Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2024 16:29:18 GMT
A freind of mine who is a flat roofer was working on a job and was cutting the roofing felt with a knife. Plod and his mate was walking by and stopped and told my mate he was using an illegal knive wihh a blade which plod said was too long and the blade also locked in the open posistion. My mate told plod that if he were black they would of just walked on by. Plods sidecick said you could be repeorted for a hate crime by inciting racism and insinuating that the plod uses double standards when it comes to coloureds...My mate said do I give a fuck report me if you wish when plod saw there were other burly builders present at the job site they fucked off with their tails between their legs...I often wonder if the outcome would have been different if he were working alone... Coppers need to wise up on the law. It's lamentable that they are allowed out on the streets in ignorance. Using a work tool is a clear exemption and exception to offensive weapons and knife law. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 22, 2024 18:27:48 GMT
The police do not need to do much investigating, read the transcript and question the witness and then decide no case to answer. So you are deciding what the police should decide? I would suggest that they know the law far better than you or I so we ought to let them decide if there is a case to answer. Clearly to make an issue out of the colour of someone you dislike and acknowledging the potential for disliking others just because they are the same colour as the person you dislike, is clearly racist except in the eyes of those who are racists in denial. Whether it is racist enough to warrant a prosecution as a hate crime is still to be determined. No I am predicting what the police should decide and how they should investigate. What they actually do will be heavily influenced by how much pressure is placed on them from above and as we know that usually has little to do with law and much to do with woke. It seems that you have already decided what the police should decide anyway by calling it 'clearly racist' as have many others as being racist, as an unacceptable point of view, is a matter of law not of opinion as there is no sliding scale of racism some things are either racist or they are not; what you want is to have your cake and eat by calling him racist whether he is found to be at odds with the law or not. The court of public opinion is a dangerous and intolerant place as it is full of the indignantly righteous. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2024 19:04:25 GMT
So you are deciding what the police should decide? I would suggest that they know the law far better than you or I so we ought to let them decide if there is a case to answer. Clearly to make an issue out of the colour of someone you dislike and acknowledging the potential for disliking others just because they are the same colour as the person you dislike, is clearly racist except in the eyes of those who are racists in denial. Whether it is racist enough to warrant a prosecution as a hate crime is still to be determined. No I am predicting what the police should decide and how they should investigate. What they actually do will be heavily influenced by how much pressure is placed on them from above and as we know that usually has little to do with law and much to do with woke. It seems that you have already decided what the police should decide anyway by calling it 'clearly racist' as have many others as being racist, as an unacceptable point of view, is a matter of law not of opinion as there is no sliding scale of racism some things are either racist or they are not; what you want is to have your cake and eat by calling him racist whether he is found to be at odds with the law or not. The court of public opinion is a dangerous and intolerant place as it is full of the indignantly righteous. You are guilty of exactly what you have just accused me of in reverse, of wanting to have your cake and eat it by exonerating him of racism whether he is found to be one in law or not. I can well imagine how you would all be jumping up and down with glee and fake indignation if Jeremy Corbyn had said he hates the Israeli Prime Minister who is almost enough to make him hate all Jewish men. Even if he immediately followed that by saying that he does not actually hate all Jewish men you'd be condemning him as an antisemite for saying such a thing. You all know you would if you are capable of being honest with yourselves. And you would have a good point too. Your double standards on this, selective recognition of racism depending upon who is being racist and the colour of his victim, makes your subconscious, if not conscious, racism blatantly obvious to all reasonable people. And if you think you speak for the silent majority, think again. Polling has found that 68 percent of the public recognise the comments as racist, including a clear majority of Tory voters whilst only 32 percent disagree. A majority think the Tories should give back the money. And a majority, even amongst Tory voters, believe Tory MPs have a problem with racism... www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/13/tories-should-return-frank-hester-donation-say-voters-pollSo keep on barking at the moon. None but your fellow racists are listening to your obvious bollocks |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 22, 2024 19:17:59 GMT
No I am predicting what the police should decide and how they should investigate. What they actually do will be heavily influenced by how much pressure is placed on them from above and as we know that usually has little to do with law and much to do with woke. It seems that you have already decided what the police should decide anyway by calling it 'clearly racist' as have many others as being racist, as an unacceptable point of view, is a matter of law not of opinion as there is no sliding scale of racism some things are either racist or they are not; what you want is to have your cake and eat by calling him racist whether he is found to be at odds with the law or not. The court of public opinion is a dangerous and intolerant place as it is full of the indignantly righteous. You are guilty of exactly what you have just accused me of in reverse, of wanting to have your cake and eat it by exonerating him of racism whether he is found to be one in law or not. I can well imagine how you would all be jumping up and down with glee and fake indignation if Jeremy Corbyn had said he hates the Israeli Prime Minister who is almost enough to make him hate all Jewish men. Even if he immediately followed that by saying that he does not actually hate all Jewish men you'd be condemning him as an antisemite for saying such a thing. You all know you would if you are capable of being honest with yourselves. And you would have a good point too. Your double standards on this, selective recognition of racism depending upon who is being racist and the colour of his victim, makes your subconscious, if not conscious, racism blatantly obvious to all reasonable people. And if you think you speak for the silent majority, think again. Polling has found that 68 percent of the public recognise the comments as racist, including a clear majority of Tory voters whilst only 32 percent disagree. A majority think the Tories should give back the money. And a majority, even amongst Tory voters, believe Tory MPs have a problem with racism... www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/13/tories-should-return-frank-hester-donation-say-voters-pollSo keep on barking at the moon. None but your fellow racists are listening to your obvious bollocks The irony. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 22, 2024 19:33:30 GMT
No I am predicting what the police should decide and how they should investigate. What they actually do will be heavily influenced by how much pressure is placed on them from above and as we know that usually has little to do with law and much to do with woke. It seems that you have already decided what the police should decide anyway by calling it 'clearly racist' as have many others as being racist, as an unacceptable point of view, is a matter of law not of opinion as there is no sliding scale of racism some things are either racist or they are not; what you want is to have your cake and eat by calling him racist whether he is found to be at odds with the law or not. The court of public opinion is a dangerous and intolerant place as it is full of the indignantly righteous. You are guilty of exactly what you have just accused me of in reverse, of wanting to have your cake and eat it by exonerating him of racism whether he is found to be one in law or not. I can well imagine how you would all be jumping up and down with glee and fake indignation if Jeremy Corbyn had said he hates the Israeli Prime Minister who is almost enough to make him hate all Jewish men. Even if he immediately followed that by saying that he does not actually hate all Jewish men you'd be condemning him as an antisemite for saying such a thing. You all know you would if you are capable of being honest with yourselves. And you would have a good point too. Your double standards on this, selective recognition of racism depending upon who is being racist and the colour of his victim, makes your subconscious, if not conscious, racism blatantly obvious to all reasonable people. And if you think you speak for the silent majority, think again. Polling has found that 68 percent of the public recognise the comments as racist, including a clear majority of Tory voters whilst only 32 percent disagree. A majority think the Tories should give back the money. And a majority, even amongst Tory voters, believe Tory MPs have a problem with racism... www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/13/tories-should-return-frank-hester-donation-say-voters-pollSo keep on barking at the moon. None but your fellow racists are listening to your obvious bollocks I have not exonerated him I have predicted what it should be and I have pointed out that 'racism', as something unacceptable, is a matter of law not of public opinion. It is you that has said he is acting illegally by being racist when that has not been tested in court. If JC said as you indicated above he would be indicating dislike of an individual as a pressure to hate all of a group but he was not going to so it would not be racist. As regards the poll on the comments that depends very much on whether the comments were reported accurately, which in the main they were not, and what reports those polled read. The Guardian initially reported; "The Conservative party’s biggest donor told colleagues that looking at Diane Abbott makes you “want to hate all black women” and said the MP “should be shot”, the Guardian can reveal." That seems to be basically it with no context or mitigation so is it a wonder people often get the wrong end of the stick. I think many of us have been saying this misquoting of people or quoting phrases out of context is wrong (and it was wrong when it was done against Corbyn) and this is a prime example. However the left seem to indulge in it with some alacrity and venom. |
|
