Enoch Powell's predictions continue to come true
Robert Henderson
Two newspaper stories in this posting. The first concerns what is
happening now. The second, what will happen in the future when the new
RRA is enacted.
Race legislation is incompatible with democracy or the concept of the
free society. But there is a subsidiary objection to it as it is
applied in Britain, namely our race legislation is only ever applied
against the white native population. (For example, no black or Asian
has ever been prosecuted under section 70 of the 1976 Act.) This is
precisely what Enoch Powell predicted in his 1968 "Rivers of Blood"
speech. Robert Henderson
Daily Telegraph London SATURDAY, MAY 27, 2000 3
Whispered racial abuse in library tussle over papers
By David Sapsted
A RETIRED academic who told a black councillor to "go back to country"
during a whispered row in a library has been convicted under new race
discrimination laws.
Robert Birchall, 69, believed that Mungai Mbaya, 60, had broken an
unwritten rule in Cambridge Central Library by having two newspapers
at once.
He ended up having a tug-of-war over the International Herald Tribune
with Kenyan-born Mr Mbaya, a Labour councillor, a former magistrate
and a British citizen.
Mr Birchall, a retired lecturer, claimed that he had merely been
rebuking Mr Mbaya. He was fined œ100 for the public order offence of
using racially threatening or abusive words.
"It's political correctness gone mad," he said afterwards. "I'm not a
racist and I wasn't being racist. I was brought up with people from
mixed races and have been around them all my life."
Mr Mbaya told Cambridge magistrates that he was about to return a copy
of the Cambridge Evening News to the rack and begin reading the
Tribune when Mr Birchall came up looking for a copy of it.
He said: "He suddenly grabbed the International Herald Tribune which I
resisted. I then said I wanted to read the International Herald
Tribune.
"I was very angry at this point and he still insisted on taking it. The
paper would have been torn up So I let him have it.
"He then said, 'Behave yourself and go back to your country where you
will behave.' I am a UK citizen. I don't have to go back to another
country."
Sara Payne, another library user, told the court that she had heard the
phrase "go back to your own country" during the row and was appalled.
"In the circumstances it was a racist remark. I went over and consoled
and commiserated with Mr Mbaya," she said.
Mr Birchall denied using the phrase but conceded: "I must admit to
being angry. I said it was not the custom in this country, whatever it
is in his country."
Graham Parkinson . the stipendiary magistrate, described it is as a sad
case that had cost the public purse a lot of money, but added: "There
are instances when that is necessary."
He told Mr Birchall: "This is obviously not one of the most serious
cases of this nature. This was a case of two people having an argument,
one person taking two newspapers and you feeling very strongly about
that.
"You went totally over the top and lost your temper. I think this was
intemperate behaviour. The fine would have been much higher if you had
a substantial income."
Mr Mbaya, a married father of three who came to Britain in 1971, said
after the case: "It is good to see these new laws being applied and
that black and ethnic communities are taken seriously by the courts."
Mr Birchall, who now lives in sheltered housing in Cambridge, later
confessed a previous offence. He was fined 10s 6d for riding his bike
on the pavement whilst an undergraduate at Emmanuel College in the
Fifties.
Daily Telegraph London SATURDAY, MAY 27, 2000 3
Whispered racial abuse in library tussle over papers
By David Sapsted
A RETIRED academic who told a black councillor to "go back to country"
during a whispered row in a library has been convicted under new race
discrimination laws.
Robert Birchall, 69, believed that Mungai Mbaya, 60, had broken an
unwritten rule in Cambridge Central Library by having two newspapers
at once.
He ended up having a tug-of-war over the International Herald Tribune
with Kenyan-born Mr Mbaya, a Labour councillor, a former magistrate
and a British citizen.
Mr Birchall, a retired lecturer, claimed that he had merely been
rebuking Mr Mbaya. He was fined œ100 for the public order offence of
using racially threatening or abusive words.
"It's political correctness gone mad," he said afterwards. "I'm not a
racist and I wasn't being racist. I was brought up with people from
mixed races and have been around them all my life."
Mr Mbaya told Cambridge magistrates that he was about to return a copy
of the Cambridge Evening News to the rack and begin reading the
Tribune when Mr Birchall came up looking for a copy of it.
He said: "He suddenly grabbed the International Herald Tribune which I
resisted. I then said I wanted to read the International Herald
Tribune.
"I was very angry at this point and he still insisted on taking it. The
paper would have been torn up So I let him have it.
"He then said, 'Behave yourself and go back to your country where you
will behave.' I am a UK citizen. I don't have to go back to another
country."
Sara Payne, another library user, told the court that she had heard the
phrase "go back to your own country" during the row and was appalled.
"In the circumstances it was a racist remark. I went over and consoled
and commiserated with Mr Mbaya," she said.
Mr Birchall denied using the phrase but conceded: "I must admit to
being angry. I said it was not the custom in this country, whatever it
is in his country."
Graham Parkinson . the stipendiary magistrate, described it is as a sad
case that had cost the public purse a lot of money, but added: "There
are instances when that is necessary."
He told Mr Birchall: "This is obviously not one of the most serious
cases of this nature. This was a case of two people having an argument,
one person taking two newspapers and you feeling very strongly about
that.
"You went totally over the top and lost your temper. I think this was
intemperate behaviour. The fine would have been much higher if you had
a substantial income."
Mr Mbaya, a married father of three who came to Britain in 1971, said
after the case: "It is good to see these new laws being applied and
that black and ethnic communities are taken seriously by the courts."
Mr Birchall, who now lives in sheltered housing in Cambridge, later
confessed a previous offence. He was fined 10s 6d for riding his bike
on the pavement whilst an undergraduate at Emmanuel College in the
Fifties.
--
Robert Henderson
David Swarbrick
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>legraph London SATURDAY, MAY 27, 2000 3
>
>Whispered racial abuse in library tussle over papers
>
>By David Sapsted
>
>A RETIRED academic who told a black councillor to "go back to country"
>during a whispered row in a library has been convicted under new race
>discrimination laws.
>"It's political correctness gone mad," he said afterwards. "I'm not a
>racist and I wasn't being racist. I was brought up with people from
>mixed races and have been around them all my life."
Sorry, he was being racist.
>
>Sara Payne, another library user, told the court that she had heard the
>phrase "go back to your own country" during the row and was appalled.
>
>"In the circumstances it was a racist remark. I went over and consoled
>and commiserated with Mr Mbaya," she said.
>
>Mr Birchall denied using the phrase but conceded: "I must admit to
>being angry. I said it was not the custom in this country, whatever it
>is in his country."
Well he wasn't believed.
>
>Graham Parkinson . the stipendiary magistrate, described it is as a sad
>case that had cost the public purse a lot of money, but added: "There
>are instances when that is necessary."
Seems sensible enough. He could, by his words, clearly have caused a
fight. He deserved to be fined.
--
David Swarbrick
Gaz
"David Swarbrick" <da...@swarb.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:r81voNAK...@swarb.freeuk.com...
>
> Sorry, he was being racist.
So what? If he called the bloke a 'miserable old bastard' would he of been
arrested?
PC nonsense.
> >
> >Sara Payne, another library user, told the court that she had heard the
> >phrase "go back to your own country" during the row and was appalled.
> >
> >"In the circumstances it was a racist remark. I went over and consoled
> >and commiserated with Mr Mbaya," she said.
> >
> >Mr Birchall denied using the phrase but conceded: "I must admit to
> >being angry. I said it was not the custom in this country, whatever it
> >is in his country."
>
> Well he wasn't believed.
When you are angry, you look for a weakness, if he was fat, he would be a
'fat bastard' if he wore glasses he would be a 'speccy twat', if it was a
women, she would be a 'silly bitch'
> >
> >Graham Parkinson . the stipendiary magistrate, described it is as a sad
> >case that had cost the public purse a lot of money, but added: "There
> >are instances when that is necessary."
>
> Seems sensible enough. He could, by his words, clearly have caused a
> fight. He deserved to be fined.
No, he deserved to be humiliated in the library, or a punch on the nose.
Gaz
> --
> David Swarbrick
Niall
>When you are angry, you look for a weakness, if he was fat, he would be a
>'fat bastard' if he wore glasses he would be a 'speccy twat', if it was a
>women, she would be a 'silly bitch'
I'm sure "silly bitch" will be next on the list of expressions to
be proscribed -- if you can prosecute for racism (real or imaginary)
sexism will no doubt be next. As for the other things you mention
(making fun of glasses, obesity etc.) they will probably never be
censured; in our society, as reflected in the popular media, it is
acceptable and even found amusing to ridicule the physical
appearance of others as long as this does not involve the magic taboos
or race, sex or physical disability. We can safely assume that actual
concern with protecting the feelings of others, or with upholding
standards of common civility, are not behind the UK's legal
restrictions on "racist" expression, because if they were there would
be no need to focus so single-mindedly on this one aspect of rude
behaviour which is far from being the most common variety. Instead,
it would seem that the agenda is instead political and aimed at
creating an atmosphere of division and distrust by assuming that
minorities need to be protected from even the casual remarks of the
native British population.
I must admit I feel very sorry for the English -- to a much
greater extent than people in other Western nations they have not only
been forced to downplay much of their identity in order to accommodate
newcomers but are now also being treated as strangers in their own
land by laws which assume the worst of them.
Niall
martin
The ethnic minorities laugh at people like you.
Do you think that when the ethnic minorities have taken over in this country, (as they
eventually will with the help of mugs like you), that they will bother about your rights
as a white man? When that day comes, you, and others who think like you, will learn a
lesson in ethnic solidarity from blacks, Asians, Muslims...
t
David Swarbrick <da...@swarb.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:r81voNAK...@swarb.freeuk.com...
> In article <VC8f8GA9XWM5Ew$5...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>, Robert Henderson
> <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
> >
> >legraph London SATURDAY, MAY 27, 2000 3
> >
> >Whispered racial abuse in library tussle over papers
> >
> >By David Sapsted
> >
> >A RETIRED academic who told a black councillor to "go back to country"
> >during a whispered row in a library has been convicted under new race
> >discrimination laws.
>
> >"It's political correctness gone mad," he said afterwards. "I'm not a
> >racist and I wasn't being racist. I was brought up with people from
> >mixed races and have been around them all my life."
>
> Sorry, he was being racist.
>
> >
> >Sara Payne, another library user, told the court that she had heard the
> >phrase "go back to your own country" during the row and was appalled.
> >
> >"In the circumstances it was a racist remark. I went over and consoled
> >and commiserated with Mr Mbaya," she said.
> >
> >Mr Birchall denied using the phrase but conceded: "I must admit to
> >being angry. I said it was not the custom in this country, whatever it
> >is in his country."
>
> Well he wasn't believed.
> >
> >Graham Parkinson . the stipendiary magistrate, described it is as a sad
> >case that had cost the public purse a lot of money, but added: "There
> >are instances when that is necessary."
>
> Seems sensible enough. He could, by his words, clearly have caused a
> fight. He deserved to be fined.
>
> --
> David Swarbrick
noo...@cwcom.net
wrote:
>You are a complete fool . A white liberal sucker of the first order.
>The ethnic minorities laugh at people like you.
>
>Do you think that when the ethnic minorities have taken over in this country, (as they
>eventually will with the help of mugs like you), that they will bother about your rights
>as a white man? When that day comes, you, and others who think like you, will learn a
>lesson in ethnic solidarity from blacks, Asians, Muslims...
Muslims aren't an ethnic minority, they aren't an ethnic anything,
they're members of a religion. Does your hatred blind you to the
simplest of facts or are you just stupid?
'Droid
Ethnicity also applies to religion. It just happens that currently it is being
used almost exclusively for race. Look it up in your dictionary.
'Droid
Jimbo
sensible without nit picking at every little thing?
Oh, and did you hear about this guy in the Outer Hebredes who... etc. etc.
It was a simple dispute that got out of hand, it could happen to anyone but
because you're a racist prick with an agenda, you feel you have to broadcast
your message of hate to everyone here. I know for a fact that many pubs are
less than civilised with moronic fights breaking out every other day, I
won't even mention football matches.
<noo...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:mf65js454l1nbl6b2...@4ax.com...
Jimbo
Jimbo
yvette
Posting your message twice or three times still doesn't make it correct. Or
have you still not mastered the technology here yet dumbo Jimbo.Your
message was incomprehensible gibberish the first time, and it still is the
second or third time.
Jimbo <douglas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8gubp7$ria$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
Jimbo <douglas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8gubp7$ria$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
yvette
Richard Miller
<Raym...@btinternet.com> writes
>You are a complete fool . A white liberal sucker of the first order.
>The ethnic minorities laugh at people like you.
>
>Do you think that when the ethnic minorities have taken over in this country,
>(as they
>eventually will with the help of mugs like you), that they will bother about
>your rights
>as a white man? When that day comes, you, and others who think like you, will
>learn a
>lesson in ethnic solidarity from blacks, Asians, Muslims...
Oh my God, it's all a plot by all those nasty blacks to take over the
country, how could I have been so blind.....
Or: You are the complete fool, and a racist one to boot.
--
Richard Miller
Daniel Toye
Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VC8f8GA9XWM5Ew$5...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>
> Two newspaper stories in this posting. The first concerns what is
> happening now. The second, what will happen in the future when the new
> RRA is enacted.
>
> Race legislation is incompatible with democracy or the concept of the
> free society. But there is a subsidiary objection to it as it is
> applied in Britain, namely our race legislation is only ever applied
> against the white native population. (For example, no black or Asian
> has ever been prosecuted under section 70 of the 1976 Act.) This is
> precisely what Enoch Powell predicted in his 1968 "Rivers of Blood"
> speech. Robert Henderson
>
> Daily Telegraph London SATURDAY, MAY 27, 2000 3
>
From what I've read I think the guy was hard done by. A better conviction
would be Breach of the Peace or something. People say things in arguments
that they probably shouldn't but the law doesn't (shouldn't?) treat this as
seriously as a premeditated act. For instance, if I call you an eejit in
the pub during an argument - it isn't slander. However, if I shout racial
abuse across the street - that's probably breach of race law.
:o)
Daniel
noo...@cwcom.net
wrote:
>noo...@cwcom.net wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 May 2000 15:12:08 +0100, "martin" <Raym...@btinternet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You are a complete fool . A white liberal sucker of the first order.
>> >The ethnic minorities laugh at people like you.
>> >
>> >Do you think that when the ethnic minorities have taken over in this country, (as they
>> >eventually will with the help of mugs like you), that they will bother about your rights
>> >as a white man? When that day comes, you, and others who think like you, will learn a
>> >lesson in ethnic solidarity from blacks, Asians, Muslims...
>>
>> Muslims aren't an ethnic minority, they aren't an ethnic anything,
>> they're members of a religion. Does your hatred blind you to the
>> simplest of facts or are you just stupid?
>
>Ethnicity also applies to religion. It just happens that currently it is being
>used almost exclusively for race. Look it up in your dictionary.
Only in so far as it implies that someone isn't Christian or Jewish.:
'...heathen, pagan, not Jewish nor Christian'
There are more than three religions in the world.
Cliff Morrison
<da...@swarb.freeuk.com> wrote:
> In article <VC8f8GA9XWM5Ew$5...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>, Robert Henderson
> <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
> >
> >legraph London SATURDAY, MAY 27, 2000 3
> >
> >Whispered racial abuse in library tussle over papers
> >
> >By David Sapsted
> >
> >A RETIRED academic who told a black councillor to "go back to country"
> >during a whispered row in a library has been convicted under new race
> >discrimination laws.
>
> >"It's political correctness gone mad," he said afterwards. "I'm not a
> >racist and I wasn't being racist. I was brought up with people from
> >mixed races and have been around them all my life."
>
> Sorry, he was being racist.
>
> >Sara Payne, another library user, told the court that she had heard the
> >phrase "go back to your own country" during the row and was appalled.
> >
> >"In the circumstances it was a racist remark. I went over and consoled
> >and commiserated with Mr Mbaya," she said.
Oh diddums. And is she an informer?
> >Mr Birchall denied using the phrase but conceded: "I must admit to
> >being angry. I said it was not the custom in this country, whatever it
> >is in his country."
>
> Well he wasn't believed.
> >
> >Graham Parkinson . the stipendiary magistrate, described it is as a sad
> >case that had cost the public purse a lot of money, but added: "There
> >are instances when that is necessary."
>
> Seems sensible enough. He could, by his words, clearly have caused a
> fight. He deserved to be fined.
*You* would say the same whatever the colour....
But would the present system actually do it?
Till the answer is generally perceived to be yes, such over-the-top
handling of incidents would just tend to make things worse not beter.
'Droid
The meaning has expanded somewhat these days.
'Droid
Robert Henderson
writes
>
>On Mon, 29 May 2000 10:51:31 +0100, "Gaz"
><gazterno...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>When you are angry, you look for a weakness, if he was fat, he would be a
>>'fat bastard' if he wore glasses he would be a 'speccy twat', if it was a
>>women, she would be a 'silly bitch'
>
>
> I'm sure "silly bitch" will be next on the list of expressions to
>be proscribed -- if you can prosecute for racism (real or imaginary)
>sexism will no doubt be next. As for the other things you mention
>(making fun of glasses, obesity etc.) they will probably never be
>censured; in our society, as reflected in the popular media, it is
>acceptable and even found amusing to ridicule the physical
>appearance of others as long as this does not involve the magic taboos
>or race, sex or physical disability. We can safely assume that actual
>concern with protecting the feelings of others, or with upholding
>standards of common civility, are not behind the UK's legal
>restrictions on "racist" expression, because if they were there would
>be no need to focus so single-mindedly on this one aspect of rude
>behaviour which is far from being the most common variety. Instead,
>it would seem that the agenda is instead political and aimed at
>creating an atmosphere of division and distrust by assuming that
>minorities need to be protected from even the casual remarks of the
>native British population.
>
>greater extent than people in other Western nations they have not only
>been forced to downplay much of their identity in order to accommodate
>newcomers but are now also being treated as strangers in their own
>land by laws which assume the worst of them.
>
>
by our own elite, who not merely deny us any political expression, but
actively disadvantage the English. If you are white in modern England
you are immediately at a practical disadvantage in any dispute with a
black or Asian. The merest accusation of racism by a black or Asian
against a white is treated as though it must be true, whilst gross
racism by blacks and Asians is utterly ignored (section 70 of the 1976
RRA has never been used against a black or Asian despite the fact that
even the supposedly mainstream ethnic papers such as the Voice grossly
breach it in every issue.) In the circumstances mentioned in the
newspaper story, can anyone imagine the black man being prosecuted for
calling the white man "Honkey" or "whitey" ?
This was what Powell was getting at when he quoted a constituent who
belived that "in twenty years the black man will have the whip hand."
>Niall
--
Robert Henderson
A. Little
noo...@cwcom.net writes
>On Mon, 29 May 2000 15:12:08 +0100, "martin" <Raym...@btinternet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>You are a complete fool . A white liberal sucker of the first order.
>>The ethnic minorities laugh at people like you.
>>
>>Do you think that when the ethnic minorities have taken over in this country,
>(as they
>>eventually will with the help of mugs like you), that they will bother about
>your rights
>>as a white man? When that day comes, you, and others who think like you, will
>learn a
>>lesson in ethnic solidarity from blacks, Asians, Muslims...
>
>Muslims aren't an ethnic minority, they aren't an ethnic anything,
>they're members of a religion. Does your hatred blind you to the
>simplest of facts or are you just stupid?
I think there is quite a lot of stupidity, and blindness, but not where
you apparently see it.
Once again, I wonder if the policeman concerned in this case could have
been a member of the Black Policeman's Association.
I know he could not be a member of the White Policeman's Association
because under race law, whites could not hope to maintain such an
institution.
Wake up.
The prejudice is not where you think it is.
--
A. Little
Larry@home
Richard Miller <Ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:K6A5e0Ak...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> >The ethnic minorities laugh at people like you.
> >
> >Do you think that when the ethnic minorities have taken over in this
country,
> >(as they
> >eventually will with the help of mugs like you), that they will bother
about
> >your rights
> >as a white man? When that day comes, you, and others who think like you,
will
> >learn a
> >lesson in ethnic solidarity from blacks, Asians, Muslims...
>
> country, how could I have been so blind.....
I don't recall anyone calling them nasty blacks, Have you a freudian take on
this?
>
> Or: You are the complete fool, and a racist one to boot.
So which one are you going with, Fool?
> --
> Richard Miller
Larry@home
Daniel Toye <d.t...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:AOBY4.3610$%02.7...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:VC8f8GA9XWM5Ew$5...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > happening now. The second, what will happen in the future when the new
> > RRA is enacted.
> >
> > Race legislation is incompatible with democracy or the concept of the
> > free society. But there is a subsidiary objection to it as it is
> > applied in Britain, namely our race legislation is only ever applied
> > against the white native population. (For example, no black or Asian
> > has ever been prosecuted under section 70 of the 1976 Act.) This is
> > precisely what Enoch Powell predicted in his 1968 "Rivers of Blood"
> > speech. Robert Henderson
> >
> > Daily Telegraph London SATURDAY, MAY 27, 2000 3
> >
>
> From what I've read I think the guy was hard done by. A better conviction
> would be Breach of the Peace or something. People say things in arguments
> that they probably shouldn't but the law doesn't (shouldn't?) treat this
as
> seriously as a premeditated act. For instance, if I call you an eejit in
> the pub during an argument - it isn't slander. However, if I shout racial
> abuse across the street - that's probably breach of race law.
What exactly is racial abuse supposed to be?
If I call you a white man, a black bastard, in the street, is that racial
abuse?
>
> :o)
> Daniel
>
>
Axel
>>Graham Parkinson . the stipendiary magistrate, described it is as a sad
>>case that had cost the public purse a lot of money, but added: "There
>>are instances when that is necessary."
> Seems sensible enough. He could, by his words, clearly have caused a
> fight. He deserved to be fined.
So if he had said, 'go back to your own seat' or 'go get your own
newspaper', both of which sound equally as likely to cause a fight as
his reported words, would he have deserved to have been fined?
martin
don't even hate white liberal suckers, actually, because I believe that
most of them will come round, eventually. Consider how well whites are
treated when they become a minority...
Blacks have turned against whites in Zimbabwe and in South Africa.
Blacks are responsible for about 90 per cent of between race crime in
the USA. (Please refer to the url
http://www.duke.org/library/race/racewar-sheehan.) In London, black on
white crime is hushed up, but is apparent if you read between the lines
of any local newspaper, and there have been 8 shootings in Birmingham
in the last fortnight. (Source "The Voice".)
There is 1000 years history of conflict between Christians and Muslims,
so wasn't it somewhat foolish of our political leaders to allow
2,000,000 Muslims to settle here? Why invite problems? And problems
there will surely be, as history testifies, and as does at the present
time Yugoslavia, Indonesia, and now even Fiji.
Meanwhile, the only way to keep a lid on it is to forbid the indigenous
population from even the smallest degree of dissent, so an elderly man
in a library is fined £100 for telling a black man to "go back to his
own country".
In article <mf65js454l1nbl6b2...@4ax.com>,
noo...@cwcom.net wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2000 15:12:08 +0100, "martin" <Raym...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You are a complete fool . A white liberal sucker of the first order.
> >The ethnic minorities laugh at people like you.
> >
> >Do you think that when the ethnic minorities have taken over in this
country, (as they
> >eventually will with the help of mugs like you), that they will
bother about your rights
> >as a white man? When that day comes, you, and others who think like
you, will learn a
> >lesson in ethnic solidarity from blacks, Asians, Muslims...
>
> Muslims aren't an ethnic minority, they aren't an ethnic anything,
> they're members of a religion. Does your hatred blind you to the
> simplest of facts or are you just stupid?
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jimbo
before it crashed. BTW, if you couldn't figure out the post, then it is you
who must be dumb. Sigh!
<yvette> wrote in message news:sj5f777...@corp.supernews.com...
> Quite what the outer hebrides has got to do with anything I do not Know!
> Posting your message twice or three times still doesn't make it correct.
Or
> have you still not mastered the technology here yet dumbo Jimbo.Your
> message was incomprehensible gibberish the first time, and it still is
the
> second or third time.
> Jimbo <douglas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8gubp7$ria$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> > He's probably just plain stupid. Why can't these idiots ever write
> anything
> > sensible without nit picking at every little thing?
> >
> > Oh, and did you hear about this guy in the Outer Hebredes who... etc.
etc.
> > It was a simple dispute that got out of hand, it could happen to anyone
> but
> > because you're a racist prick with an agenda, you feel you have to
> broadcast
> > your message of hate to everyone here. I know for a fact that many pubs
> are
> > less than civilised with moronic fights breaking out every other day, I
> > won't even mention football matches.
> >
> > <noo...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
> > news:mf65js454l1nbl6b2...@4ax.com...
> > > On Mon, 29 May 2000 15:12:08 +0100, "martin" <Raym...@btinternet.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >You are a complete fool . A white liberal sucker of the first order.
> > > >The ethnic minorities laugh at people like you.
> > > >
> > > >Do you think that when the ethnic minorities have taken over in this
> > country, (as they
> > > >eventually will with the help of mugs like you), that they will
bother
> > about your rights
> > > >as a white man? When that day comes, you, and others who think like
> you,
> > will learn a
> > > >lesson in ethnic solidarity from blacks, Asians, Muslims...
> > >
> > > Muslims aren't an ethnic minority, they aren't an ethnic anything,
> > > they're members of a religion. Does your hatred blind you to the
> > > simplest of facts or are you just stupid?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Jimbo <douglas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8gubp7$ria$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> > He's probably just plain stupid. Why can't these idiots ever write
> anything
> > sensible without nit picking at every little thing?
> >
> > Oh, and did you hear about this guy in the Outer Hebredes who... etc.
etc.
> > It was a simple dispute that got out of hand, it could happen to anyone
> but
> > because you're a racist prick with an agenda, you feel you have to
> broadcast
> > your message of hate to everyone here. I know for a fact that many pubs
> are
> > less than civilised with moronic fights breaking out every other day, I
> > won't even mention football matches.
> >
> > <noo...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
> > news:mf65js454l1nbl6b2...@4ax.com...
Steve
>
> Nothing I wrote remotely suggests hatred of blacks, Asians, Muslims. I
> don't even hate white liberal suckers, actually, because I believe that
> most of them will come round, eventually. Consider how well whites are
> treated when they become a minority...
>
> Blacks have turned against whites in Zimbabwe and in South Africa.
And I suppose when there was white rule in SA or Zimbabwe
everything was ok and nobody had any problems?
> Blacks are responsible for about 90 per cent of between race crime in
> the USA. (Please refer to the url
> http://www.duke.org/library/race/racewar-sheehan.) In London, black on
> white crime is hushed up, but is apparent if you read between the lines
> of any local newspaper, and there have been 8 shootings in Birmingham
> in the last fortnight. (Source "The Voice".)
Sorry don't seem to remember these being rascist shootings?
<big snip>
> Meanwhile, the only way to keep a lid on it is to forbid the indigenous
> population from even the smallest degree of dissent, so an elderly man
> in a library is fined £100 for telling a black man to "go back to his
> own country".
Good
Regards
Steve
Gaz
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > >On Mon,
I am wrong attributed with whats written below.
Gaz
Gaz
"Tim Martin" <t...@compunola.screaming.net> wrote in message
news:3933...@news.server.worldonline.co.uk...> news:VC8f8GA9XWM5Ew$5...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>
> > But there is a subsidiary objection to it as it is
> > applied in Britain, namely our race legislation is only ever applied
> > against the white native population.
>
> being arrested, called some policeman something like "white scum" and was
> charged with (I think) racially aggravated assault.
>
> And of course some black and brown people are racists. A black chap I
> worked with ( he's from London) recently described an incident where the
> Pakistani proprietor of an off-licence told him he did not accept credit
> cards or cheques. My colleague returned to his car where his wife, who is
> white, was waiting for him. She went in to the off-licence and purchased
> the items using their joint cheque book.
>
> Tim
But is this based on experience. I believe it is a shopkeepers right to
refuse to serve you for what ever reason he wants, and you have the right to
not use his business. If the shopkeeper had, through experience had dealt
with a lot of stolen ccard/cheques from black people then I can understand
him been wary.
If it happened to me or my wife, I wouldn't visit the shop again, and would,
at every opportunity warn people about how the place operates.
Gaz
Gaz
"Jimbo" <douglas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8gubp7$ria$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> He's probably just plain stupid. Why can't these idiots ever write
anything
> sensible without nit picking at every little thing?
>
Well, at least he didnt post the same message three times.
Gaz
Daniel Toye
Larry@home <la...@fsn.com> wrote in message
news:3933...@news.server.worldonline.co.uk...
>
> Daniel Toye <d.t...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:AOBY4.3610$%02.7...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
> > news:VC8f8GA9XWM5Ew$5...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > > happening now. The second, what will happen in the future when the
new
> > > RRA is enacted.
> > >
> > > Race legislation is incompatible with democracy or the concept of
the
is
> > > applied in Britain, namely our race legislation is only ever
applied
Asian
> > > has ever been prosecuted under section 70 of the 1976 Act.) This
is
> > > precisely what Enoch Powell predicted in his 1968 "Rivers of
Blood"
> > > speech. Robert Henderson
> > >
> > > Daily Telegraph London SATURDAY, MAY 27, 2000 3
> > >
> > > [newspaper story]
> >
> > From what I've read I think the guy was hard done by. A better
conviction
> > would be Breach of the Peace or something. People say things in
arguments
> > that they probably shouldn't but the law doesn't (shouldn't?) treat this
> as
> > seriously as a premeditated act. For instance, if I call you an eejit
in
> > the pub during an argument - it isn't slander. However, if I shout
racial
> > abuse across the street - that's probably breach of race law.
>
> What exactly is racial abuse supposed to be?
> If I call you a white man, a black bastard, in the street, is that racial
> abuse?
> >
Racial abuse probably, but again Breach of the Peace would be more accurate.
:o)
Daniel
martin
Judging by your post, I assume that you are a black person, and are in
favour of the present situation because your group are the
beneficiaries. I understand your point of view. Naturally, being black
yourself, you will support a political agenda which favours your group.
However, it is a terrible thing that whites should be cowed down and
intimidated (like the man in the library) in their own homelands. Us
whites have the same rights of national self determination as any other
indigenous population. After all, the blacks have Africa, the Chinese
China, and so on, and I believe that each ethnic group should organise
their societies as they think fit, without other groups interfering.
This principle should apply to white countries too.
A. Little
<t...@compunola.screaming.net> writes
>
>And of course some black and brown people are racists.
Oh, I love it.
--
A. Little
A. Little
Toye <d.t...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>
>From what I've read I think the guy was hard done by. A better conviction
>would be Breach of the Peace or something. People say things in arguments
>that they probably shouldn't but the law doesn't (shouldn't?) treat this as
>seriously as a premeditated act. For instance, if I call you an eejit in
>the pub during an argument - it isn't slander. However, if I shout racial
>abuse across the street - that's probably breach of race law.
Nice to see common sense and the real crux identified.
Being a Midlander for most of my early life, I commonly called people me
dear, or me duck, whether male or female. It is an expression in common
use up there, and for centuries past.
Nottingham City(?) Council at Radcliffe, spent a considerable amount of
taxpayer money explaining to its employees that such phrases were sexist
and demeaning.
They took this sufficiently seriously as to require staff to report any
offenders, and if outside contractors were found to be using such
expressions they could easily and quickly find their livelihood at risk.
Sexist? Only because an idiot says so.
Now this guy has a criminal conviction against him, and a librarian got
to pip her hooter a moment too soon. You can imagine her chest swelling
as she filled with righteous indignation.
I suspect the victim, suffering as he must, from his humiliation, will
require counselling.
I don't mind paying for that, as well as the court case.
We can recover those costs from his injuries payout when he takes his
compensation claim back to court.
Racist? No, I don't believe it.
Nothing more than an obvious reaction to someone who is obviously
different. I don't doubt that it was intended to cause offence.
That is what people do in arguments.
Racist? To a prat.
A good chum of mine in those distant days was known as the big black bog
rat.
He was big, he was black. But the untruthful bit at the end is perhaps
the only safe part of the epithet now?
--
A. Little
Robert Henderson
<t...@compunola.screaming.net> writes
>
>news:VC8f8GA9XWM5Ew$5...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>
>> applied in Britain, namely our race legislation is only ever applied
>> against the white native population.
>
>being arrested, called some policeman something like "white scum" and was
>charged with (I think) racially aggravated assault.
>
>worked with ( he's from London) recently described an incident where the
>Pakistani proprietor of an off-licence told him he did not accept credit
>cards or cheques. My colleague returned to his car where his wife, who is
>white, was waiting for him. She went in to the off-licence and purchased
>the items using their joint cheque book.
>
>Tim
>
>
>
>
--
Robert Henderson
Sunil
On Mon, 29 May 2000, 'Droid wrote:
> noo...@cwcom.net wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 29 May 2000 18:30:47 +0100, 'Droid <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >noo...@cwcom.net wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, 29 May 2000 15:12:08 +0100, "martin" <Raym...@btinternet.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >You are a complete fool . A white liberal sucker of the first order.
> > >> >The ethnic minorities laugh at people like you.
> > >> >
> > >> >Do you think that when the ethnic minorities have taken over in this country, (as they
> > >> >eventually will with the help of mugs like you), that they will bother about your rights
> > >> >as a white man? When that day comes, you, and others who think like you, will learn a
> > >> >lesson in ethnic solidarity from blacks, Asians, Muslims...
> > >>
> > >> Muslims aren't an ethnic minority, they aren't an ethnic anything,
> > >> they're members of a religion. Does your hatred blind you to the
> > >> simplest of facts or are you just stupid?
> > >
> > >Ethnicity also applies to religion. It just happens that currently it is being
> > >used almost exclusively for race. Look it up in your dictionary.
> >
> > Only in so far as it implies that someone isn't Christian or Jewish.:
> >
> > '...heathen, pagan, not Jewish nor Christian'
> >
> > There are more than three religions in the world.
>
> The meaning has expanded somewhat these days.
>
> 'Droid
Disagree. One can't help one's ethnicity (because that is down to
genetics) - but 'religion', like political beliefs, is another matter.
Sunil
--
Yep, I'm an atheist.
Robert Henderson
<Fra...@theedges.demon.co.uk> writes
>Nothing more than an obvious reaction to someone who is obviously
>different. I don't doubt that it was intended to cause offence.
>That is what people do in arguments.
>
>Racist? To a prat.
>
>A good chum of mine in those distant days was known as the big black bog
>rat.
>
>He was big, he was black. But the untruthful bit at the end is perhaps
>the only safe part of the epithet now?
>
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
100...@biochem.bc.ic.ac.uk>, Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
This is manifestly untrue. Most ethnic conflicts now and in the past
have been between people of similar genetic background, ie race. If
Ethnicity was only a matter of genetics, one would not have "ethnic
Albanians", "ethnic Croats", "ethnic Serbs" etc. Racial difference can
be part of ethnicity but it is not a necessary condition for ethnic
identification. RH
>- but 'religion', like political beliefs, is another matter.
>
>Sunil
>--
>Yep, I'm an atheist.
>
--
Robert Henderson
Steve
>
>
> Judging by your post, I assume that you are a black person,
Assumption is the mother of all ? :)
No i'm white as it happens - I have a black wife and
mixed race daughter that I would dearly like to see
grow up in a tolerant and peaceful society.
> However, it is a terrible thing that whites should be cowed down and
> intimidated (like the man in the library) in their own homelands.
Wasn't intimidated - he just broke the law - simple as that.
It's a terrible thing to have to cow down to anyone be you
white/black. Unfortunately some black people have been and still
are forced to do this. It's a terrible thing to be told to
"go back to your own country" when it is in fact your own country.
If I had a pound for every time i'd heard somebody shout that or
make similar comments to the missus - i'd be a rich man!
> After all, the blacks have Africa, the Chinese
> China, and so on, and I believe that each ethnic group should
> organise their societies as they think fit, without other groups > interfering.
Unfortunately history suggests otherwise!
Regards
Steve
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>Nothing I wrote remotely suggests hatred of blacks, Asians, Muslims. I
>don't even hate white liberal suckers, actually, because I believe that
>most of them will come round, eventually.
Dream on - just 1 or 2% in elections should say *something* to you!
>Consider how well whites are
>treated when they become a minority...
You're delusional if you think that's likely in the UK!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
'Droid
It's not a matter of whether you agree: it's a matter of definition.
'Droid
Rich Egan
>
> Whispered racial abuse in library tussle over papers
>
> By David Sapsted
>
> A RETIRED academic who told a black councillor to "go back to country"
> during a whispered row in a library has been convicted under new race
> discrimination laws.
Was that like "Get back to your banana tree Nigger!"?
>
> Robert Birchall, 69, believed that Mungai Mbaya, 60, had broken an
> unwritten rule in Cambridge Central Library by having two newspapers
> at once.
Mungai Mbaya ??? thats a real English name , isn't it ?
>
> He ended up having a tug-of-war over the International Herald Tribune
> with Kenyan-born Mr Mbaya, a Labour councillor, a former magistrate
> and a British citizen.
>
> Mr Birchall, a retired lecturer, claimed that he had merely been
> rebuking Mr Mbaya. He was fined o100 for the public order offence of
> using racially threatening or abusive words.
>
> "It's political correctness gone mad," he said afterwards. "I'm not a
> racist and I wasn't being racist. I was brought up with people from
> mixed races and have been around them all my life."
Too Bad , Now you know what you were enabling , but
didn't realize it at the time.
>
> Mr Mbaya told Cambridge magistrates that he was about to return a copy
> of the Cambridge Evening News to the rack and begin reading the
> Tribune when Mr Birchall came up looking for a copy of it.
So why did ole Mungai have two papers anyway ?
>
> He said: "He suddenly grabbed the International Herald Tribune which I
> resisted. I then said I wanted to read the International Herald
> Tribune.
>
> "I was very angry at this point and he still insisted on taking it. The
> paper would have been torn up So I let him have it.
>
> "He then said, 'Behave yourself and go back to your country where you
> will behave.' I am a UK citizen. I don't have to go back to another
> country."
Regrettably that's probably true . It should be changed
>
> Sara Payne, another library user, told the court that she had heard the
> phrase "go back to your own country" during the row and was appalled.
Well! Isn't she special for being appalled at a racist remark !
>
> "In the circumstances it was a racist remark. I went over and consoled
> and commiserated with Mr Mbaya," she said.
Was she really lusting after his beautiful black body too?
>
> Mr Birchall denied using the phrase but conceded: "I must admit to
> being angry. I said it was not the custom in this country, whatever it
> is in his country."
That lie didn't save you the fine though did it ? You
should have told the truth and said proudly that you
did tell the nigger to go back to where he came from
and take all his little niggers with him as no one wants
them here. But no! You tried to lie your way out.
>
> Graham Parkinson . the stipendiary magistrate, described it is as a sad
> case that had cost the public purse a lot of money, but added: "There
> are instances when that is necessary."
And surely this is not one of them.
>
> He told Mr Birchall: "This is obviously not one of the most serious
> cases of this nature. This was a case of two people having an argument,
> one person taking two newspapers and you feeling very strongly about
> that.
>
> "You went totally over the top and lost your temper. I think this was
> intemperate behaviour. The fine would have been much higher if you had
> a substantial income."
Oh ?? Incomes , not offenses, determines fines ? I'd
appeal on that remark alone.
>
> Mr Mbaya, a married father of three who came to Britain in 1971, said
> after the case: "It is good to see these new laws being applied and
> that black and ethnic communities are taken seriously by the courts."
Which translates to we're here and we're staying and if
you whites don't like it , Tough Shit !
>
> Mr Birchall, who now lives in sheltered housing in Cambridge, later
> confessed a previous offence. He was fined 10s 6d for riding his bike
> on the pavement whilst an undergraduate at Emmanuel College in the
> Fifties.
Clearly a serial criminal !!!!! Hang him !!!
Rich
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Rich Egan
> In article <393247d...@news.supercity.ns.ca>, Niall <gr...@dhe.ort>
> >
> That is exactly right. We are in the absurd situation of being oppressed
> by our own elite, who not merely deny us any political expression, but
> actively disadvantage the English. If you are white in modern England
> you are immediately at a practical disadvantage in any dispute with a
> black or Asian. The merest accusation of racism by a black or Asian
> against a white is treated as though it must be true, whilst gross
This is true in America as well . It's slowly changing as
moreand more people point out the discrepancy . Then
there are people like me who just don't give a damn and
say what we want . a relative of mine once had a problem
with one on the road . He followed him into a parkinhg lot
and told him he'd run him off the road if he ever did it to
him again .The black guy never expected the white to do
this and was quite shocked by it .
> racism by blacks and Asians is utterly ignored (section 70 of the 1976
> RRA has never been used against a black or Asian despite the fact that
> even the supposedly mainstream ethnic papers such as the Voice grossly
> breach it in every issue.) In the circumstances mentioned in the
> newspaper story, can anyone imagine the black man being prosecuted for
> calling the white man "Honkey" or "whitey" ?
Don't bother prosecuting him . Just go break a bottle over his head.
A little doggerel , Proffessor ;
Black is beautiful , Tan is grand
But White is the color of the real boss man !
Don't abdicate ! Remain the real "Boss" Man!
> This was what Powell was getting at when he quoted a constituent who
> belived that "in twenty years the black man will have the whip hand."
> >Niall
OK , so they lay a whip on you now and then , If you
can take a few 100 LBS fines, thats the worst they can do.
Keep the pressure on them. When I hear this stuff , I think
of my children and their fear of Bees and wasps . They weigh
more than a thousand times the bee , they can kill, the bee
with ease and yet they fear the little stinger that will kill the
bee to use it. Never fear that stinger. fear the swatter!
Rich
Sic Semper Tyrannis
>
> --
> Robert Henderson
Gaz
"Steve" <sjd...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3933EE...@yahoo.co.uk...
> martin wrote:
> >
> >
> "go back to your own country" when it is in fact your own country.
> If I had a pound for every time i'd heard somebody shout that or
> make similar comments to the missus - i'd be a rich man!
But the man in the library was an immigrant, it is reasonable to suggest
that this wasnt 'his' own country.
Gaz
noo...@cwcom.net
wrote:
>noo...@cwcom.net wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 May 2000 18:30:47 +0100, 'Droid <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >noo...@cwcom.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 29 May 2000 15:12:08 +0100, "martin" <Raym...@btinternet.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >You are a complete fool . A white liberal sucker of the first order.
>> >> >The ethnic minorities laugh at people like you.
>> >> >
>> >> >Do you think that when the ethnic minorities have taken over in this country, (as they
>> >> >eventually will with the help of mugs like you), that they will bother about your rights
>> >> >as a white man? When that day comes, you, and others who think like you, will learn a
>> >> >lesson in ethnic solidarity from blacks, Asians, Muslims...
>> >>
>> >> Muslims aren't an ethnic minority, they aren't an ethnic anything,
>> >> they're members of a religion. Does your hatred blind you to the
>> >> simplest of facts or are you just stupid?
>> >
>> >Ethnicity also applies to religion. It just happens that currently it is being
>> >used almost exclusively for race. Look it up in your dictionary.
>>
>> Only in so far as it implies that someone isn't Christian or Jewish.:
>>
>> '...heathen, pagan, not Jewish nor Christian'
>>
>> There are more than three religions in the world.
>
>The meaning has expanded somewhat these days.
What's the point of telling me to look it up in my dictionary if
you're going to disagree with what my dictionary says?
Richard Miller
writes
>Judging by your post, I assume that you are a black person,
What, because he condemns what he sees as racism, both in the case
quoted and in your posts?
Well so do I, and I am of good Aryan stock - white anglo-saxon
protestant, middle class, able bodied, a member of none of the run of
the mill minorities.
And I despise discrimination. I loathe racists like you. The likes of
thee and me will never in our lives suffer the sort of prejudice,
disadvantages and hatred that others suffer simply because of what they
are. The casual racism that means a law abiding middle aged man gets
stopped in his car every week because he is black. The homophobia which
leads a warped mind to think nail bombs are OK, and too bad that we
happen to kill members of a wedding party. The sexism which means that
only a tiny proportion of people in positions of power and influence are
women, and makes those who do hold those positions believe it is because
there are no women of merit who deserve to hold those positions despite
the fact that many very mediocre men do so.
And if for a time we have to have some reverse discrimination to try to
right some of the imbalances in power here, then so be it. It is a small
price to pay for the injustices which have been done in my name for so
long.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
Toye <d.t...@ntlworld.com> writes
>From what I've read I think the guy was hard done by. A better conviction
>would be Breach of the Peace or something. People say things in arguments
>that they probably shouldn't but the law doesn't (shouldn't?) treat this as
>seriously as a premeditated act. For instance, if I call you an eejit in
>the pub during an argument - it isn't slander. However, if I shout racial
>abuse across the street - that's probably breach of race law.
I think I get your point. In an argument with a black man, many white
people would use the phrase "black bastard" in the same was as if he was
obese they would say "fat bastard", or if thin they would say "skinny
runt" or whatever. It's not right, but in the heat of the moment it
happens.
But "Get back to your own country" is of a different order of magnitude.
It is a calculated comment which taps into an underlying belief that the
person has no right to be in this country because their skin is a
different colour.
So I do think this particular conviction was correct.
--
Richard Miller
'Droid
Your dictionary gives the definition my 1901 edition does. My modern dictionary
gives a much broader definition. Is yours a pocket dictionary by any chance?
'Droid
'Droid
> And if for a time we have to have some reverse discrimination to try to
> right some of the imbalances in power here, then so be it. It is a small
> price to pay for the injustices which have been done in my name for so
> long.
If discrimination on the basis of race alone is wrong (which I believe it is),
then it is cannot be reversed, even with the best of intentions. Discriminating
against whites is just as bad as against blacks.
'Droid
Steve
>
> "Steve" <sjd...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3933EE...@yahoo.co.uk...
> > martin wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > "go back to your own country" when it is in fact your own country.
> > If I had a pound for every time i'd heard somebody shout that or
> > make similar comments to the missus - i'd be a rich man!
>
> But the man in the library was an immigrant, it is reasonable to suggest
> that this wasnt 'his' own country.
>
> Gaz
Not that it matters much but the man in the library was
a British Citizen "Kenyan-born Mr Mbaya, a Labour councillor, a
former magistrate and a British citizen." "Mr Mbaya,a married father of
three who came to Britain in 1971"
After that length of time I would expect that he would consider this
as his home!
Regards
Steve
Steve
>
<BIG SNIP of BNP Members rant>
> Rich
> Sic Semper Tyrannis
Oh it is good to see ignorant people can
still use a computer.....not!
Regards
Steve
pencil
long" are your business, don't expect the rest of us to pay for them.
Steve
>
> In article <8h06i6$10e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, martin <mart...@my-deja.com>
> writes
> >Judging by your post, I assume that you are a black person,
>
> What, because he condemns what he sees as racism, both in the case
> quoted and in your posts?
>
> Well so do I, and I am of good Aryan stock - white anglo-saxon
> protestant, middle class, able bodied, a member of none of the run of
> the mill minorities.
>
> And I despise discrimination. I loathe racists like you. The likes of
> thee and me will never in our lives suffer the sort of prejudice,
> disadvantages and hatred that others suffer simply because of what they
> are. The casual racism that means a law abiding middle aged man gets
> stopped in his car every week because he is black. The homophobia which
> leads a warped mind to think nail bombs are OK, and too bad that we
> happen to kill members of a wedding party. The sexism which means that
> only a tiny proportion of people in positions of power and influence are
> women, and makes those who do hold those positions believe it is because
> there are no women of merit who deserve to hold those positions despite
> the fact that many very mediocre men do so.
>
> right some of the imbalances in power here, then so be it. It is a small
> price to pay for the injustices which have been done in my name for so
> long.
> Richard Miller
Nice One - my sentiments exactly see my earlier post.
Regards
Steve
Robin
>dear, or me duck, whether male or female. It is an expression in common
>use up there, and for centuries past.
When I first moved to Leicester, some 28 years ago, I thought the place
was full of homosexuals as being a southerner I'd never been called
'duck' by another man!
--
Robin
Robin
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
>You need the details to make this claim stand up. RH
In Peterborough, around two months ago, an Asian man was convicted of
racially aggravated criminal damage. You can find the details out by
contacting the Peterborough Evening Telegraph.
I'm sure such cases are not unique, regardless of your views.
--
Robin
Robert Henderson
writes
>martin wrote:
>>
>>
>> Judging by your post, I assume that you are a black person,
>
>
>No i'm white as it happens - I have a black wife and
>mixed race daughter that I would dearly like to see
>grow up in a tolerant and peaceful society.
>
>> intimidated (like the man in the library) in their own homelands.
>
>Wasn't intimidated - he just broke the law - simple as that.
>It's a terrible thing to have to cow down to anyone be you
>white/black. Unfortunately some black people have been and still
>are forced to do this. It's a terrible thing to be told to
>If I had a pound for every time i'd heard somebody shout that or
>make similar comments to the missus - i'd be a rich man!
>
>> China, and so on, and I believe that each ethnic group should
>> organise their societies as they think fit, without other groups >
>interfering.
>
>Unfortunately history suggests otherwise!
>
>
>Regards
>
>
>
>Steve
--
Robert Henderson
Richard Miller
<rich...@mindspring.com> writes
>Mungai Mbaya ??? thats a real English name , isn't it ?
Like Portillo?
--
Richard Miller
David Leventine
pah...@activist.demon.co.uk says...
> >Consider how well whites are
> >treated when they become a minority...
>
> You're delusional if you think that's likely in the UK!
>
of becoming a minority, it is simply a matter of time and demographics,
different races currently having different birth rates and family sizes.
David
David Leventine
> Not that it matters much but the man in the library was
> a British Citizen "Kenyan-born Mr Mbaya, a Labour councillor, a
> former magistrate and a British citizen." "Mr Mbaya,a married father of
> three who came to Britain in 1971"
>
> After that length of time I would expect that he would consider this
> as his home!
>
>
Britain as home. Home is a matter of personal preference, not length of
time spent in any one place.
David
David Leventine
Ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk says...
> I think I get your point. In an argument with a black man, many white
> people would use the phrase "black bastard" in the same was as if he was
> obese they would say "fat bastard", or if thin they would say "skinny
> runt" or whatever. It's not right, but in the heat of the moment it
> happens.
>
> But "Get back to your own country" is of a different order of magnitude.
> It is a calculated comment which taps into an underlying belief that the
> person has no right to be in this country because their skin is a
> different colour.
>
> So I do think this particular conviction was correct.
>
I think I might prefer to be essentially told to clear off, rather than
have aspersions cast on my mother's character! What odd opinions these
racially sensitive people hold!
But you are missing the point of all this. These ludicrous laws destroy
freedom of speech and cause more resentment and aggravation when they are
applied and people see them as grossly unfair. They will serve to drive
that resentment underground where it will fester and grow into real race
hatred, and when that boils over we will see the result of laws which
attempt to control the way people act, speak and think, and remember that
ultimately this is the aim of these laws, to control our very thoughts.
David
Cliff Morrison
<Ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> And if for a time we have to have some reverse discrimination to try to
> right some of the imbalances in power here, then so be it. It is a small
> price to pay for the injustices which have been done in my name for so
> long.
In *your* name -- yet the people *you* would comparatively disadvantage in
order to salve *your* conscience for whatever injustices *you* or those
similarly of the *ruling strata* (which like you they must be, in order
for your comments to make any sense at all) reckon to have inflicted on
others, are innocent parties who were themselves persecuted, oppressed,
exploited and deprived. In other words, you invoke some sort of collective
racial guilt such as to project *your* guilt onto a different sector of
*your* victims. It isn't people like *you* that would be reverse
discriminated against, would be forced to pay the price -- oh no. It never
is....
Sorry, but imho you're just a typically self aggrandising
political-correcter hypocrite.
Steve
>
> ultimately this is the aim of these laws, to control our very > thoughts.
>
> David
No the aims of these laws are to stop people being racially
abusive - it's that simple! IMHO if people think that it's
"grossly unfair" that they are restrained from abusing people
based on the colour of skin then it's a sad reflection on our
country..
Regards
Steve
Axel
> And I despise discrimination. I loathe racists like you. The likes of
> thee and me will never in our lives suffer the sort of prejudice,
> disadvantages and hatred that others suffer simply because of what they
> are. The casual racism that means a law abiding middle aged man gets
> stopped in his car every week because he is black. The homophobia which
> leads a warped mind to think nail bombs are OK, and too bad that we
> happen to kill members of a wedding party.
You don't know that. Crimes are often been committed in which white victims
are singled out.
This is more prevalent in America but white victims of crimes which were
committed because they were white (e.g. when a gang has deliberately
gone out to seek a white victim to rape and kill) are rarely given
much attention in the media.
There was much outrage over burnings of black churches... many of the
churches which have been burnt over the years have had predominantly
white congregations. Racial motives were automatically assumed in the
black church burnings.
> The sexism which means that
> only a tiny proportion of people in positions of power and influence are
> women, and makes those who do hold those positions believe it is because
> there are no women of merit who deserve to hold those positions despite
> the fact that many very mediocre men do so.
Why should not mediocre people also be entitled to positions of power
and influence?
> And if for a time we have to have some reverse discrimination to try to
> right some of the imbalances in power here, then so be it. It is a small
> price to pay for the injustices which have been done in my name for so
> long.
And cause injustices now to specific individuals?
There will always be an imbalance of power. Some will have it and some
will not.
The only way to give everyone an equal chance of power would be to
distribute it by a random process (as did the Greeks once).
Would you have any objection to such a process?
As an aside, if people had to opt-in to have the chance of winning, there
might well be significant differences in the percentages of different
social, ethnic and geographical groups participated.
Gaz
"David Leventine" <davidle...@webtribe.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.139e58608...@news.netkonect.co.uk...
It would take an awful long time 95% of pop white.
Gaz
Gaz
"Richard Miller" <Ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8ICKCcBU...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
>
> quoted and in your posts?
>
> Well so do I, and I am of good Aryan stock - white anglo-saxon
> protestant, middle class, able bodied, a member of none of the run of
> the mill minorities.
>
> thee and me will never in our lives suffer the sort of prejudice,
> disadvantages and hatred that others suffer simply because of what they
> are. The casual racism that means a law abiding middle aged man gets
> stopped in his car every week because he is black. The homophobia which
> leads a warped mind to think nail bombs are OK, and too bad that we
> only a tiny proportion of people in positions of power and influence are
> women, and makes those who do hold those positions believe it is because
> there are no women of merit who deserve to hold those positions despite
> the fact that many very mediocre men do so.
>
> right some of the imbalances in power here, then so be it. It is a small
> price to pay for the injustices which have been done in my name for so
> long.
> Richard Miller
You don't believe in discrimination, but you wish to discriminate?
Gaz
Steve Glynn
"martin" <Raym...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:8gtvd9$3r1$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> You are a complete fool . A white liberal sucker of the first order.
> The ethnic minorities laugh at people like you.
>
> Do you think that when the ethnic minorities have taken over in this
country, (as they
> eventually will with the help of mugs like you), that they will bother
about your rights
> as a white man? When that day comes, you, and others who think like you,
will learn a
> lesson in ethnic solidarity from blacks, Asians, Muslims...
>
>
> David Swarbrick <da...@swarb.freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:r81voNAK...@swarb.freeuk.com...
> > In article <VC8f8GA9XWM5Ew$5...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>, Robert Henderson
> > <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
> > >
> > >legraph London SATURDAY, MAY 27, 2000 3
> > >
> > >Whispered racial abuse in library tussle over papers
> > >
> > >By David Sapsted
> > >
> > >A RETIRED academic who told a black councillor to "go back to country"
> > >during a whispered row in a library has been convicted under new race
> > >discrimination laws.
> >
> > >racist and I wasn't being racist. I was brought up with people from
> > >mixed races and have been around them all my life."
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Sara Payne, another library user, told the court that she had heard the
> > >phrase "go back to your own country" during the row and was appalled.
> > >
> > >and commiserated with Mr Mbaya," she said.
> > >
> > >being angry. I said it was not the custom in this country, whatever it
> > >is in his country."
> >
> > >
> > >Graham Parkinson . the stipendiary magistrate, described it is as a sad
> > >case that had cost the public purse a lot of money, but added: "There
> > >are instances when that is necessary."
> >
> > fight. He deserved to be fined.
> >
> > --
> > David Swarbrick
>
Martin,
I'm sure you're right about what 'the ethnic minorities ' think, but, out of
interest, how do you know? I'd guess from the tone of your posts you don't
do much socialising with them ...
Steve
Steve
Well then maybe it was his personal preference after all he
was a British citizen and didn't seem to appreciate the
suggestion.
Regards
Steve
Larry@home
> In article <AOBY4.3610$%02.7...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Daniel
> Toye <d.t...@ntlworld.com> writes
> >From what I've read I think the guy was hard done by. A better
conviction
> >would be Breach of the Peace or something. People say things in
arguments
> >that they probably shouldn't but the law doesn't (shouldn't?) treat this
as
> >seriously as a premeditated act. For instance, if I call you an eejit in
> >the pub during an argument - it isn't slander. However, if I shout
racial
> >abuse across the street - that's probably breach of race law.
>
> people would use the phrase "black bastard" in the same was as if he was
> obese they would say "fat bastard", or if thin they would say "skinny
> runt" or whatever. It's not right, but in the heat of the moment it
> happens.
>
> But "Get back to your own country" is of a different order of magnitude.
> It is a calculated comment which taps into an underlying belief that the
> person has no right to be in this country because their skin is a
> different colour.
>
> So I do think this particular conviction was correct.
This of course depends entirely on whether or not you consider the "Race
Relations Act" to be a genuine and necessary law.
If the Black man is equal to the White man, then a racial equality law is
not necessary, however if a Black Man is NOT equal to a White Man, and you
think he should be, then you enact a Race relations Act.
Race Relations OXYMORON of the first magnitude.
> --
> Richard Miller
Larry@home
Robin <Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote in message
news:$gGAlMAa...@droom.demon.co.uk...
> In article <y9JmjDAo...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>, Robert Henderson
> <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
> >You need the details to make this claim stand up. RH
>
> In Peterborough, around two months ago, an Asian man was convicted of
> racially aggravated criminal damage. You can find the details out by
> contacting the Peterborough Evening Telegraph.
>
> I'm sure such cases are not unique, regardless of your views.
Yes, but if it had been a white man who was so convicted, it would have made
the national dailies and the main evening news on all the channels and we
would have had a discourse by some learned Liberal Bigot deploring it all.
>
> --
> Robin
Steve
>
>
> This of course depends entirely on whether or not you consider the "Race
> Relations Act" to be a genuine and necessary law.
> If the Black man is equal to the White man, then a racial equality law is
> not necessary, however if a Black Man is NOT equal to a White Man
It's not a case of whether or not they are equal which they
obviously are but whether or not they are treated equally.
The framework was put in place because it was neccesary -
maybe you don't feel so but there again it wasn't put in
place for your benefit and you are unlikely ever to need it.
Regards
Steve
Tim Martin
"Richard Miller" <Ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7owLqoBe...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
>
> It is a calculated comment which taps into an underlying belief that the
> person has no right to be in this country because their skin is a
> different colour.
>
You don't think it's because the speaker knew the other was from Kenya?
The comment seems akin to saying "Go home Yank".
But as I try to eliminate racial prejudices from my thinking, I can't see
than it's any worse to use those words to a black person than to a white
person.
I am left with the conclusion that the Race Relations Act makes it illegal
to suggest to people that they return to their country of origin; which
must make it rather awkward for immigration officials to refuse people entry
to the UK ...
Tim
Robert Henderson
<nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
>Sunil wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 May 2000, 'Droid wrote:
>>
>> > noo...@cwcom.net wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, 29 May 2000 18:30:47 +0100, 'Droid <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >noo...@cwcom.net wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Mon, 29 May 2000 15:12:08 +0100, "martin" <Raym...@btinternet.com>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >The ethnic minorities laugh at people like you.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >Do you think that when the ethnic minorities have taken over in this
>country, (as they
>> > > >> >eventually will with the help of mugs like you), that they will bother
>about your rights
>> > > >> >as a white man? When that day comes, you, and others who think like
>you, will learn a
>> > > >> >lesson in ethnic solidarity from blacks, Asians, Muslims...
>> > > >>
>> > > >> they're members of a religion. Does your hatred blind you to the
>> > > >> simplest of facts or are you just stupid?
>> > > >
>> > > >Ethnicity also applies to religion. It just happens that currently it is
>being
>> > > >used almost exclusively for race. Look it up in your dictionary.
>> > >
>> > > Only in so far as it implies that someone isn't Christian or Jewish.:
>> > >
>> > > '...heathen, pagan, not Jewish nor Christian'
>> > >
>> > > There are more than three religions in the world.
>> >
>> > The meaning has expanded somewhat these days.
>> >
>>
>> Disagree. One can't help one's ethnicity (because that is down to
>> genetics) - but 'religion', like political beliefs, is another matter.
>
>It's not a matter of whether you agree: it's a matter of definition.
>
>'Droid
Definitions, Droid, are matters of debate. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
Leventine <davidle...@webtribe.net> writes
>In article <39343D...@yahoo.co.uk>, sjd...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>> Not that it matters much but the man in the library was
>> a British Citizen "Kenyan-born Mr Mbaya, a Labour councillor, a
>> former magistrate and a British citizen." "Mr Mbaya,a married father of
>> three who came to Britain in 1971"
>>
>> After that length of time I would expect that he would consider this
>> as his home!
>>
>>
>Why should he? I have been here considerably longer and do not think of
>Britain as home. Home is a matter of personal preference,
Only in the restricted sense that a person can decide what he considers
home. However, a foreigner manifestly does not have the freedom to
settle where he wills. That is a matter for individual states. RH
> not length of
>time spent in any one place.
>
>David
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
>In article <8h06i6$10e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, martin <mart...@my-deja.com>
>writes
>>Judging by your post, I assume that you are a black person,
>
>What, because he condemns what he sees as racism, both in the case
>quoted and in your posts?
>
>Well so do I, and I am of good Aryan stock - white anglo-saxon
>protestant, middle class, able bodied, a member of none of the run of
>the mill minorities.
>
>And I despise discrimination. I loathe racists like you. The likes of
>thee and me will never in our lives suffer the sort of prejudice,
>disadvantages and hatred that others suffer simply because of what they
>are. The casual racism that means a law abiding middle aged man gets
>stopped in his car every week because he is black. The homophobia which
>leads a warped mind to think nail bombs are OK, and too bad that we
>happen to kill members of a wedding party. The sexism which means that
>only a tiny proportion of people in positions of power and influence are
>women, and makes those who do hold those positions believe it is because
>there are no women of merit who deserve to hold those positions despite
>the fact that many very mediocre men do so.
>
>And if for a time we have to have some reverse discrimination to try to
>right some of the imbalances in power here, then so be it. It is a small
>price to pay for the injustices which have been done in my name for so
>long.
The problem is, Richard, that you want to make that decision for
everyone, not just yourself. I have no objection to you actively putting
yourself at a disadvantage, for example, you could give up your job to a
black or Asian. I do object to you supporting a system which enforces
your views on me. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
writes
RH
Robert Henderson
<la...@fsn.com> writes
>
>Robin <Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote in message
>news:$gGAlMAa...@droom.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <y9JmjDAo...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>, Robert Henderson
>> <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
>> >You need the details to make this claim stand up. RH
>>
>> In Peterborough, around two months ago, an Asian man was convicted of
>> racially aggravated criminal damage. You can find the details out by
>> contacting the Peterborough Evening Telegraph.
>>
full details. People don't have the time to go and check such matters.
RH
>
>Yes, but if it had been a white man who was so convicted, it would have made
>the national dailies and the main evening news on all the channels and we
>would have had a discourse by some learned Liberal Bigot deploring it all.
>>
>> --
>> Robin
>
>
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
writes
>Rich Egan wrote:
>>
><BIG SNIP of BNP Members rant>
>
>> Rich
>> Sic Semper Tyrannis
>
>Oh it is good to see ignorant people can
>still use a computer.....not!
>
>
>Regards
>
>
>Steve
Classic liberal bigot behaviour: they have no argument so they resort to
abuse. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Steve
Sorry did you read his post?
Regards
Steve
Robin
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
>>> In Peterborough, around two months ago, an Asian man was convicted of
>>> racially aggravated criminal damage. You can find the details out by
>>> contacting the Peterborough Evening Telegraph.
>>>
>If you are going to rely on claims, please have the decency to post the
>full details. People don't have the time to go and check such matters.
>RH
It's not a claim it's a fact. The young mans name was Imran Khan and he
was given 100 hours community work for damaging a car being driven by a
blotchy purplish skinned man ( also strangely called 'white')
This man was stopped at a set of traffic lights in Bourges Boulevard,
Peterborough, when a car with a number of young Asian men pulled
alongside. The report says the 'white' man looked across at the Asians
and smiled. At this point the Asians, led by Khan, got out of their car
and began shouting racial abuse. Khan was seen to kick the other car.
The ET has a website so you can contact them directly, assuming you
know how to use a browser.
I'm sorry that this doesn't fit in with your particular version of the
truth, but there you are!
--
Robin
Robert Henderson
writes
disagree with the man, argue your case. RH
Steve
>
> That has nothing to do with the inadequacy of your response. If you
> disagree with the man, argue your case. RH
> >
That had everything to do with the inadequacy of my response -
I like reasoned argument but I don't see how the repeated use
of the N* word and blatant racist comments warrant a better
response. If people want to argue fine but if you become
insulting of me or my family then I have every right not
continue.
Regards
Steve
Daniel Toye
Rich Egan <rich...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8h1177$qtj$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
<snip>
> >
> > "You went totally over the top and lost your temper. I think this was
> > intemperate behaviour. The fine would have been much higher if you had
> > a substantial income."
>
> Oh ?? Incomes , not offenses, determines fines ? I'd
> appeal on that remark alone.
Of course they both do. A prison sentence would be the same for a rich man
and a poor man but the same fine for each of them would hardly be equal
punishment.
:o)
Daniel
Rich Egan
Steve <sjd...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3934F7...@yahoo.co.uk...
I'm laughing at you steve . You are so frightened, emasculated,
and neutered with political correctness that you can't even
repeat what I've written. No Black has ever used the ridiculous
term, the "H" word for Honkey or Homeboy. Or the "P" word
for "Peckerwood" or the "W"word for "Whitey" , All perjorative
names given to Whites by Blacks. Why am I required to tiptoe
over the word Nigger. Sorry Pal ! I'm not built that way.
Rich
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>> >Consider how well whites are
>> >treated when they become a minority...
>>
>> You're delusional if you think that's likely in the UK!
>>
>Do you mean whites being treated well, or becoming a minority?
The latter.
> In terms
>of becoming a minority, it is simply a matter of time and demographics,
>different races currently having different birth rates and family sizes.
Even if it could happen, it would take centuries, so I'm not bothered.
Besides, immigrants tend to congregate in certain areas - mainly large
cities, leaving smaller cities and towns with very few non-whites. Those
that CAN be found there are normally affluent, and therefore free of the
crime problems that 'ghettoization' causes.
This geographical polarisation will mean that most areas political
representation will still be similar to what it is now. Inner cities
will vote Labour, shires Tory & suburbs flip-flopping.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
noo...@cwcom.net
wrote:
>noo...@cwcom.net wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 May 2000 23:37:10 +0100, 'Droid <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >noo...@cwcom.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 29 May 2000 18:30:47 +0100, 'Droid <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >noo...@cwcom.net wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, 29 May 2000 15:12:08 +0100, "martin" <Raym...@btinternet.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >You are a complete fool . A white liberal sucker of the first order.
>> >> >> >The ethnic minorities laugh at people like you.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Do you think that when the ethnic minorities have taken over in this country, (as they
>> >> >> >eventually will with the help of mugs like you), that they will bother about your rights
>> >> >> >as a white man? When that day comes, you, and others who think like you, will learn a
>> >> >> >lesson in ethnic solidarity from blacks, Asians, Muslims...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Muslims aren't an ethnic minority, they aren't an ethnic anything,
>> >> >> they're members of a religion. Does your hatred blind you to the
>> >> >> simplest of facts or are you just stupid?
>> >> >
>> >> >Ethnicity also applies to religion. It just happens that currently it is being
>> >> >used almost exclusively for race. Look it up in your dictionary.
>> >>
>> >> Only in so far as it implies that someone isn't Christian or Jewish.:
>> >>
>> >> '...heathen, pagan, not Jewish nor Christian'
>> >>
>> >> There are more than three religions in the world.
>> >
>> >The meaning has expanded somewhat these days.
>>
>> What's the point of telling me to look it up in my dictionary if
>> you're going to disagree with what my dictionary says?
>
>Your dictionary gives the definition my 1901 edition does. My modern dictionary
>gives a much broader definition. Is yours a pocket dictionary by any chance?
Not unless you've got very large pockets.
Cynic
>>"It's political correctness gone mad," he said afterwards. "I'm
not a
>>racist and I wasn't being racist. I was brought up with people
from
>>mixed races and have been around them all my life."
>
>Sorry, he was being racist.
Perhaps, but invoking the lawcourts for something as minor as a petty
verbal argument is IMO completely OTT. We all say things in a heated
argument that are meant for effect and/or to insult rather than
expressing our true everyday feelings. If you shout "Stupid woman
driver," it is undoubtedly a sexist remark, but that does not mean
that you are necessarily sexist by nature.
Could you honestly say, David, that if someone insulted *you* during a
minor altercation, you would feel (after you had calmed down) that the
person deserved to be punished by a court?
I've had people shout abuse at me several times in my life, sometimes
because I've done something stupid, sometimes unjustified. I find
that I can usually apologise in the former case, and ignore the person
in the latter case, and get on with life without being annoyed at the
other person for longer than a few minutes.
It does take two to make an argument.
--
Cynic
A. Little
>
>> And if for a time we have to have some reverse discrimination to try to
>> right some of the imbalances in power here, then so be it. It is a small
>> price to pay for the injustices which have been done in my name for so
>> long.
What could be more rational than identifying a wrong, categorising it as
fundamentally wrong, evil and intolerable, an affront to basic human
rights, except when I do it in the name of justice, and using this same
rationale to condone vigilantism, I wonder?
I thought it just wrong. Illegal.
My simple mind again, I suppose.
--
A. Little
A. Little
<Ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <AOBY4.3610$%02.7...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Daniel
>Toye <d.t...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>From what I've read I think the guy was hard done by. A better conviction
>>would be Breach of the Peace or something. People say things in arguments
>>that they probably shouldn't but the law doesn't (shouldn't?) treat this as
>>seriously as a premeditated act. For instance, if I call you an eejit in
>>the pub during an argument - it isn't slander. However, if I shout racial
>>abuse across the street - that's probably breach of race law.
>
>I think I get your point. In an argument with a black man, many white
>people would use the phrase "black bastard" in the same was as if he was
>obese they would say "fat bastard", or if thin they would say "skinny
>runt" or whatever. It's not right, but in the heat of the moment it
>happens.
>
>It is a calculated comment which taps into an underlying belief that the
>person has no right to be in this country because their skin is a
>different colour.
I could never take to fishing.
Something so very unsavoury about the way the worm squirmed.
--
A. Little
A. Little
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
And the institution which puts it in place, that which supports it, is
fundamentally flawed.
--
A. Little
A. Little
writes
>Larry@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> This of course depends entirely on whether or not you consider the "Race
>> Relations Act" to be a genuine and necessary law.
>> If the Black man is equal to the White man, then a racial equality law is
>> not necessary, however if a Black Man is NOT equal to a White Man
>
>It's not a case of whether or not they are equal which they
>obviously are but whether or not they are treated equally.
In what way are black men obviously equal to me, I wonder?
I recall meeting Buthelezi many years ago ('78?). His passport was
stamped "Honorary White". He clearly believed he was not my equal.
Charming, happy chappie, though.
>The framework was put in place because it was neccesary -
>maybe you don't feel so but there again it wasn't put in
>place for your benefit and you are unlikely ever to need it.
Unless you quite innocently put a foot wrong.
--
A. Little
A. Little
Leventine <davidle...@webtribe.net> writes
>But you are missing the point of all this. These ludicrous laws destroy
>freedom of speech and cause more resentment and aggravation when they are
>applied and people see them as grossly unfair. They will serve to drive
>that resentment underground where it will fester and grow into real race
>hatred, and when that boils over we will see the result of laws which
>attempt to control the way people act, speak and think, and remember that
>ultimately this is the aim of these laws, to control our very thoughts.
A law, a legal system, which promotes injustice on racial grounds might
perhaps be taken as a sign that that system has somewhat lost its way.
But I suspect the hatred will more probably become indifference, and not
to the race, but to the legal system which demotes those people who
built it and supported it.
Its silence speaks the loudest.
Hello?
--
A. Little
Steve
>
> Steve <sjd...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3934F7...@yahoo.co.uk...
> > Robert Henderson wrote:
> > >
> > > That has nothing to do with the inadequacy of your response. If you
> > > disagree with the man, argue your case. RH
> > > >
> >
> > That had everything to do with the inadequacy of my response -
> > I like reasoned argument but I don't see how the repeated use
> > of the N* word and blatant racist comments warrant a better
> > response. If people want to argue fine but if you become
> > insulting of me or my family then I have every right not
> > continue.
> >
> > Regards
>
> I'm laughing at you steve . You are so frightened, emasculated,
> and neutered with political correctness that you can't even
> repeat what I've written.
If people want to argue fine but if you become
insulting of me or my family then I have every right not
continue.
Regards
Steve
'Droid
>
> In article <3933FD6A...@netcomuk.co.uk>, 'Droid
> <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
> >>
> >> Disagree. One can't help one's ethnicity (because that is down to
> >> genetics) - but 'religion', like political beliefs, is another matter.
> >
> >It's not a matter of whether you agree: it's a matter of definition.
> >
> >'Droid
>
> Definitions, Droid, are matters of debate. RH
To some extent. But the less debate about definitions the better. It makes it
much easier to debate the issues without it degenerating into word play. As a
result I prefer to stick to the dictionary definitions: it gives a reasonably
constant foundation.
'Droid
Richard Miller
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
>>And if for a time we have to have some reverse discrimination to try to
>>right some of the imbalances in power here, then so be it. It is a small
>>price to pay for the injustices which have been done in my name for so
>>long.
>
>everyone, not just yourself. I have no objection to you actively putting
>yourself at a disadvantage, for example, you could give up your job to a
>black or Asian. I do object to you supporting a system which enforces
>your views on me. RH
And I similarly object to your highly offensive views. From my
perspective, you and Cliff are part of the problem, so your objections
to the solution not only are irrelevant to me but indicate that the
solution is the correct one. If you didn't object I would be worried I
had missed the target.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
Leventine <davidle...@webtribe.net> writes
>But you are missing the point of all this. These ludicrous laws destroy
>freedom of speech
We have never had *absolute* freedom of speech. This restriction is no
more ludicrous or unnecessary than any other. They are provided because
one man's freedom of speech is another man's lack of freedom from abuse
and incitement to violence upon his person.
>and cause more resentment and aggravation when they are
>applied and people see them as grossly unfair.
If a racist thinks it is unfair that he is not allowed to use racist
language, then good.
> They will serve to drive
>that resentment underground where it will fester and grow into real race
>hatred, and when that boils over we will see the result of laws which
>attempt to control the way people act, speak and think, and remember that
>ultimately this is the aim of these laws, to control our very thoughts.
All language is used to control thoughts. Just look at the tabloid
headlines about Tony Martin and "bogus" asylum seekers. These things are
dangerous. Stopping people using racial abuse is not.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
>>> In Peterborough, around two months ago, an Asian man was convicted of
>>> racially aggravated criminal damage. You can find the details out by
>>> contacting the Peterborough Evening Telegraph.
>>>
>If you are going to rely on claims, please have the decency to post the
>full details. People don't have the time to go and check such matters.
Oh dear, the last refuge of the usenet poster whose falsity has been
exposed.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
writes
>> The sexism which means that
>> only a tiny proportion of people in positions of power and influence are
>> women, and makes those who do hold those positions believe it is because
>> there are no women of merit who deserve to hold those positions despite
>> the fact that many very mediocre men do so.
>
>and influence?
I didn't say they shouldn't. What I did say is that it is unacceptable
for men to complain when women are given a hand up the power rungs that
they didn't get there on merit, when if merit had anything to do with
it, 90% of those men wouldn't be there either.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <39343F...@yahoo.co.uk>, Steve <sjd...@yahoo.co.uk>
>writes
>>Rich Egan wrote:
>>>
>><BIG SNIP of BNP Members rant>
>>
>>> Rich
>>> Sic Semper Tyrannis
>>
>>Oh it is good to see ignorant people can
>>still use a computer.....not!
>>
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>
>>Steve
>Classic liberal bigot behaviour: they have no argument so they resort to
>abuse. RH
It is not a case of not having an argument but of knowing that no
argument will influence some small and unused brains so there is no
point in trying.:-)
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
Leventine <davidle...@webtribe.net> writes
>In article <u$55RrA11...@activist.demon.co.uk>,
>pah...@activist.demon.co.uk says...
>> >Consider how well whites are
>> >treated when they become a minority...
>>
>> You're delusional if you think that's likely in the UK!
>>
>different races currently having different birth rates and family sizes.
How *much* time would you say on current figures? 100 years? 1000 years?
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Why should he? I have been here considerably longer and do not think of
>>Britain as home. Home is a matter of personal preference,
>
>Only in the restricted sense that a person can decide what he considers
>home. However, a foreigner manifestly does not have the freedom to
>settle where he wills. That is a matter for individual states.
And this individual state had granted him full citizenship. In other
words, the Government representing you and me have declared that Britain
is his home.
--
Richard Miller
Steve Glynn
>
> Steve <sjd...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3934F7...@yahoo.co.uk...
> > Robert Henderson wrote:
> > >
> > > That has nothing to do with the inadequacy of your response. If you
> > > disagree with the man, argue your case. RH
> > > >
> >
> > That had everything to do with the inadequacy of my response -
> > I like reasoned argument but I don't see how the repeated use
> > of the N* word and blatant racist comments warrant a better
> > response. If people want to argue fine but if you become
> > insulting of me or my family then I have every right not
> > continue.
> >
> > Regards
>
> I'm laughing at you steve . You are so frightened, emasculated,
> and neutered with political correctness that you can't even
> term, the "H" word for Honkey or Homeboy. Or the "P" word
> for "Peckerwood" or the "W"word for "Whitey" , All perjorative
> names given to Whites by Blacks. Why am I required to tiptoe
> over the word Nigger. Sorry Pal ! I'm not built that way.
>
> Rich
> Sic Semper Tyrannis
>
>
that he knows may give offence.
(Another) Steve
martin
As you are a white man, it is fairly typical that you should find noble and high minded
ideals to be amenable. A regard for women and a belief in the equality of the sexes, a
belief that everyone should have a "fair go", irrespective of race or creed...
These noble sentiments are common amongst white people, but one tends to find such fine
sentiments rather absent from the cultural ethos of other ethnic groups. (Where is the
Asian "Magna Carta", who is the Indian Thomas Paine, who is the African John Locke, for
example?) So, whilst you are so anxious to consider the feelings and ambitions of other
groups in society, and even prepared to put the interests of other ethnic groups before
those of your own people, at the same time these other groups are busy pursuing their own
agenda, which has got absolutely nothing to do with treating "foreign" ethnics - including
us whites - on an equal footing
We all know where this country is heading. It is going the same way as the United States,
with separate ethnic groups vying for power and influence. Whites already are, in many
inner cities, a minority, and it is about time that they all woke up to the fact that
they are fast becoming just one ethnic group amongst many, and started to think of
themselves and their own people. Blacks are positively encouraged to consider themselves
to be a separate ethnic group like the Muslims, and Hindus, - of course these
"minorities" are all prepared to go along with happy hippie multiculturalism because it
suits them at this time in our history, they are the beneficiaries, but for us whites...
well we are the losers, and this is our homeland, OUR COUNTRY, so why on earth should we
feel anything other than bitter and resentful at this insidious process of colonisation
and usurpation of control ? Of course, once the ethnics have obtained a degree of power in
this island, then people like you will learn pretty quickly about the reality of ethnic
bonds, but by then it will be too late, we will have thrown away the security and freedom
that comes from having our own homeland. (Of course the blacks, Asians, etc, will still
have THEIR own countries that they can return to if they want to, their countries are not
being colonised.).
As for positive discrimination to right past "wrongs". There are plenty of poor white
people, there are plenty of council estates and slums where white children are brought up
in a culture of deprivation and never have much chance. And what about our pensioners ?
Why don't you give a thought for our people for a change? How dare you expect us to
favour other ethnic groups when there are plenty of our own people that need help! On the
contrary, I believe that it is now time for white people to, (as far as possible and
within the law), to start to base their day-to-day operational decisions partially on
ethnic criteria, WE HAVE GOT TO START TO THINK AND ACT LIKE OTHER ETHNIC GROUPS ARE
ENCOURAGED TO DO, - other things being equal, hire a white, in other words.
Richard Miller <Ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8ICKCcBU...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> In article <8h06i6$10e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, martin <mart...@my-deja.com>
> writes
> >Judging by your post, I assume that you are a black person,
>
> What, because he condemns what he sees as racism, both in the case
> quoted and in your posts?
>
> Well so do I, and I am of good Aryan stock - white anglo-saxon
> protestant, middle class, able bodied, a member of none of the run of
> the mill minorities.
>
> And I despise discrimination. I loathe racists like you. The likes of
> thee and me will never in our lives suffer the sort of prejudice,
> disadvantages and hatred that others suffer simply because of what they
> are. The casual racism that means a law abiding middle aged man gets
> stopped in his car every week because he is black. The homophobia which
> leads a warped mind to think nail bombs are OK, and too bad that we
> happen to kill members of a wedding party. The sexism which means that
> only a tiny proportion of people in positions of power and influence are
> women, and makes those who do hold those positions believe it is because
> there are no women of merit who deserve to hold those positions despite
> the fact that many very mediocre men do so.
>
> And if for a time we have to have some reverse discrimination to try to
> right some of the imbalances in power here, then so be it. It is a small
> price to pay for the injustices which have been done in my name for so
> long.
> --
> Richard Miller