Almost certainly, and as with most things it would be wrong to suggest all people in that age group fall into the category.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- 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
-
Almost certainly, and as with most things it would be wrong to suggest all people in that age group fall into the category.
You’ll Be Surprised What Qualifies for the ‘Junk Food’ Ban
The Government’s proposed nannying ad ban is said to be about to crash down on ‘junk food’, banning so-called junk food advertising on TV and online prior 9pm. Other than the obvious hypocrisy, the trouble with this approach is that term that has popular appeal but no legal definition. A similar ‘junk food’ ad ban under Sadiq Khan resulted in mince pie adverts being banned on the London Underground and from the sides of buses…
Government instead takes ‘junk food’ to mean all food that is ‘high in fat, sugar, and salt’ (HFSS food as defined by the Food Standards Agency’s Nutrient Profiling Model). This includes…
The Government’s proposed nannying ad ban is said to be about to crash down on ‘junk food’, banning so-called junk food advertising on TV and online prior 9pm. Other than the obvious hypocrisy, the trouble with this approach is that term that has popular appeal but no legal definition. A similar ‘junk food’ ad ban under Sadiq Khan resulted in mince pie adverts being banned on the London Underground and from the sides of buses…
Government instead takes ‘junk food’ to mean all food that is ‘high in fat, sugar, and salt’ (HFSS food as defined by the Food Standards Agency’s Nutrient Profiling Model). This includes…
- Raisins and sultanas
- Most tinned fruit
- Most yoghurts
- Nearly all cheese (including half-fat cheese)
- Cream crackers
- Tomato soup
- Hummus
- Ham and salami
- Pesto
- Cereal bars
- Pure orange juice
- Olive bread
- Pasta sauces
- Butter and margarine
- More than half of all meat
- One in every four sandwiches
It creates decent headlines though which is what this is really about. If you really want people to stop eating ****, don’t close countless playing fields and encourage good behaviour with eating veg and lean protein rather than punishing folk who want to indulge in one of the few affordable pleasures in their busy lives.
Is claiming an entire race of people has blood on its hands an incitement of hatred?
no blood on my hands
no blood on my hands
You must log in or register to see images
Wasn't it you lecturing Col about not taking things personally, Nonce-on-the-brains?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-53566193
Strange it wasn’t described as a terrorist attack.
Strange it wasn’t described as a terrorist attack.
I don’t think I’m the one seeking to be victimised, so I’d argue it’s not me taking anything personally. Col took up the option to have me on ignore and take the occasional peek, as is his right, the big tart.
Probably ‘cos it wasn’t Wills.....as reported it was probably a racist attack.
Absolutely disgusting and I hope the perpetrator gets a long time inside.
Yuck. What sort of macchiatos do staid Tory voters and salt of the earth types wot vote for God's own party like then? I hope you're not being caramelist again.
Actually according to the Crown Prosecution Services, the legal definition of terrorism is 'Terrorism is the use or threat of action both in and outside the UK, designed to influence any international government , organisation or to intimidate the public. It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause' So yeah it absolutely is as much as any similar act carried out by other individuals or small groups in recent years. If this had been carried out by a Muslim on a white person, how do you think it would have been reported? I'm pretty sure that the word terrorism would be involved, even if it's said it's not being treated as a terrorist attack, using that word still implants it in people's heads and a proportion of the general public will draw their own conclusions, by excluding it from actions such as this reinforces terrorism is something done by Muslims, etc.. and not by white people, language matters.
If this had been a black man using racist slurs whilst committing the act on a white man there would be people commenting, including on here using it against and to undermine the black lives matters movement as though there is a direct connection to the movement, yet when it's the other way round it's different and it's only probably a racist attack....
Following your logic would not all racist attacks be deemed to be terrorism?
I'm no lawyer but I would have thought that to be classified as terrorism there would need to be evidence of a wider set of circumstances
Sounds like attempted murder to me which I'm guessing would carry a universal tariff regardless
My point is more to do with how it's reported and the public reaction which I find quite telling, I only used the CPS definition and how that is interpreted is up to them, especially when more information is known. The points remain that if it had been a muslim man against a white man especially with racial slurs the word terrorism would have been used somewhere in the reports and all over social media from people ingraining the word terrorist with Muslims, yet when it's a white man involved with what appears to be a racist attack it's totally different, loan wolf, isolated incident, the white British community are not called out to condemn the action.
If it had been a black man again using racial slurs against a white man whilst committing the incident the BLM movement would be to blame by some, people would also use the incident to undermine the movement and the supporters and those sympathetic asked to justify/explain/condemn, ... again as it's the other way round, ethnically speaking, the perpetrator is the only person held accountable, nobody else is in anyway accountable, no contributing factors and influences tackled, none of the patriots, groups, anyone who has been vocal against the BLM movement is being asked to justify/explain/condemn what's happened, racism and violence is then not questioned as a 'white' problem. Staines just instantly dismissed it as being silly. 'Whiteness' (rightfully) is never seen to be as a contributing factor for anything when a negative event or string of events happen, can't say that about 'blackness' which is constantly being held up as a negative contributing factor ... yet never seen as a contributing factor for positive events, actions outside of sport.
Stop talking bollox Wills.....You’re coming over as being rather bizarre.
Not really, only if you can't see the point, how ethnicity changes the narrative, reporting and reaction to an incident. I've sat quite and took a break from here where pretty much any negative action carried out by a black person was used to undermine and dismiss the BLM movement. Yet when it's the other way round it's silly and bizarre... both very dismissive terms. I noticed the same, and how it turned, whilst jokingly, slightly personal against WWR/Watford/anyothernamehehasgoneunder. Whilst yes he did it in a flippant way, he has a very valid point, the overwhelming majority of sex offences against children are committed by middle aged white men, yet that is not seen as a 'white' problem and white people are not asked to explain this, white people are not asked to look into their communities, parenting, traditions, etc... yet black knife crime is a term we hear all the time. Using blackness as the prime major contributing factor