The EU debate - Part III

I've broken Kustard

 

I understand the point you're making, I just don't agree with it. Profiling works in many, many areas, not just stop and search, but even in that limited environment, to just argue 'it's racist' adds little.

You'd be better arguing your case for a better system, as the focus on race just dilutes it.

 

Question for the bright sparks out there.

Why has the national policy changed from building council houses through the government in the 70's and 80's to now having it all built by housing associations?

Also are housing associations even that effective? Do they still charge a lot higher than a council house or is it roughly similar?

 

No I haven't, I acknowledged what you copied and pasted from the Guardian in my final sentence. You just chose to ignore it because it was tied up in questions you have no answers to, which you also conveniently ignored.

No, I don't. There have been just over 250 convictions for this criteria of crime since 1997, 90% of those convicted are Muslim, it's got nothing to do with whatever numbers you're spewing out trying to justify your apologetics for Islamic, *****phile rapists. You should have just asked instead of trying to second guess.

 

I agree that profiling works in many cases but the point is that applying it to something like stop and search fatally undermines equality before the law and creates racial tension. There is no rationale whereby profiled use can be justified in such circumstances unless through a belief that the profiled groups are less deserving of fair treatment which is just about the definition of discrimination. My better system would allow no use by state authorities for criminal purposes of any profiling. What do you think should be done about discrimination?

 

So a Labour backbencher isn't entitled to call for protests against Tory policies? And for those protests to be visible to all MPs.
Wow!

 

How is pointing out that humans are tribal 'cretinous tripe'?

Thanks.

Answer to what exactly, a pantomime level of argument? I made a point and you disregarded it without any reason. You then continued on your little frothy mouthed tirade, frantically typing away that I was an idiot.

I believe it was this sort of attitude that kept these terrible crimes covered up for so long as a countless amount of young, white girls were passed around by Muslim *****philes like a piece of cheap Halal meat. People were discouraged from coming forward for fear of being called racists, and here we go, I outline what happened and who was responsible, and because of that I'm apparently 'continuing with my white supremacist campaign'. Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy, after all it's not me going to bed every night knowing that I am part of a problem that resulted in young girls having their lives destroyed for the sake of tolerance, diversity and multiculturalism.

 

I'm not convinced by this argument about the police fearing a backlash and being accused of being racist.
I mean, it's never bothered them in the past, has it?
I think it's a convenient excuse, to be honest.

What have all of these recently uncovered historic sex abuse scandals had in common?
Vulnerable youngsters who the authorities couldn't give a crap about and whose complaints go ignored.
Everyone knew about Savile. Everyone local knew about Rotherham.
Nobody did anything because it was just kids from homes, runaways and council estate children.
They weren't deemed good enough to bother protecting.

 

You're the ****ing pantomime here you racist ****wit..

Do us all a favour and go and peddle your **** elsewhere...

You disgust me!...

 

By voting for a Tory banker and a billionaire that inherited his wealth?
If they're not the elite, then **** knows who is. The Queen, maybe?

 

You may not be convinced, but it was the argument offered at the time for cancelling the tv programme.

 

Gosh. You really have a grip on events. Honest.

 

What TV programme and what does that have to do with police investigations?
There's been repeated admissions that they weren't bothered because of the status of the kids.
The same is true over and over again, unfortunately.

 

Would you like to point out where I've been factually inaccurate?

 

I doubt it, he'll just waffle and deflect for a page until you get bored.

Same as ever.

 

He is shadow chancellor, you clot not a back bencher

 

Man Yoo's profits have nosedived due to the value of the pound nosediving after the brexit vote.

#blamebrexit

 

They're a bunch of bullshitters. Constant, endless bullshit, whenever any of them speaks.

 

I think this is in danger of disappearing down the rabbit hole like some others sadly do. It's often happens when tedious tobes trying to rewrite a question.

The point raised was that shouting 'racist' is just a way of avoiding a discussion. From that, you offered the situation of stop and search as something that you felt was what you would describe as racist.

I disagreed, for a number of reasons, one is that a fair percentage of the officers involved are black. If there's an argument, it could be about discrimination, but in raising it in an argument about the use of the term 'racist' you're actually supporting the claim, as there's more to it than picking on people simply because of their skin colour.

There are incidents that are solely to do with race. There was a Scottish lad burned to death solely because of his skin colour, there are other similar incidents. Anecdotal admittedly, but attacks of such nature appear to get more coverage and a harsher sentence if the victim is black than they do if they're white. That's wrong too.

The point remains, that just calling out 'racist' resolves nothing.


EDIT, this isn't the programme I had in mind, but it makes a similar point. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3733215.stm