Attempted Robbery In Cape Town
ChatterBank2 mins ago
100 Plus Youths Attack Police Outside Stratford Bus Station, Near The Westfield Shopping Centre In London.
107 Answers
Interesting to note that the Sun reported that
'One youth appeared to be armed with a long stick as troubled flared'
That so called youth was in fact a police officer.
https:/
https:/
'One youth appeared to be armed with a long stick as troubled flared'
That so called youth was in fact a police officer.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
I wish to repeat my comment at 15:18 Mon 17th Jun 2019
And that is all i have to say on the matter.
If anyone needs some citizens advice it can be found here:
https:/
And that is all i have to say on the matter.
If anyone needs some citizens advice it can be found here:
https:/
//it can only be racist "if the victim or anyone else thinks it was carried out because of hostility or prejudice based on race or religion". And if they honestly feel that way, then it's probably racist or a hate crime, ay? //
Nope. They might just have a chip on their shoulder. It has been known.
Anyway, bye spath. Thanks for the chat.
Nope. They might just have a chip on their shoulder. It has been known.
Anyway, bye spath. Thanks for the chat.
//If the victim doesn't feel it was carried out because of hostility or prejudice, then it's not racist.//
I won’t join in this particular debate because it is well discussed. However, when you discuss matters like this you need to be clear of the legal position, spathi. Your statement above is incorrect. The Macpherson report into the death of Stephen Lawrence made a number of recommendations, almost all of which were accepted by the government and the police. Among those accepted were recommendations 12 and 13:
---------
DEFINITION OF RACIST INCIDENT
12. That the definition should be:
"A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person".
13. That the term "racist incident" must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment.
So it doesn’t matter if the victim does not consider an incident to be racist. If “any other person” does, then it is and must be recorded and treated as such. If you fancy a bit of light holiday reading you can read the entire Macpherson report (389 pages) here:
https:/
I won’t join in this particular debate because it is well discussed. However, when you discuss matters like this you need to be clear of the legal position, spathi. Your statement above is incorrect. The Macpherson report into the death of Stephen Lawrence made a number of recommendations, almost all of which were accepted by the government and the police. Among those accepted were recommendations 12 and 13:
---------
DEFINITION OF RACIST INCIDENT
12. That the definition should be:
"A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person".
13. That the term "racist incident" must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment.
So it doesn’t matter if the victim does not consider an incident to be racist. If “any other person” does, then it is and must be recorded and treated as such. If you fancy a bit of light holiday reading you can read the entire Macpherson report (389 pages) here:
https:/
spathiphyllum
/// For AOG... "Something is a racist or religious hate incident if the victim or anyone else thinks it was carried out because of hostility or prejudice based on race or religion." ///
It's a wonder you have any gears left, what a load of twaddle, just because you or any other victim think it is it was carried out because of hostility or prejudice based on one's race or religion.
Doesn't necessarily mean that it was, they could be lying, so as to get someone in trouble, just as you do to me and others.
One has to have firm proof of your allegations, and that has to be decided in a court of law.
/// For AOG... "Something is a racist or religious hate incident if the victim or anyone else thinks it was carried out because of hostility or prejudice based on race or religion." ///
It's a wonder you have any gears left, what a load of twaddle, just because you or any other victim think it is it was carried out because of hostility or prejudice based on one's race or religion.
Doesn't necessarily mean that it was, they could be lying, so as to get someone in trouble, just as you do to me and others.
One has to have firm proof of your allegations, and that has to be decided in a court of law.
"Doesn't necessarily mean that it was, they could be lying, so as to get someone in trouble, just as you do to me and others. "
Unlike false rape allegations, false racist crimes or hate crime allegations are very easy to prove or prove wrong.
It would be hard to get someone in trouble for a racist incident, if those who are assessing the incident don't feel it's racist.
Unlike false rape allegations, false racist crimes or hate crime allegations are very easy to prove or prove wrong.
It would be hard to get someone in trouble for a racist incident, if those who are assessing the incident don't feel it's racist.
If you were to say to me "I hate all Islamic terrorists" then would assume you were being racist, Islamophobic or that you were committing a hate crime?
Not in the slightest.
However.. I take slight objection to the inclusion of "Islamic" in the statement.
Surely you hate all terrorists? And surely a terrorist is a terrorist regardless of their motives, colour or religious beliefs?
Not in the slightest.
However.. I take slight objection to the inclusion of "Islamic" in the statement.
Surely you hate all terrorists? And surely a terrorist is a terrorist regardless of their motives, colour or religious beliefs?
AOG - // /// It appears from that observation, that you are willing to assume that the violence referred to can only have been caused by youths who are not British by birth, and are not white - based entirely on your ownb prejudice, and backed up by no evidence whatsoever. ///
It is shown they were not White British youths, but Black youths some who may have be born British and some who may not have been, you don't know if they were all British born and neither do I, all your accusations against pumpjack are a figment of your prejudices and not that of pumpjack. //
It doesn't matter what was 'shown' AOG - because pumpjack has made up his mind before seeing any reports, or film, or anything else.
To be clear, he said in his post quote "I bet they were not white British youths ..." which is an assumption that because violence was committed, it could only be committed by non-white non-British youths, and that is entirely his assumption, and in my view, it is racist.
He then invited all readers to call him a racist, quote, " … call me racist if you like ... " so yes, I do like, because I think his quote makes him a racist, and he is entirely welcome to argue that point with me directly, if he wishes to do so.
// Where has pumpjack ever suggested that? the poster only said white British youths, nothing at all about the attacking youths not being British by birth, that is only how you wanted to interpret it to suit yourself. //
AOG, are you actually reading what he has said? If, as pumpjack has decided, and let's be clear, that is based on his prejudice, not any evidence, which he gleefully advises he has not seen, that the offenders are not 'white British youths', what do we think he thinks they are? Martians, foxhounds, purple Indonesian youths?
You know as well as I what he is inferring - and he underlines it with his invitation to call him a racist - so read what he has said, and what I have said, and stop trying to defend the indefensible by making me appear the bigot, it doesn't fly.
It is shown they were not White British youths, but Black youths some who may have be born British and some who may not have been, you don't know if they were all British born and neither do I, all your accusations against pumpjack are a figment of your prejudices and not that of pumpjack. //
It doesn't matter what was 'shown' AOG - because pumpjack has made up his mind before seeing any reports, or film, or anything else.
To be clear, he said in his post quote "I bet they were not white British youths ..." which is an assumption that because violence was committed, it could only be committed by non-white non-British youths, and that is entirely his assumption, and in my view, it is racist.
He then invited all readers to call him a racist, quote, " … call me racist if you like ... " so yes, I do like, because I think his quote makes him a racist, and he is entirely welcome to argue that point with me directly, if he wishes to do so.
// Where has pumpjack ever suggested that? the poster only said white British youths, nothing at all about the attacking youths not being British by birth, that is only how you wanted to interpret it to suit yourself. //
AOG, are you actually reading what he has said? If, as pumpjack has decided, and let's be clear, that is based on his prejudice, not any evidence, which he gleefully advises he has not seen, that the offenders are not 'white British youths', what do we think he thinks they are? Martians, foxhounds, purple Indonesian youths?
You know as well as I what he is inferring - and he underlines it with his invitation to call him a racist - so read what he has said, and what I have said, and stop trying to defend the indefensible by making me appear the bigot, it doesn't fly.
Naomi - // AH, //pumpjack has made up his mind before seeing any reports, or film, or anything else. //
Knowing the area I did likewise. Drawing the unavoidable conclusion doesn't make me racist. //
I dispute that any conclusion is 'unavoidable' - but unlike pumpjack, you are a seasoned debater, and you would never be so careless as to proudly present your bigotry based on something you know nothing about, which leaves you - as it did him - the opportunity for someone else to come along with some verifiable evidence which drives a coach-and-four through your position, leaving you looking not only bigoted, but stupid as well.
Knowing the area I did likewise. Drawing the unavoidable conclusion doesn't make me racist. //
I dispute that any conclusion is 'unavoidable' - but unlike pumpjack, you are a seasoned debater, and you would never be so careless as to proudly present your bigotry based on something you know nothing about, which leaves you - as it did him - the opportunity for someone else to come along with some verifiable evidence which drives a coach-and-four through your position, leaving you looking not only bigoted, but stupid as well.
AH, //you would never be so careless as to proudly present your bigotry based on something you know nothing about, which leaves you - as it did him - the opportunity for someone else to come along with some verifiable evidence which drives a coach-and-four through your position, leaving you looking not only bigoted, but stupid as well. //
But they haven't and they won't. This is Newham we're talking about. You are quite right. I would never be so careless. Entering into serious discussion upon subjects of which one is ignorant - even to 'proudly present' bigotry if that is your desire - is something I never do because that is indeed .... stupid....
But they haven't and they won't. This is Newham we're talking about. You are quite right. I would never be so careless. Entering into serious discussion upon subjects of which one is ignorant - even to 'proudly present' bigotry if that is your desire - is something I never do because that is indeed .... stupid....
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.