mention the bleedin obvious for fear of setting the general public and common sense population off on a course of action that they cannot control. When I say that no assumptions are to be countenanced regarding the vile perpetrators of real crime, it is however encouraged by the very same people who insist that population groups cannot be labelled or demonised, to do exactly that to one section of the population. As a white person I am racist for being born white, over privileged, responsible for slavery, associated with Nazis because of my skin color, any dissenting speech I make on issues I'm concerned with is hate speech, which they can't even define. Terrorism is the new normal. Christianity is racists but Islam can't be questioned.
// They could say he was brown, I suppose, but then that's back to being 'tanned'.... //
It isn't Jack. As I said earlier, something is tanned when it used to be a lighter shade but became darker. Brown is accurate.
They should have said he had a light (or dark brown) complexion.
Saying he had a tanned complexion is saying he looked like a white person that's been in the sun and gone darker - wrong on lots of levels, a bit like calling him 'coloured'.
It isn't Jack. As I said earlier, something is tanned when it used to be a lighter shade but became darker. Brown is accurate.
They should have said he had a light (or dark brown) complexion.
Saying he had a tanned complexion is saying he looked like a white person that's been in the sun and gone darker - wrong on lots of levels, a bit like calling him 'coloured'.
