[video=youtube_share;i91KQs12-q4]http://youtu.be/i91KQs12-q4?t=1m18s[/video]
Tash, watch this from 1.18.
Tash, watch this from 1.18.
The image of the fan - monkey gesture
- Thread starter Prince Isak (GG)
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Well isn't this refreshing, a well thoughtout and constructive counter post, much better than a text body full of "****ing", "that's bollocks" and "it's pathetic". I doff my cap to you sir.
BUT
Using the term out-dated when referring to racism being acceptable is certainly not null and void. Are you inferring that racism will become socially acceptable again in the future? Surely not, which means that opinions supporting the values of the KKK and being an advocate of fascism are very much out of date!
Also, you shouldn't jump to conclusions, I never said that criminals should be incarcerated for longer or be more severely punished either. I said the judicial system isn't harsh enough and that prison life is too easy. There are many ways the rehabilitation of prisoners could be improved and ways crime in the first instance could prevented using the fear of consequences as a deterant but that's an entirely different debate altogether.
Unfortunately, Tash and I could debate this forever without any common ground being met. His views are so extreme, farfetched and naive it will be like trying to convince a creationist that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old!
1. You've misunderstood or misread everything everyone has said, including me, if you believe that to be the case. It is absolutely null and void, because nobody has advocated the acceptance of racism, just highlighted different procedures of fighting it. There is no such thing as "out-dated" in that respect and you're categorically wrong to infer such.
2. No it isn't, that's the debate Tash has been trying to have with you, which you've bashed through. He's stated it many times elsewhere and in this thread as well that education is his preferred method. The fact ignoring isolated cases of racism fits in with his proposed system does not mean he finds it acceptable. That his views are not fitting with current legal practice doesn't make them unworthy of discussion or without merit, because there are many potential solutions which lie beyond tweaks with the current system. Once again, I have to use an inappropriate analogy, but capitalism is not the only form of economy. It's the most workable we have so far, but has flaws. If someone could design (let's say) communism in such a way as to be more beneficial, should we negate their ideas because they don't fit with the existing capitalist agenda? To my mind, it should be at least on par with any discussion of how to advance capitalism beyond it's existing flaws.
I myself tend to agree more with Tash's perspective, albeit with enough differences to make it distinct, but I'm open to the views of others on the matter because it's obvious we all actually want the same thing, with regards ending racism
Wow, I've just come back on this thread after last night.
Toontastic, you raise some very good points, and I'm always willing to have a nice and constructive debate with someone, so there was no call to make such snotty comments and act so pompous. I didn't attack anyone on this thread, and no one attacked me, we all just exchanged views and opinions, until you came along and had to spoil it.
My opinions are based on what I have decided for myself when thinking about the subjects in my spare time, and also what I have learned through life experience. I have worked for the NHS for a while now, and during my work-based apprenticeship, I read through more acts than their are in a Shakespeare play my friend. I spent hours studying migraine-inducing amounts of text on the subject. I don't think it's right to think that people who have studied law have greater opinions on topics such as these than people who haven't.
I'm not going to have full respect for the law, because it rarely acts based upon who's rights are being conflicted with. It has double standards everywhere. It doesn't take sexism towards men, female violence upon men, racist words used by black people against white people, seriously at all.
A black person can say "hey you white trash" or "hey you ****ing cracker", and the law, if it punished the black person at all, wouldn't punish the black person to nearly the same extent as a white person racially abusing a black person. Why? Because it's more socially acceptable to racially abuse a white person. Human rights and acts are often just thrown out the window, it's all about how many people are offended, and what's more socially acceptable. People like to hear that a white person who abuses a black person has been locked up, and they call him a scum piece of ****. If a black guy was in the paper tomorrow for racially abusing a white guy, people wouldn't even react, and if they did it would be in surprise, as most people are extremely ignorant and think that, 1. Racism towards white people doesn't exist or 2. "Haha, are you serious? Like that white guy was even offended, get over it".
It's the same with sexism towards men, and sexual harassment of males by females. No one would care. Human rights go out the window due to the opinions and standards of society, and the law more often acts based on these standards, and not the acts that have been put into place.
So when you make these comments telling me to do my research and make "educated opinions", I think you're totally out of order. You do not have a more valid opinion than me just because what you think complies with what the law has stated in it's acts, because the acts that are supposed to be in protection of EVERYONE, are only used to protect certain people.
My opinions are not outdated, and my ideas are not outdated. They are what I think can lead to us tackling racism properly, and, IN MY OPINION, I think that when it comes to idiots in a football crowd making monkey noises, and the odd obnoxious person saying stuff like "That Demba Ba is such a black twat", then I think it's best to just grow thicker skins and stop being so easily offended. If we carry taking things to such lengths as we are now, then it will just allow the racist ****s to hurt us even more. I realise I'm probably being too idealistic to ask everyone not to be offended, but I think making a bigger deal of the odd racist idiot, and having things like the black players association, will just separate the races even further.
If anyone wishes to respond, please don't respond in the same childish manner as Toontastic.
Toontastic, you raise some very good points, and I'm always willing to have a nice and constructive debate with someone, so there was no call to make such snotty comments and act so pompous. I didn't attack anyone on this thread, and no one attacked me, we all just exchanged views and opinions, until you came along and had to spoil it.
My opinions are based on what I have decided for myself when thinking about the subjects in my spare time, and also what I have learned through life experience. I have worked for the NHS for a while now, and during my work-based apprenticeship, I read through more acts than their are in a Shakespeare play my friend. I spent hours studying migraine-inducing amounts of text on the subject. I don't think it's right to think that people who have studied law have greater opinions on topics such as these than people who haven't.
I'm not going to have full respect for the law, because it rarely acts based upon who's rights are being conflicted with. It has double standards everywhere. It doesn't take sexism towards men, female violence upon men, racist words used by black people against white people, seriously at all.
A black person can say "hey you white trash" or "hey you ****ing cracker", and the law, if it punished the black person at all, wouldn't punish the black person to nearly the same extent as a white person racially abusing a black person. Why? Because it's more socially acceptable to racially abuse a white person. Human rights and acts are often just thrown out the window, it's all about how many people are offended, and what's more socially acceptable. People like to hear that a white person who abuses a black person has been locked up, and they call him a scum piece of ****. If a black guy was in the paper tomorrow for racially abusing a white guy, people wouldn't even react, and if they did it would be in surprise, as most people are extremely ignorant and think that, 1. Racism towards white people doesn't exist or 2. "Haha, are you serious? Like that white guy was even offended, get over it".
It's the same with sexism towards men, and sexual harassment of males by females. No one would care. Human rights go out the window due to the opinions and standards of society, and the law more often acts based on these standards, and not the acts that have been put into place.
So when you make these comments telling me to do my research and make "educated opinions", I think you're totally out of order. You do not have a more valid opinion than me just because what you think complies with what the law has stated in it's acts, because the acts that are supposed to be in protection of EVERYONE, are only used to protect certain people.
My opinions are not outdated, and my ideas are not outdated. They are what I think can lead to us tackling racism properly, and, IN MY OPINION, I think that when it comes to idiots in a football crowd making monkey noises, and the odd obnoxious person saying stuff like "That Demba Ba is such a black twat", then I think it's best to just grow thicker skins and stop being so easily offended. If we carry taking things to such lengths as we are now, then it will just allow the racist ****s to hurt us even more. I realise I'm probably being too idealistic to ask everyone not to be offended, but I think making a bigger deal of the odd racist idiot, and having things like the black players association, will just separate the races even further.
If anyone wishes to respond, please don't respond in the same childish manner as Toontastic.
Man...
Longtime forum browser here, usually have a look on here from time to time, felt compelled to post though after reading some of the astonishing comments being aired in this thread and other recent ones. Where to start though?
Firstly- the 'right' to racially abuse someone is covered by free speech??? Really??
Secondly- Comparing calling someone a 'black ****' and a 'fat ****' is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, so ridiculous you can't really reason with it. Don't get me wrong, abusing someone because of their weight or appearance is a lousy thing to do, but if you find a fat, black person and give them both of these insults, do you really think the offence taken will be equal? And why is that, just because they need to 'man up?'. Or, because it's something deeply, historically and culturally ingrained in ways that some people still clearly do not understand and sadly probably never will. What war has ever been waged over peoples' weight? How many people have been killed, systematically enslaved, forcibly divorced from their own culture over their weight?
Thirdly- Referring back to things said in a previous thread. Re: people claiming that organisations like the society of black lawyers is racist. You're missing the point spectacularly. You say "if there was a society of white lawyers everyone would get angry blah blah blah'. Yeah, they would. So what's the difference? Well, if you think that no black man has ever been discriminated against in a court of law then you're burying your head in the sand. If you think young black people have had the same chances as whites to become lawyers, then you're insane. They're a group that can help out in racially sensitive cases, and simply fight to make sure black people are fairly represented by our country's legal system. In short they're fighting for fairness and inclusion. What would the purpose of a white lawyer's society be? There would simply be no cause for such an organisation other than to exclude other races.
(Sidenote: But yeah, f*** the MOBO awards.)
I'll also add I agree that nobody should be sent to prison just for being a f***ing moron, it's not what prisons are for, in my eyes. I also agree to a point that the way the media are exploiting it is more about building on the PL's WWF soap opera sideshow presentation... BUT I can't stand to be part of any society that tells victims of racism to 'man up' and 'just ignore it', and frankly to read such things makes me despair for how NUFC fans are perceived on here from the outside.
Longtime forum browser here, usually have a look on here from time to time, felt compelled to post though after reading some of the astonishing comments being aired in this thread and other recent ones. Where to start though?
Firstly- the 'right' to racially abuse someone is covered by free speech??? Really??
Secondly- Comparing calling someone a 'black ****' and a 'fat ****' is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, so ridiculous you can't really reason with it. Don't get me wrong, abusing someone because of their weight or appearance is a lousy thing to do, but if you find a fat, black person and give them both of these insults, do you really think the offence taken will be equal? And why is that, just because they need to 'man up?'. Or, because it's something deeply, historically and culturally ingrained in ways that some people still clearly do not understand and sadly probably never will. What war has ever been waged over peoples' weight? How many people have been killed, systematically enslaved, forcibly divorced from their own culture over their weight?
Thirdly- Referring back to things said in a previous thread. Re: people claiming that organisations like the society of black lawyers is racist. You're missing the point spectacularly. You say "if there was a society of white lawyers everyone would get angry blah blah blah'. Yeah, they would. So what's the difference? Well, if you think that no black man has ever been discriminated against in a court of law then you're burying your head in the sand. If you think young black people have had the same chances as whites to become lawyers, then you're insane. They're a group that can help out in racially sensitive cases, and simply fight to make sure black people are fairly represented by our country's legal system. In short they're fighting for fairness and inclusion. What would the purpose of a white lawyer's society be? There would simply be no cause for such an organisation other than to exclude other races.
(Sidenote: But yeah, f*** the MOBO awards.)
I'll also add I agree that nobody should be sent to prison just for being a f***ing moron, it's not what prisons are for, in my eyes. I also agree to a point that the way the media are exploiting it is more about building on the PL's WWF soap opera sideshow presentation... BUT I can't stand to be part of any society that tells victims of racism to 'man up' and 'just ignore it', and frankly to read such things makes me despair for how NUFC fans are perceived on here from the outside.
Tash
I agree with pretty much all of your last (long) statement, you are of course entitled to an opinion of your own and you have the same entitlement as anyone else to share it. I don't really agree with some of your earlier stuff, and we've agreed to disagree in the past with relation to the fat people discrimination subject (I fully believe it's their own fault, you seem to think it's indoctrinated at a young age in some cases, any how let's not get into that) but there's some stances you take which wouldn't be stood for on a medium other than internet forums, such as face to face. It's all good quoting human rights and freedom of speech but if you've got a bloke jumping up and down on your skull, it's unlikely that you'll put your hand up and say "In fact, freedom of speech dictates that I'm allowed an opinion", in this scenario the guy who's opening your head up isn't interested in your right to an opinion.
To elaborate, it's very highly unlikely you would for example, walk through some of the toughest streets in New York's Bronx district advocating the Klu Klux Klan, because let's be honest you'd be handed your own death certificate. I know you might not agree with the KKK's policies but you think they're entitled to go about their business as the world is a free place, and each and every human inhabitant on this earth is entitled to think and say what they want. That for me is way too idealistic as you say, the world simply will not grasp this concept, there has to be an order and as a consequence for white people's ancestral behaviour towards the ethnic minority, the white people of today are paying the price, in that Caucasian-related discrimination is as you say, often overlooked, it's just the way this subject has evolved. Having gripes about this is what makes a lot of people angry, they feel suppressed and as such they harvest hate as a result of the sensation of unfairness that plays on their minds.
As far as I'm concerned I'm not going to sit here at my computer telling you that you're wrong and you have to change your opinions, fire away but it's not healthy to harbour hatred towards the system because it's not likely to change much in our lifetime.
I agree with pretty much all of your last (long) statement, you are of course entitled to an opinion of your own and you have the same entitlement as anyone else to share it. I don't really agree with some of your earlier stuff, and we've agreed to disagree in the past with relation to the fat people discrimination subject (I fully believe it's their own fault, you seem to think it's indoctrinated at a young age in some cases, any how let's not get into that) but there's some stances you take which wouldn't be stood for on a medium other than internet forums, such as face to face. It's all good quoting human rights and freedom of speech but if you've got a bloke jumping up and down on your skull, it's unlikely that you'll put your hand up and say "In fact, freedom of speech dictates that I'm allowed an opinion", in this scenario the guy who's opening your head up isn't interested in your right to an opinion.
To elaborate, it's very highly unlikely you would for example, walk through some of the toughest streets in New York's Bronx district advocating the Klu Klux Klan, because let's be honest you'd be handed your own death certificate. I know you might not agree with the KKK's policies but you think they're entitled to go about their business as the world is a free place, and each and every human inhabitant on this earth is entitled to think and say what they want. That for me is way too idealistic as you say, the world simply will not grasp this concept, there has to be an order and as a consequence for white people's ancestral behaviour towards the ethnic minority, the white people of today are paying the price, in that Caucasian-related discrimination is as you say, often overlooked, it's just the way this subject has evolved. Having gripes about this is what makes a lot of people angry, they feel suppressed and as such they harvest hate as a result of the sensation of unfairness that plays on their minds.
As far as I'm concerned I'm not going to sit here at my computer telling you that you're wrong and you have to change your opinions, fire away but it's not healthy to harbour hatred towards the system because it's not likely to change much in our lifetime.
1. I never said racial abuse was covered by freedom of speech. Some people are totally ignoring what I said. I never said it was acceptable, I was merely stating what I think is the best way to deal with it.
2. It shouldn't be about who takes the most offence or who cries more. It's acting on things like this that has lead to their being such double standards. It shouldn't be about who's offended. There are acts that are supposed to defend everyone, but they don't. The defend those who are offended, so if a white person is racially abused, then the law will no doubt not give two flying ****s. If a black man is abused, it will be treat far more seriously, despite being exactly the same as a white man being abused. Black people should not receive extra protection because racism towards them has more history.
There are many black people who hate all white people because some white people are racists. There's a new black panther party who are allowed to walk public streets saying "I ****ing hate crackers" and "You might have to kill cracker babies". So it's ok for Black people say such horrible things towards white people, just because racism towards white people doesn't have such dark roots. The KKK are forced to organise certain times and dates with the police to have their rallies, when they're doing exactly the same thing as the new black panther party.
3. I don't know what others have been saying, but my opinion is that making a black players association only separates blacks further from whites.
If I misread/misremembered what exactly was said then I apologise for that, but at the end of the day I still think that just ignoring racial abuse is effectively accepting it.
I would (at least in this country) say it should be taken far more seriously, because it IS more serious. In England, racism against whites simply doesn't carry the same weight. It's simply not as touchy a subject (although the word 'touchy' isn't strong enough), and yes, largely because of the history, but that's important. Any racist insult or monkey chant goes hand in hand with that history, and has completely different implications to most other insults.
As for the law not caring about abuse of white people- I don't buy this. You don't hear about any cases like this because of what I was saying before- in this country, the two don't carry the same weight. If you genuinely think they do, then are you suggesting that white people have thicker skin and black people are inherently 'cry babies'? If a black man gives you racial abuse and you feel strongly enough about it to get the law involved, if the evidence is there, the law will follow it through in the same way.
It's not OK at all, and the NBPP are widely condemned as a hate group. If they were in this country, they wouldn't be allowed to do it. In the US, it seems to be more flexible. Compare to the Westboro Baptist Church who pretty much get to wage their racist, homophobic, anti-semitic hate protests virtually anywhere they want.
Some people's (not necessarily yours) outrage about this I find uncomfortable. It was an idea that got bounced, and very quickly rejected. It was never going to happen. Yet on forums I still keep seeing people kicking off about it, which I find a bit weird. (Again, I'm not talking about you here, I know I brought it up (sort of)).
I agree with nearly everything you have said apart from the Society of Black Lawyers. Fair enough in the past they were discriminated against big time but in this modern day (especially in the UK) they have equal rights generally. Seeing as everyone has a fair chance to get where they want to be, the society isn't really needed anymore and all it is doing now is showing 2 teams (Showing difference when we should be uniting in my opinion).
On a completely different note, the Society of Black Lawyers should be told to **** off. They heard a rumour (only a rumour) that Clattenburg made a racist slur against Mikel and made a complaint about it to the police. The only reason I can think of them to do this is to give their society some more advertisement. **** off will ya, this is football and not political bullshit.
Tash bringing up the NBPP has flaws everywhere to your argument. The Americans tolerate racism of all kinds, to an extent that Twitter can't even ban an American guy for persistent racial remarks. Just look at how many British people have been brought up in front of a judge because of something they said on Twitter, now go and look at a user called Walken4Gop on Twitter, and ask yourself why he hasn't been treated the same way.
I think if you're going to take American examples and use them to back up your opinion then you're only confusing matters further, we don't live under the American law, we have our own and most Brits will form an opinion based on what is allowed/not allowed in our home land.
I think if you're going to take American examples and use them to back up your opinion then you're only confusing matters further, we don't live under the American law, we have our own and most Brits will form an opinion based on what is allowed/not allowed in our home land.
Perhaps a bad example, but you get my point. Racism towards white people is exactly the same as racism towards black people, and they should be punished equally, regardless of how many people are offended.
Completely mate, but I don't think the two will ever carry the same weight and I'm resigned to that so don't let it influence my opinion. It's more of an injustice from the system, it's not the ethnic minorities fault that it doesn't carry as much weight, or at least the public perception is that it doesn't carry as much weight. Statistics will more than likely be manipulated to suit home office targets. When I worked as a contractor for a police force, the guy sitting next to me was logging knife crime as robberies all day long to show that their force was tackling knife crime. It's just how the home office rolls unfortunately, but we don't have it that bad when you use other countries to put things in perspective.
They seem to think they were justified in wasting police time! Not acceptable. I have to say the Black Police Association, the MOBO's, the Black Lawyers Association and any other association which is created for one race of people should be abolished with immediate effect. Discrimination should not be tolerated in any form and whilst we have people holding onto these pre historic ideas of segregation, we'll never move forward. None of this "yeah but (insert race) people need these associations to stand up for their rights because historically they've suffered discrimination". Historically, every race walking this land has experienced discrimination at some stage. We need to move forward and stop looking back all the time.
I have to say the Black Police Association, the MOBO's, the Black Lawyers Association and any other association which is created for one race of people should be abolished with immediate effect. Discrimination should not be tolerated in any form and whilst we have people holding onto these pre historic ideas of segregation, we'll never move forward. None of this "yeah but (insert race) people need these associations to stand up for their rights because historically they've suffered discrimination". Historically, every race walking this land has experienced discrimination at some stage. We need to move forward and stop looking back all the time.
Don't thik the MOBO's fit in. Of Black Origin defines the type of music, not the competition. Rap is MOBO because it was, indeed, blacks who developped the music. There is no prohibition on a white person winning the Rap cateory of the MOBO's.
It would be like having a Sports of English Origin athletics competition: football, regby, cricket etc are the categories. A non-english team is almost certain to win
So what constitutes harassment?
I was out in my local shops chatting with my kids when someone started making fun of us...the were repeating everything we said with a piss taking asian accent. Me and my kids are asian mixed raced born and bred in london and have london accents.
They were clearly being offensive ... was I lacking a back bone or being too touchy when I told them to shut it?
On another occasion my daughters were chasing pigeons in the local park when this woman had a right go at one ( my then 6 year old with black hair, darker skin and brown eyes but nothing to her sister (light brown hair, blue eyed and much lighter skin) or the other white kids that was doing the same. I asked the woman to stop taking to my child and said if there was a problem she should speak to me. She continued to rant so I pointed out that ALL the little kids in the park were running after pigeons to which she shouted "they belong...why don't you go back to where you come from?" to me and my 6 year old. Was mrs remember colin lee wrong to tell her in no uncertain terms not to talk to us like that?
I have left out instances where either me and my kids have been physically threatened because that's clearly different.
As for allowing Nazi groups (like the KKK) say what they want cos other wise we are becoming a fascist state...if someone had stopped the fascists in Germany instead of appeasing the ****ers we'd never have had the Holocaust or WW2.
If they have those views they can all club together, buy an island, rant to each other and continue to inbread to the hearts content but I don't see why we should have to accept their bile.
Free speech does not allow us to abuse people...we should be answerable for what we say...it is illegal to threaten someone even if no physical threat takes place.
As for the photo...I think they had CCTV film image so it's easy enough to see if he was making monkey signs.
I do agree about how photos can be manipulated...in the 1980's the SUN tried to print a photo of Scargill (miners leader) making a Sieg Heil (Hitler) sign when in fact he'd been waving...and that was before photo shop
The first conviction for racist comments in the uk was a black motorist calling a police officer a white ****...so it suggests that they are.
last year a police officer was caught on tape calling a prisoner a ****** on several occassions ... he was aquitted of racism this week....he admitted it but his defence was he was trying to make the guy feel pride in his colour...
If I were to comment that many people who seem to share one particular common trait - unfortunately their skin colour - can often come across as having a "poor us" and divisive attitude, would it be considered racist?
From every angle - everyday life, reality television, and now footballers - there seems to be a fairly recurring theme of the old Ali G classic line "is it cos I is black?". There's always this deflection away from possible other failings towards skin colour and I honestly feel that black (or asian) people are as guilty if not MORE guilty of precipitating racism in the UK. I live near a very diverse part of the UK, west of London, and can see what has happened in the past 20 or 30 years to areas that have become "predominant" in particular races. This was not done by white people putting up fences, this was done by non-white people driving their respective neighbourhoods in a certain way. Look at "stop & search" in London - this is not some whim drawn up by a pasty-faced fat public schoolboy, much to the chagrin of the black population - this is a very sensible deterrent to a VERY REAL PROBLEM. It's the avoidance of acknowledgement - in this case, of black gang culture within Inner Cities - from the culture themselves that exacerbates the issue of racism. White people are not herding up black youths and asking them to be in gangs so they can be stopped and searched for weapons.
There are many examples where skin colour is transcended and none more powerful or obvious than football, where the very best the professional game has to offer are black players who have been afforded every luxury, every opportunity. And what's happening now? Black people are asking for separatist movements in the professional game. Why? No-one can really tell you. If we lived in a society where only people of a certain colour were held back and it was because of that colour and nothing else, then there's a problem. What next? A black government, because the govt doesn't listen to the opinions of the black man?
From every angle - everyday life, reality television, and now footballers - there seems to be a fairly recurring theme of the old Ali G classic line "is it cos I is black?". There's always this deflection away from possible other failings towards skin colour and I honestly feel that black (or asian) people are as guilty if not MORE guilty of precipitating racism in the UK. I live near a very diverse part of the UK, west of London, and can see what has happened in the past 20 or 30 years to areas that have become "predominant" in particular races. This was not done by white people putting up fences, this was done by non-white people driving their respective neighbourhoods in a certain way. Look at "stop & search" in London - this is not some whim drawn up by a pasty-faced fat public schoolboy, much to the chagrin of the black population - this is a very sensible deterrent to a VERY REAL PROBLEM. It's the avoidance of acknowledgement - in this case, of black gang culture within Inner Cities - from the culture themselves that exacerbates the issue of racism. White people are not herding up black youths and asking them to be in gangs so they can be stopped and searched for weapons.
There are many examples where skin colour is transcended and none more powerful or obvious than football, where the very best the professional game has to offer are black players who have been afforded every luxury, every opportunity. And what's happening now? Black people are asking for separatist movements in the professional game. Why? No-one can really tell you. If we lived in a society where only people of a certain colour were held back and it was because of that colour and nothing else, then there's a problem. What next? A black government, because the govt doesn't listen to the opinions of the black man?
When groups of men beat the living crap out of each other at a night club, or over football etc no one comments on the "white on white" violence cos their race is irrelevant yet as soon as it involves non whites it becomes a " black gang" problem.
Stop and search is a joke...I have been stopped twice in the recent past under the prevention of terrorism act...once going into white hart lane...the police started with the words " do you speak english?" then told me it was cos I was taking a bag into the ground...as i looked round no one else with bags were being stopped. The other occasion was cos I was taking photo's in London which led to a helicopter watching me and my mate and 8 officers questioning us.
I am 45 years old with no criminal record.
The problem is not black people ... the problem is racists...get rid of them and the rest of us are fine...the difficulty is that we don't know the best way to get rid of the racists so there are a lot of wacky and problematic ideas...but those ideas are not on a par with racism
There is racists on within all races. All of them are the minority and the problem is the media love giving the minority the lime light.
Screw media
Screw media
- Status