Both depending on which monarch was in power at the time..... what exactly is your point? Or when I gave an example of previous intolerance towards a religion or race, were you expecting a running total and charts and ****? You have Wikipedia look it up yourself and stop being pedantic. The point was, at different points through out history there has been intolerance towards people of all different colours, races, religions etc, and eventually these practices are purged from our society as people are educated on tolerance and views change. Homophobia AND racism are far less prevalant than they have been in recent history and the times show that ignorance and prejudice against these people is slowly being eradicated.
Most people I suppose think they are a race apart and as far as I know those of the Jewish faith see themselves as a race, but to me its a religion containing people's of different skin colours so by definition can't be a race. I've had a few scoops so pardon the bollocks.
Religious bigotry/hate only comes under the same laws as racism because the last government wanted to suppress any criticism of islam. In any manifestation of the English language, how can discrimination against a white Anglo-Saxon catholic by a white Anglo-Saxon protestant, be termed "racism"? "But who said Catholics were a race?, only you Bamber." Don't think so, Einstein “And in the 500 years since no catholic is allowed by law to be prime minister or become monarch, The act of settlement is as racist as **** and means nobody from any other religion bar protestantism can hold either title I mentioned.” Not your words then? I wasn't the person who equated religion with race.
I made a bit of a mess of what I was trying to say because I was rushing to do something and I didn't finish editing it properly. The point I was trying to make is that if someone asks you "did you call me XXX?" no one responds with "No, I didn't call you XXX", you'd just say "No, I didn't". It really is unlikely that he wasn't using it as an insult, when its the only reasonable explanation for how you could use it. So if someone asked you "Did you call me a n****r?" you'd reply "I didn't call you a n****r" ?? Ridiculous argument and if you believe that you'll believe anything...
Really isn't outside the realms of possibility is it On the balance of probability (to use the FAs wording), I would personally have to say that JT probably did say those words in anger. But it cannot be conclusively proved, and using one racial term doesn't make you racist. The club were never going to sack our captain and one of the best defenders of the PL era on the balance of probability and the word of a massive dick like Anton Ferdinand. Why in the **** are we going over this again anyway?
You really are an ignoramus feller, if I was responding to the person who reckoned it was "500 years" how am I making the statement? Anyway you being smart and all that should be busy swatting up on if or not a catholic can or can't be monarch or prime minister because that was the point in question. And if you reply in less words than your last two replies please, because its better to have a yes or no rather than a William Shakespeare play. Cheers
No he isnt, he is an intelligent polite poster with interesting things to say (although suspect you were joking) No he isnt, he is an intelligent polite poster with interesting things to say You should try it some time
Not saying he isn't, but whatever he was trying to do back there was weird. I made a throw away comment about Catholics being persecuted 500 years ago to illustrate a point and he questioned it's validity on the basis that another monarch killed even more people from another religion once, which was a total derailment from the point being made and highly pedantic. But it entertained me Oh and the thing about misunderstanding me when I said that gay couples are allowed to have children, and him thinking I was saying that same sex couples could breed was.......not even a word for that.
OK. Just ignore the race-religion assertion,then. Brief enough? (And it's "fewer" words not "less"). Not a fan of Shakespeare? You surprise me!
Sound, so that's a no then. Considering the diversity of modern society in the UK in my humble opinion the old act should be addressed and changed accordingly no matter what the Scots say or the red tape involved.
I'm not blaming you for saying that. Jeez, I'm disputing your assertion that there has been no catholic monarch for that period. I even gave you an example. If you'd said "for 300 years", I wouldn't have argued.
But you never took into account I've had a few beers and that your explanatory posts were making my eyes bleed. But you do know your onions mate.
