Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    True, but not relevant, all the peoples of the world have their good names, even if some of them have euphemistic, incorrect, or derogatory tags. Yids, Eskimos, Anglos, Spics, Blacks, Apaches, Aborigines, ....

    --------------

    Yea, I may or not be of a-s descent, same goes for you. But I am English, and you are Somali.
    I like to think of my self as a world-citizen, but whatever.
    Why must we all limit ourselves to a box at the end of a form? Can we not be individuals, with our own names, meanings, histories and definitions joined together by the bonds of brother(sister?)hood? I have a dream, Arthur, one day, the terms 'black', 'white' and... 'oriental' will be confined to the history books.

    What do you think?
    I'm going to save that speech up for when I'm queen of the world.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ayaan)
    I like to think of my self as a world-citizen, but whatever.
    Why must we all limit ourselves to a box at the end of a form? Can we not be individuals, with our own names, meanings, histories and definitions joined together by the bonds of brother(sister?)hood? I have a dream, Arthur, one day, the terms 'black', 'white' and... 'oriental' will be confined to the history books.

    What do you think?
    I'm going to save that speech up for when I'm queen of the world.





    yup.

    you're good Ayaan.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ayaan)
    I like to think of my self as a world-citizen, but whatever.
    Why must we all limit ourselves to a box at the end of a form? Can we not be individuals, with our own names, meanings, histories and definitions joined together by the bonds of brother(sister?)hood? I have a dream, Arthur, one day, the terms 'black', 'white' and... 'oriental' will be confined to the history books.

    What do you think?
    I'm going to save that speech up for when I'm queen of the world.





    yup.

    you're good Ayaan.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Atomik)
    For ****'s sake...
    ‘Head played down vicious race attack’

    THE mother of a pupil who was repeatedly kicked in the head on his way home from school has said that teachers are turning a blind eye to racially-motivated attacks.

    Ryan Smith (15), was assaulted as he walked through an alleyway to the bus stop on the way back from St Augustine of Canterbury School in Werneth.

    Ryan and a friend claimed they were approached by nine young men of Asian origin in the unprovoked attack.

    “They tried to run, but there was nowhere to go,” said his mother, Angela. “He was dragged to the ground and kicked and punched in the face, back, chest and legs.”

    The attack was interrupted by passers-by and the two shaken boys were taken back to school where teachers booked taxis to ferry them home.

    “Despite telling staff he had been kicked repeatedly in the head he was not taken to hospital,” said Mrs Smith. “Head injuries can be very serious and I would have expected them to take him to casualty, not just drop him home.

    “As it was, I took him to hospital and the doctors said that we had definitely done the right thing.”
    http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/NEWSM03.html
    That finds an echo here Atomik:
    Sky News (UK), Dec. 6, 2005


    A row has broken out after a teenager was banned from wearing a crucifix at a school where Sikhs can carry ceremonial daggers.

    Sam Morris, 16, was reportedly sent home from Sinfin Community School, Derby, after she refused to remove a gold cross on a necklace.

    She was told wearing a crucifix was not compulsory for Christians, so the necklace breached dress codes.

    Other pupils are allowed to wear kirpan daggers and metal bracelets, as they are classed as religious symbols, said the Daily Express.

    GCSE student Sam missed two days of study before her mother Debra Saunders, 37, allowed her to return to school without the necklace.

    Christian and Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe insisted a crucifix was not costume jewellery.

    She said: “To persecute a young girl like this for her religious beliefs, whatever they are, is unacceptable.”

    Sam, who had worn the necklace for the past three years, told Sky News the cross was not a “fashion accessory” and she felt “naked without it”.

    Sinfin’s deputy head Howard Jones said: “Most of our pupils understand allowing Sikhs to wear a bracelet is a compulsory part of their religion.

    “Christianity does not require followers to wear a specific symbols.”

    Derby City Council said the ban was lawful but questioned whether it was “desirable”.
    http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...475163,00.html

    Incredible.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Atomik)
    For ****'s sake...
    ‘Head played down vicious race attack’

    THE mother of a pupil who was repeatedly kicked in the head on his way home from school has said that teachers are turning a blind eye to racially-motivated attacks.

    Ryan Smith (15), was assaulted as he walked through an alleyway to the bus stop on the way back from St Augustine of Canterbury School in Werneth.

    Ryan and a friend claimed they were approached by nine young men of Asian origin in the unprovoked attack.

    “They tried to run, but there was nowhere to go,” said his mother, Angela. “He was dragged to the ground and kicked and punched in the face, back, chest and legs.”

    The attack was interrupted by passers-by and the two shaken boys were taken back to school where teachers booked taxis to ferry them home.

    “Despite telling staff he had been kicked repeatedly in the head he was not taken to hospital,” said Mrs Smith. “Head injuries can be very serious and I would have expected them to take him to casualty, not just drop him home.

    “As it was, I took him to hospital and the doctors said that we had definitely done the right thing.”
    http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/NEWSM03.html
    That finds an echo here Atomik:
    Sky News (UK), Dec. 6, 2005


    A row has broken out after a teenager was banned from wearing a crucifix at a school where Sikhs can carry ceremonial daggers.

    Sam Morris, 16, was reportedly sent home from Sinfin Community School, Derby, after she refused to remove a gold cross on a necklace.

    She was told wearing a crucifix was not compulsory for Christians, so the necklace breached dress codes.

    Other pupils are allowed to wear kirpan daggers and metal bracelets, as they are classed as religious symbols, said the Daily Express.

    GCSE student Sam missed two days of study before her mother Debra Saunders, 37, allowed her to return to school without the necklace.

    Christian and Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe insisted a crucifix was not costume jewellery.

    She said: “To persecute a young girl like this for her religious beliefs, whatever they are, is unacceptable.”

    Sam, who had worn the necklace for the past three years, told Sky News the cross was not a “fashion accessory” and she felt “naked without it”.

    Sinfin’s deputy head Howard Jones said: “Most of our pupils understand allowing Sikhs to wear a bracelet is a compulsory part of their religion.

    “Christianity does not require followers to wear a specific symbols.”

    Derby City Council said the ban was lawful but questioned whether it was “desirable”.
    http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...475163,00.html

    Incredible.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    That finds an echo here Atomik:
    http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...475163,00.html

    Incredible.
    An echo?
    Being beaten up is a little bit worse than not being allowed to wear a cross.

    Of course, I don't agree with either, but I'm sure that they are plenty of people that would support the latter.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    That finds an echo here Atomik:
    http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...475163,00.html

    Incredible.
    An echo?
    Being beaten up is a little bit worse than not being allowed to wear a cross.

    Of course, I don't agree with either, but I'm sure that they are plenty of people that would support the latter.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Alleged double standards, bureaucratic bungling, a racial element (sikhs are an ancestral group according to UK law). blah blah blah, as you would phrase it.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Alleged double standards, bureaucratic bungling, a racial element (sikhs are an ancestral group according to UK law). blah blah blah, as you would phrase it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The racial element makes it weaker.
    To be a member of a race you don't have to do anything, while to be a member of faith group, you usually do.

    --------------

    And blah, blah, blah is anything that I think is pointless, overly complicated or uninteresting.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The racial element makes it weaker.
    To be a member of a race you don't have to do anything, while to be a member of faith group, you usually do.

    --------------

    And blah, blah, blah is anything that I think is pointless, overly complicated or uninteresting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Atomik)
    So, if a black bloke and a black woman adopted me, that would make me black? What planet are you on, mate?! You liberals are absolute nutters!
    Who said anything about skin colour? Oh yeah, you did.

    But working from your logic - what colour would the biological child of a "white" mother and "black" father be? And why would that be important?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    Who said anything about skin colour? Oh yeah, you did.
    You were the one who mentioned ethnicity, mate! You said that if a white child was adopted by two zulus, he/she would automatically be a zulu. This is incorrect because, as Wikipedia states, "The Zulu are an African ethnic group of about 11 million people who live mainly in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa." And I'm pretty sure ethnicity has something to do with 'skin colour'. Stop being so confusing.

    But working from your logic - what colour would the biological child of a "white" mother and "black" father be?
    Well, the 'ethnic' term would be mullato. Should I have said 'negro' instead of 'black'? Why are you being pedantic?

    And why would that be important?
    Jesus, man, who is mentioning the importance of skin colour? You're the one who brought it up!

    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    --------------

    Hmm, anybody read yesterday's (07/12/'05) Evening Standard? A white man was racially attacked by a gang on black guys. One of them called him an "Aryan *******". The newspaper quoted that, but they didn't state that there was any racial element in the headline or in the journalist's writing itself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Mother's gang horror

    TEENAGER was robbed and his mother headbutted when she went to rescue him from a gang of up to 50.

    Her 999 call to police was routed into London where the Met then sent it back into Essex.

    Now the furious mother is demanding that police change their methods and thanking God her 13-year-old is safe.

    .................

    Mrs Law said: "When I was there I was approached by a black man who was around 6ft tall who headbutted me in the face.

    .................

    "They had taken Steven's phone and gone through his pockets. They made gestures that suggested they had tools of some kind in their pockets, and I was racially taunted the whole time I was speaking to them.

    ................
    http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/n...ang_horror.php

    Disgusting behaviour.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    multiculturism in all it's glory i say. Sick and disgusting
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wow - the BBC actually did a Newsnight about the contrast between the coverage of anti-white murders compared to anti-minority murders. What Fran Unsworth says is sickening. How the hell can she doubt that racism played a factor in the killing of Kriss Donald?!

    For all those who are willing to watch it, here y'go!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Atomik)
    How the hell can she doubt that racism played a factor in the killing of Kriss Donald?!
    I didn't see it, but.... If she did say that she was remarkably insensitive and uninformed, and went some way to showing the imbalance is deliberate. Her intentions, honesty, fitness for the job, and whether or not she is racist would be questions raised -if the races were reversed- for the sake of the Donald family I hope the same happens.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriss_Donald
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    ArthurOliver, I urge you to watch it. She says quite a few offensive things towards white victims; and, in her own tedious way, she justifies the amount of airtime Anthony Walker's murder received in contrast the the amount of airtime Christopher Yates and Kriss Donald's murders received. She even said that Anthony got more attention because, and I quote, "Anthony Walker's case was more newsworthy"; "The kind of that person he was, too, came to the full in this story; he was a boy with enormous promise"; "The amazing dignity of the family, and how they treated him, which was absolutely humbling"; and, to top it all off, in regards to Kriss Donald's murder: "I don't know whether this was specifically judged to be a racist crime or not."

    The interviewer, I think, was GREAT. He pointed out that the verdict for Kriss Donald's case was not showed on tv; and that on the day of the verdict, there was enough space on the news to speak about it; but the BBC decided to fill that space up with news on some small art show. She justified this by basically saying that news shows need a balance, that people would not want to see an endless amount of crime stories. While I sympathise with this, it was stated that there were around 850 murders in the UK each year, and out of that, 4 of them are designated to be race crimes. Surely, if racism is such a huge matter in Britain, they would report every racist murder in Britain? After all, four isn't a hell of a lot. It really wouldn't surprise me if 2 or 3 of the victims in those aforementioned racist murders were white.

    Another massive significance pointed out by the interviewer, was the fact that Kriss Donald's case was mentioned on national news 3 times, and Anthony Walker's case was mentioned on the national news 36 times...

    You can tell by her face that she is totally blagging her way through the questions. She's one person I'd like to slap around the face with a carp.

    You should watch the programme; it's only on for about 6 minutes. (The whole show lasts for 11 minutes, but it's split into two sections.)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Atomik)
    and, to top it all off, in regards to Kriss Donald's murder: "I don't know whether this was specifically judged to be a racist crime or not.
    Yeah, that bit really irked me. She placed a large amount of emphasis on the classification of the Walker murder as a 'race' crime, and used that as a main plank of her excuse as to why there was so much coverage. From that you obviously conclude that a major BBC criteria is whether a crime is designated a 'race' crime or not. And then, mere minutes later she revealed that she had no idea whether the the Donald murder had been classified as a race crime or not...
    So, she claims the 'race' classification is such a big factor in deciding newsworthiness, so much so that she doesn't even have any idea if it were applied to another, equally brutal, murder. So what, they didn't bother finding out if a crucial newsworthiness factor applied? What crap is that?
    I think that perfectly demonstrates the way she was absolutely bullsh--ting her way through the entire interview. It was quite clear that they applied none of the criteria she claimed they did until they were later called upon to defend themselves, then they suddenly started looking for excuses.
    I also thought it was stupid the way she talked about details about Walker 'coming to the fore', as if this was some magical process which just happened without the BBC (and the rest of the media) actively bringing them to the fore. She had absolutely no idea about the murders of the two white men and their value as human beings, because they didn't even bother looking at their lives and what they were like, as they did with Walker. Otherwise things about them might have magically 'come to the fore' too.
    Then there was the point about the 'dignity' of the family upon hearing the verdict being another factor in newsworthiness. Except for the fact that she had no idea about the dignity of the families in the other case, as they hadn't bothered covering the verdict. She was essentially saying it was made newsworthy by something that happened AFTER they had made it news already (by covering the verdict). That doesn't exactly stand up to logical scrutiny, does it.

    A shamefully poor attempted defence of the indefensible. Anyone with half a mind could see she was talking crap and covering her ass with rubbish points that didn't stand up to the most minimal scrutiny. At least an admission would have been honourable, as it was this was just another shameful example of the inability of the BBC to admit their own biases and when they're wrong. The sooner public funding of this joke of an organisation is removed the better.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    JonH I think you're right throughout.

    Atomik, you're right about racially motivated murder having the same bias as other hate crimes--exactly contrary to the emphasis, coverage and representation in the media and in the political debate about race and crime.

    Over this three-year period (ending 2004), the police reported to the Home Office 22 homicides where there was a known racial motivation. Twelve victims were White, 4 Asian, 3 Black and 3 of ‘Other’ ethnic origin. There were no current suspects identified for 5 of these victims, 3 of who were White, 1 Black and 1 ‘Other’.
    http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/s95race04.pdf

    That's less than 10 percent of the population (non-Whites) committing around half of the racially motivated murders, maybe more--they kill each other with similar frequency of course--Birmingham a few weeks ago, and just before that the Sikh killed by Albanian "asylum seekers" for having "White *******" friends. But it's Whites who suffer most, and also shoulder most of the blame for racism.

    Backlash is inevitable. You can't treat a people so unfairly, even if you think it's a means to an end. (I'm a nice guy, and even I'm pissed off)
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.