Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2023 10:43:12 GMT
If 'eradication' is too strong to swallow how about 'replacement' instead as a kinder, gentler term?
The last census reports that in the period from 2001 to 2021 the number of residents identifying as White British declined by 1.1 million, while the number identifying as other ethnicities increased by 8.7 million.
So you answer to the 'problem' is?
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 28, 2023 11:41:40 GMT
As indicated earlier, you and your confederates could jump out of some high window rather than petitioning for policy designed to exterminate your target group.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 28, 2023 11:51:27 GMT
Culture is being attacked through revisionist history, denigration of all that was and is British and through the targeting of anything existing now that was in anyway associated with colonialism or Empire. There are many who carry this out and many who buy into the narrative. It is done by concentrating only on the British part of any unpleasant parts of history, ignoring the part played by others, adopting language that misdirects (and this thread is about the use of language which the left are seemingly very sensitive about when it suits) and seeking removal of any offending artifact, rewriting of books and education. Let us take one small example that illustrates the tale, there are many more. David Olusoga in his statement to the jury in the Colston trial as an expert witness was inaccurate in his statements. He used the terms 'into slavery' and 'enslavement' frequently when testifying yet these are emotive words and inaccurate. Into slavery implies that they were taken as free people and transported to become slaves and enslavement implies that the act of making them slaves was carried out by Colston. They were already slaves before they arrived at the trading point, they were enslaved by other Africans and Arab traders and they were transported as slaves not into slavery. The Barbary pirates transported people into slavery they did not buy slaves from French and Cornish citizens of already enslaved peoples. This is laughable, you are nit-picking 'terms' of slavery. I does not matter what terms you apply to Coulson he was a slave trader and owner, simple. Pointing out and generally accepting that black people were the ones who actually enslaved other black people then sold them to white people isn’t nit picking .
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Mar 28, 2023 12:01:39 GMT
There are many different aspects to Britain's demographic transformation which call for a variety of different solutions, but I suppose one of the most pressing is the need to understand why so many members of the native population are actively encouraging factions that are orchestrating their own demise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2023 13:10:01 GMT
Lineker has won his case with HMRC so does not have to pay 4.9 million quid. Lineker walks on water... well ... almost.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2023 13:45:46 GMT
As indicated earlier, you and your confederates could jump out of some high window rather than petitioning for policy designed to exterminate your target group. What target group?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2023 13:48:06 GMT
This is laughable, you are nit-picking 'terms' of slavery. I does not matter what terms you apply to Coulson he was a slave trader and owner, simple. Pointing out and generally accepting that black people were the ones who actually enslaved other black people then sold them to white people isn’t nit picking . It is when you defend Coulson with such a nit-picking excuse. We all know slavery has existed since dick docked, how far do you want to go back? Everyone involved in slavery shares equal blame.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2023 13:48:51 GMT
Lineker has won his case with HMRC so does not have to pay 4.9 million quid. Lineker walks on water... well ... almost. That'll upset a few lefty bashers on here.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 28, 2023 14:06:27 GMT
Pointing out and generally accepting that black people were the ones who actually enslaved other black people then sold them to white people isn’t nit picking . It is when you defend Coulson with such a nit-picking excuse. We all know slavery has existed since dick docked, how far do you want to go back? Everyone involved in slavery shares equal blame. He didn’t defend Coulson and ( as I explained) it wasn’t nit picking .
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 28, 2023 15:02:12 GMT
Culture is being attacked through revisionist history, denigration of all that was and is British and through the targeting of anything existing now that was in anyway associated with colonialism or Empire. There are many who carry this out and many who buy into the narrative. It is done by concentrating only on the British part of any unpleasant parts of history, ignoring the part played by others, adopting language that misdirects (and this thread is about the use of language which the left are seemingly very sensitive about when it suits) and seeking removal of any offending artifact, rewriting of books and education. Let us take one small example that illustrates the tale, there are many more. David Olusoga in his statement to the jury in the Colston trial as an expert witness was inaccurate in his statements. He used the terms 'into slavery' and 'enslavement' frequently when testifying yet these are emotive words and inaccurate. Into slavery implies that they were taken as free people and transported to become slaves and enslavement implies that the act of making them slaves was carried out by Colston. They were already slaves before they arrived at the trading point, they were enslaved by other Africans and Arab traders and they were transported as slaves not into slavery. The Barbary pirates transported people into slavery they did not buy slaves from French and Cornish citizens of already enslaved peoples. This is laughable, you are nit-picking 'terms' of slavery. I does not matter what terms you apply to Coulson he was a slave trader and owner, simple. We are conversing on a discussion thread the very point of which is to indicate how language can affect how others are viewed and accuracy in that language is the preferred option. They are not illegal migrants they are asylum seekers etc etc. Yet at the very same time you are quite comfortable with language that is not only inaccurate but actually makes a person worse than he was. This was language used by an 'expert' testifying in a court of law. The point about the language used re illegal immigrants is that it was not inaccurate, it may not be your preferred but its accuracy was indisputable. With regard to the Colston 4 the language used by the expert witness was highly inaccurate yet you abhor the former and are at ease with the latter. This illustrates the point well that British culture/history is under attack from the left/woke and language is a very important weapon in this respect
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 28, 2023 15:06:31 GMT
Pointing out and generally accepting that black people were the ones who actually enslaved other black people then sold them to white people isn’t nit picking . It is when you defend Coulson with such a nit-picking excuse. We all know slavery has existed since dick docked, how far do you want to go back? Everyone involved in slavery shares equal blame. You do not seem to know the difference between defending someone and ensuring that the accusations made against them are accurate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2023 16:16:40 GMT
It is when you defend Coulson with such a nit-picking excuse. We all know slavery has existed since dick docked, how far do you want to go back? Everyone involved in slavery shares equal blame. You do not seem to know the difference between defending someone and ensuring that the accusations made against them are accurate. Of course I do. You 'implied' Colston was not really as bad as the people who made them slaves in the first place, if that had been true he would have freed them.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 28, 2023 16:51:14 GMT
You do not seem to know the difference between defending someone and ensuring that the accusations made against them are accurate. Of course I do. You 'implied' Colston was not really as bad as the people who made them slaves in the first place, if that had been true he would have freed them. I did not imply that I stated clearly that the language used by Olusoga was inaccurate and extending culpability by stating that his operatives were the ones enslaving and transporting into slavery. You inferred that I was trying to lessen the impact but I was only stating the actual facts which Olusoga was not who in actual fact increased Colston's crimes as per slavery. Slavery was the order of the day in most countries, with most ethnic groups and involving almost everyone who could be got hold off. If one is aiming to destroy UK history and culture then exaggeration is a useful tool and Olusoga exaggerated.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 28, 2023 19:39:05 GMT
Lineker has won his case with HMRC so does not have to pay 4.9 million quid. Lineker walks on water... well ... almost. The full judgement is a complicated read but seems to make sense (although HMRC say they may appeal it) financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j12696/TC%2008774.pdfSince he paid tax on all but Danielle Bux's £30k per year of the proceeds I can't see how £4.9M arises (see para 49). But as I read it, his post 2021 position where he no longer contracts with BT Sport probably is as an employee. This judgement only directly applies to 2013-18. And I bet HMRC now move to close what looks like a loophole.
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Mar 29, 2023 1:16:47 GMT
Lineker has won his case with HMRC so does not have to pay 4.9 million quid. Lineker walks on water... well ... almost. The full judgement is a complicated read but seems to make sense (although HMRC say they may appeal it) financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j12696/TC%2008774.pdfSince he paid tax on all but Danielle Bux's £30k per year of the proceeds I can't see how £4.9M arises (see para 49). But as I read it, his post 2021 position where he no longer contracts with BT Sport probably is as an employee. This judgement only directly applies to 2013-18. And I bet HMRC now move to close what looks like a loophole. There has always been a dance with HRMC over the correct employment status one should be using. He was using a "public service company" to avoid income tax / NI, and the BBC / BT Sport played along with this to avoid employer NI, holiday pay, pensions etc. Basically you set up a Limited company and pay yourself the max before tax and NI are due. You then take the rest as share dividends which is taxed significantly lower than income tax / NI combined. The company of course has to pay corporation tax, but that is on profits. HMRC say this is all bollocks and he should have been employed directly by the BBC and BT Sport on PAYE... hence the missing tax. Danielle Bux would have been employed (for doing fuck all) just to keep the profits of the company down. What HRMC have done in the last couple of years is said to employers that if they get employment status wrong they will get hit hard, so this has all but ended public service companies. They have done this because of precisely what is going on with Lineker now. Rich twats with fancy lawyers arguing the toss so their clients can avoid being paid via PAYE. ie it is easier just to threaten companies with big fines, rather than have endless arguments in court. BTW he 100% should have been employed by the BBC. He does not meet any of the tests for self-employment: 1) He takes direction from BBC staff. 2) He has to do the presenting in person, he cannot send a replacement. 3) He uses BBC tools to do the job.
|
|