Safety of members is the duty of any forum

[flying banana]

Let's look at the main word in all this. It's not black. It's tolerance. Have a look at what that means, it means putting up with something you don't like. Thank you. End of conversation.

 

[Wannabecamperman]

My objection was to post 35 where someone has said they were lucky not to get robbed, but didn't even suffer an attempted robbery, but then gives a full profile of the people that they assume would have robbed them.

"Last time we went to France, we were lucky not to be robbed. At the time, these brazen attacks were common and they were typically being perpetrated by groups of black migrants. Whether such a statement is racist or factual I don't know. I expect these sort of distraction robberies are still prevalent."


I'm all for giving an accurate description of something that has happened, but to racially profile the supposed attacker when an incident hasn't even happened is just plain wrong.

...Except he wasn't 'racially profiling' anyone, he was accurately describing the regular offenders as confirmed by the Police!

Andy, you must be able to distinguish the difference between mentioning someone's colour and actually being racist - there's a gulf of difference, and you're taking offence where none is intended.

Lord knows there is still enough genuine racism and hatred of 'other' in Blighty that we don't need to be seeing it where none is present, and jumping on the virtue-signalling bandwagon as you seem to. It just makes the whole issue worse for all.

 

[wildslammer22]

Let's look at the main word in all this. It's not black. It's tolerance. Have a look at what that means, it means putting up with something you don't like. Thank you. End of conversation.

Very rich coming from someone who regularly brands other posters with a different view as lefty. Who the other day claimed that Sadie Khan hates white people and belittles people that have taken offence to some of the outdated language in this thread. Most of this thread and it’s predecessor has been conducted as a debate, strong feelings yes but you are the one throwing insults about.

Maybe look up hypocrisy in the dictionary while you’re at it and practice what you preach? Just a thought.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Velma's Dad]

Andy, you must be able to distinguish the difference between mentioning someone's colour and actually being racist - there's a gulf of difference, and you're taking offence where none is intended.

Then maybe you could say how often it's actually, really necessary, in everyday discourse, to mention someone's skin colour at all. It's just a physical characteristic, there are plenty of others yet we probably wouldn't say "a group of blue-eyed people were hanging around in the car park" (unless we want to imply that blue-eyed people tend to be trouble). Would we?

I might myself, extremely rarely, refer to an individual's skin colour as a way of distinguishing them from someone else. Eg "No, you mean Joel, he's the black guy that lives in xxx". But even then I tend to be very careful about that, because surely it's common decency to take care to avoid making anyone uncomfortable when we don't need to.

 

[flying banana]

Very rich coming from someone who regularly brands other posters with a different view as lefty. Who the other day claimed that Sadie Khan hates white people and belittles people that have taken offence to some of the outdated language in this thread. Most of this thread and it’s predecessor has been conducted as a debate, strong feelings yes but you are the one throwing insults about.

Maybe look up hypocrisy in the dictionary while you’re at it and practice what you preach? Just a thought.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So your a lefty then? Or am I wrong. I'm right wing and will say so.here you go,here's an insult. You ...... oh I'm not allowed. As for sadiq he is a racist who hates this country. Fact. White pe

 

[andyinluton]

...Except he wasn't 'racially profiling' anyone, he was accurately describing the regular offenders as confirmed by the Police!

Andy, you must be able to distinguish the difference between mentioning someone's colour and actually being racist - there's a gulf of difference, and you're taking offence where none is intended.

I am perfectly aware as to when it may be acceptable to refer to someones race & when it isn't. In this case it is totally inappropriate, the poster despite not being attacked or seeing anyone has described the offenders including their colour, we just need to find a crime we can pin on them now.



There is no mention anywhere in the post about the description being confirmed by the police & in fact actually goes on to say they didn't know if it was factual or not.

Why would the police have a description anyway? no-one was robbed or attacked.

You have fallen into the same racist trap - you think his description of the people that he hasn't seen & didn't actually do anything are the regular offenders, if that isn't the classic description of racial profiling I don't know what is.

 

[Wannabecamperman]

Then maybe you could say how often it's actually, really necessary, in everyday discourse, to mention someone's skin colour at all. It's just a physical characteristic, there are plenty of others yet we probably wouldn't say "a group of blue-eyed people were hanging around in the car park" (unless we want to imply that blue-eyed people tend to be trouble). Would we?

I might myself, extremely rarely, refer to an individual's skin colour as a way of distinguishing them from someone else. Eg "No, you mean Joel, he's the black guy that lives in xxx". But even then I tend to be very careful about that, because surely it's common decency to take care to avoid making anyone uncomfortable when we don't need to.

I agree to a point, if it were a balanced populace, however when you realise that blacks still make up less than 5% of the UK population, and whites still way over 80%, you will appreciate that the natural assumption is that the person referred to is white unless colour is mentioned. Hence why ethnic minorities' colour is mentioned far more often in the UK.

It's the same as a white criminal in Dubai or Egypt being mentioned - they are in the minority and therefore notable as such. None of this means that any hatred or discrimination is present when making that description, and to suggest that we can no longer reference colour or ethnicity in a free country that allows free speech is simply absurd.

 

[Boomer]

I know we're massively off topic, but I do think this is a valid conversation to have.

The argument seems to be distilled down to some saying "don't say that, it makes me feel unhappy/uncomfortable/excluded/discriminated against" (and there have been examples on this thread of people saying exactly that) whilst others say "get a grip", "suck it up", "sticks and stones" etc.

I genuinely don't see why, if people say that certain language makes them feel unhappy .... that we don't have at least some obligation to try and understand that, and where necessary, change and adapt. It won't lead to the disintegration of society, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria (Ghostbusters reference for the cool kids).

This isn't an attack on free speech which is typically quoted (daily mail, I'm looking at you). This is just that people are now being called out more as attitudes change, as well as greater confidence to challenge pre-existing norms. And, as referenced before, it's not the left wing banning books in the US.

By the way, happy to accept the insult (if that's what it is) of being left wing.

 

[Velma's Dad]

It's the same as a white criminal in Dubai or Egypt being mentioned - they are in the minority and therefore notable as such. None of this means that any hatred or discrimination is present when making that description, and to suggest that we can no longer reference colour or ethnicity in a free country that allows free speech is simply absurd.

Yes minorities are singled out, often through the convenient distinction of them having a different skin colour, in many parts of the world. If you don't think that's also about discrimination, and sometimes hatred, then you must be staggeringly naive. I ask again, why is someone's skin colour "notable"? Unless you are presuming that it's a predictor of their propensity to crime?

 

[SamSara]

Unfortunately the law is part of the problem. Unless it's changed from the days when I worked as a civilian for the police, the law says something like 'anything racist ot that could be perceived as racist' (likewise for sexist etc etc)
I always feel this is ridiculous because a man could tell a woman she looks gorgeous and she could report him for being racist (if she's anything other than white, apparently white people don't have this protection) or sexist. When all he's doing is paying her a compliment.

Can you clarify which section of which act you are referring to if you can remember. I can’t recall that in the public order act or under hate crime appendices. Thanks.

 

[Roger Boeken]

It got deleted not moved because it contained personal insults to fellow members and was way off topic I am on holiday and do not have time to edit all the insults and personal attacks

I love this ’special forum operation ‘ performed by calikev, it stopped a possible forum battle and created this new more positive thread .

 

[Kayleigh]

I love this ’special forum operation ‘ performed by calikev, it stopped a possible forum battle and created this new more positive thread .

I think you will find there are still insults on this thread if you read carefully..

 

[Velma's Dad]

Can you clarify which section of which act you are referring to if you can remember. I can’t recall that in the public order act or under hate crime appendices. Thanks.

BikerGran is I guess referring to some kind of policing guidance (from when she worked with the police? - and of course it may well have changed).

However policing guidance is not the same as the criminal law. The Public Order Acts, which you mention, are most often the basis of charges for offences in this category, although it's also common for charges under other offences to be aggravated where there's said to have been a racial element eg where it's said that racially offensive words were used during a common assault.

In the courts, proving a Public Order Act case of threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress, will take into account what was said/done, the context, intention and probable impact on those present. But to gain a conviction it's certainly not sufficient purely to establish that someone present jus "perceived it to be racist" (or whatever). It would have to be shown that the defendant showed hostility based on the alleged victim's racial or religious identity. The prosecution would have to provide evidence that proved that was the case.

 

[Calimili]

Did the wife of Ozzy Pete definitely see, remember the skin colour, among other details, of the three chaps around their van?
If yes, and they were in fact "white", what use would it be to the police or the forum to describe them as "black" when instead they were white. Even if , (** IF **), she were to be actually a racist , I think she would probably prefer to get the three *white* scumbags behind bars, rather than leaving them free to operate again, and accusing three random *blacks* just for racist sake.
If yes, and they were in fact "black", maybe the skin colour would be also one of the many physical attributes (tall/short, fat/thin, long/short hair) useful to correctly identify the perpetrators.
If no, defining them as "black" by assumption is wrong and useless. Because if they were by chance white (or asian , or north african, or middle eastern etc) and the victim tells the police they were black, then this is providing a shield for the scumbags to operate further .

 

[Ozzy Pete]

Did the wife of Ozzy Pete definitely see, remember the skin colour, among other details, of the three chaps around their van?
If yes, and they were in fact "white", what use would it be to the police or the forum to describe them as "black" when instead they were white. Even if , (** IF **), she were to be actually a racist , I think she would probably prefer to get the three *white* scumbags behind bars, rather than leaving them free to operate again, and accusing three random *blacks* just for racist sake.
If yes, and they were in fact "black", maybe the skin colour would be also one of the many physical attributes (tall/short, fat/thin, long/short hair) useful to correctly identify the perpetrators.
If no, defining them as "black" by assumption is wrong and useless. Because if they were by chance white (or asian , or north african, or middle eastern etc) and the victim tells the police they were black, then this is providing a shield for the scumbags to operate further .

When they were trying to get into our van the (Two) youths were within 4 feet of us both. And neither myself or my wife have any sight problems so we could BOTH see what They looked like. I would say they were about 17 or so years old. And when the 3 youths walked by who had tried to steal the bikes from the motor home behind us were the same 2 plus one other. They were standing about 10 feet away but didn’t come any closer because they could see what I was holding in my hands.
Are you accusing us of making this story up. If so I really don’t appreciate one bit.

 

[Calimili]

When they were trying to get into our van the (Two) youths were within 4 feet of us both. And neither myself or my wife have any sight problems so we could BOTH see what They looked like. I would say they were about 17 or so years old. And when the 3 youths walked by who had tried to steal the bikes from the motor home behind us were the same 2 plus one other. They were standing about 10 feet away but didn’t come any closer because they could see what I was holding in my hands.
Are you accusing us of making this story up. If so I really don’t appreciate one bit.

No Ozzy Pete, quite the contrary.
I was quite confident that after such shocking experience, you + Mrs would definitely remember how the bastards did look like. Hence defining them as black, 17 years old, is not being racist, it is just describing them by their physical features.
No sure what went on on the other thread, but your explanation now makes it very clear at least for me, yours was just a physical factual description not a racist connotation.
I hope the rest of the trip was more pleasant, and thanks for the heads up!

 

[Ozzy Pete]

No Ozzy Pete, quite the contrary.
I was quite confident that after such shocking experience, you + Mrs would definitely remember how the bastards did look like. Hence defining them as black, 17 years old, is not being racist, it is just describing them by their physical features.
No sure what went on on the other thread, but your explanation now makes it very clear at least for me, yours was just a physical factual description not a racist connotation.
I hope the rest of the trip was more pleasant, and thanks for the heads up!

Appreciated…..

 

[JoniF64]

Having just returned from an amazing 2week trip around Europe, this really saddens me to read, fortunately we experienced no issues. I didn’t see the original post, but it is important to share experiences and to help others consider their own safety arrangements. I spent Thursday night at the Menin Gate last post ceremonial parade and a day at the museums and cemeteries in Ypres. I just wonder what those brave young men would have thought of what is happening with the illegal migration crisis and politically correct world we now live in. Too many snowflakes around today, people should defend themselves and others around them from wrong doings.

 

[Perfectos]

Maybe fit one of these !!!!!!!

Modify the night heater

 

[DavidofHook]

And that is the biggest challenge. Supporting and educating people to the right terminology to support and accept people (Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in play) is key, rather than going full-lunge

The litmus test is this: does the story or conversation you're telling need those personal characteristics listed? Referencing a persons ethnicity, gender, sexuality, disability - do they serve the conversation? If not, leave them out.

Re your litmus test clearly it is just good manners not to upset people with what you say. However if the person who robbed you in , say, South Africa is white then that is a clear identifier & you should say so. It reduces the number of suspects for the police to check. Equally in U.K. for the same reason skin colour is relevant now we are a much more multi ethnic society. Stops waste police time. Gender is less relevant unless the person is an obvious transvestite. Sexuality is less obvious. I have gay friends & you wouldn’t know. Disability again only relevant if it is an identifier, a wooden leg & crutch would help the police but, say epilepsy, would not unless the person had regular fits. (For the record I have it & I don’t & I don’t actually regard it as a disability!)

 

[Wannabecamperman]

Yes minorities are singled out, often through the convenient distinction of them having a different skin colour, in many parts of the world. If you don't think that's also about discrimination, and sometimes hatred, then you must be staggeringly naive. I ask again, why is someone's skin colour "notable"? Unless you are presuming that it's a predictor of their propensity to crime?

Well, that opens an entirely new can of worms about certain types of crimes being committed disproportionately by those from certain ethnic groups. Grooming gangs in Rochdale, stabbings in London to name a couple. However, that's not my point at all.

The characteristics that are 'notable' are those that are DIFFERENT from the norm. Given that we're still over 80% white in the UK, colour is a useful description and not remotely discriminatory as you suggest. To suggest the mere reference of colour is somehow discriminatory or racist is absurd!!

This appalling attitude explains why there are so many cries of racism, even in cases of legitimate criticism.

It almost suggests you can't point out crimes or poor behaviour by people of colour, lest you be branded a racist, and that's the problem - crime and attempted crime MUST be called out by whoever is doing it, and there should be no barrier to accurately describing the perpetrators

 

[wildslammer22]

Well, that opens an entirely new can of worms about certain types of crimes being committed disproportionately by those from certain ethnic groups. Grooming gangs in Rochdale, stabbings in London to name a couple. However, that's not my point at all.

The characteristics that are 'notable' are those that are DIFFERENT from the norm. Given that we're still over 80% white in the UK, colour is a useful description and not remotely discriminatory as you suggest. To suggest the mere reference of colour is somehow discriminatory or racist is absurd!!

This appalling attitude explains why there are so many cries of racism, even in cases of legitimate criticism.

It almost suggests you can't point out crimes or poor behaviour by people of colour, lest you be branded a racist, and that's the problem - crime and attempted crime MUST be called out by whoever is doing it, and there should be no barrier to accurately describing the perpetrators

The original post was about a crime (that didn’t actually happen but might of) in FRANCE so your point about the ethnic make up the UK is doubly irrelevant ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[flying banana]

Very rich coming from someone who regularly brands other posters with a different view as lefty. Who the other day claimed that Sadie Khan hates white people and belittles people that have taken offence to some of the outdated language in this thread. Most of this thread and it’s predecessor has been conducted as a debate, strong feelings yes but you are the one throwing insults about.

Maybe look up hypocrisy in the dictionary while you’re at it and practice what you preach? Just a thought.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm right though. And sadiq hates whites and Britain. And I bet you are a lefty

 

[WelshGas]

The original post was about a crime (that didn’t actually happen but might of) in FRANCE so your point about the ethnic make up the UK is doubly irrelevant ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except that France does have a similar ethnic diversity to the U.K. , so the point made is relevant.

France Population 2024 (Live)

worldpopulationreview.com

France Demographics​

A law from 1872 prohibits the French Republic from conducting a census by making any official distinction between its citizens in terms of race or religious beliefs, so French demographics can be a bit hard to determine. In 2004, it was estimated that 85% of the population of Metropolitan France was white or of European origin, with 10% from North Africa, 3.5% Black and 1.5% Asian.

This law does not apply to surveys or polls, and a marketing company called Solis estimated numbers of ethnic minorities in 2009 as 5.23% Maghrebis, 2.94% black (a majority from Sub-Saharan Africa) and 0.71% Turkish.

In 2010, 27% of newborns in Metro France had at least a single foreign-born parent. Most French people today are of Celtic origin. The country has experienced large-scale immigration over the last 100 years. It's believed that 40% of France's population is descended, at least in part, from the waves of immigration since the start of the 20th century.

 

[wildslammer22]

Except that France does have a similar ethnic diversity to the U.K. , so the point made is relevant.

France Population 2024 (Live)

worldpopulationreview.com

France Demographics​

A law from 1872 prohibits the French Republic from conducting a census by making any official distinction between its citizens in terms of race or religious beliefs, so French demographics can be a bit hard to determine. In 2004, it was estimated that 85% of the population of Metropolitan France was white or of European origin, with 10% from North Africa, 3.5% Black and 1.5% Asian.

This law does not apply to surveys or polls, and a marketing company called Solis estimated numbers of ethnic minorities in 2009 as 5.23% Maghrebis, 2.94% black (a majority from Sub-Saharan Africa) and 0.71% Turkish.

In 2010, 27% of newborns in Metro France had at least a single foreign-born parent. Most French people today are of Celtic origin. The country has experienced large-scale immigration over the last 100 years. It's believed that 40% of France's population is descended, at least in part, from the waves of immigration since the start of the 20th century.

I thought you inferred in an earlier post that the French port towns were populated almost entirely by people that were potential illegal immigrants…! Are these crowds of latent illegals Syrian, Somali, Albanian or French citizens?

I admit I’m being a bit flippant to make a point but that’s how this thread has gone!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk