Racism in Britain today. - Page 8

(RIP) PLANK · 24-01-2011, 13:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by extreme-4x4

beating someone to death is wrong. for whatever reason ... race i cant see is a valid part of the question

I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick, the man was beaten to death because of the color of his skin! and for no other reason (well none that we or the courts that dealt with it are aware of) So in the context of the story that started the debate his 'race' is a relevant issue.

Briggie, i agree those lads lives have been ruined, and spreading racist propaganda and opinions forms the attitudes that made them think it was OK to do that, so who is to blame? both for this mans death and the ruined lives of those lads - Racism and Racists

24-01-2011, 13:18

how do we know it was his colour and not just drunken louts he cant tell us can he!

TONUP · 24-01-2011, 13:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by jace

fatty,baldy!

That's me that is...

Alan

24-01-2011, 13:28

your not alone lol

(RIP) PLANK · 24-01-2011, 14:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by jace

how do we know it was his colour and not just drunken louts he cant tell us can he!

read the story! you mean to say you have made all these comments and don't even know what the thread is about - typical racist jumping on the bandwagon

I love these comments they are what this thread was all about and make my point wonderfully

extreme-4x4 · 24-01-2011, 19:37

to make an unbiased view id need to obtain the facts i would want . evidence or transcripts of the hearing . it would be wrong to base my opinions on what a paper is allowed to print .

would it not be dangerous to allow the papers or anyone to have full control of your thinking and opinions many powerful people throughout history, have had people following there nasty propaganda . and millions of innocent people have been murdered and tormented . based on what is allowed to be printed .

sad that most people choose to believe without question . just what is written in print.

is it not better to question , what is the norm . have your own thoughts .

and question what people want you to beleive...

oh and plank im not picking on your thread personally, you know me better than that . im not even that fussed . im in the same view as tt2 was on that woman who got murdered .... its not happened anywhere near me. plenty more local stuff goes on , but never reaches the news .

maybe this story did because it rattles a few cages and gets a reaction from EVERYONE

(RIP) PLANK · 24-01-2011, 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by extreme-4x4

to make an unbiased view id need to obtain the facts i would want . evidence or transcripts of the hearing . it would be wrong to base my opinions on what a paper is allowed to print .

would it not be dangerous to allow the papers or anyone to have full control of your thinking and opinions many powerful people throughout history, have had people following there nasty propaganda . and millions of innocent people have been murdered and tormented . based on what is allowed to be printed .

sad that most people choose to believe without question . just what is written in print.

is it not better to question , what is the norm . have your own thoughts .

and question what people want you to beleive...

oh and plank im not picking on your thread personally, you know me better than that . im not even that fussed . im in the same view as tt2 was on that woman who got murdered .... its not happened anywhere near me. plenty more local stuff goes on , but never reaches the news .

maybe this story did because it rattles a few cages and gets a reaction from EVERYONE

And with that you have hit my point firmly on the head, this thread was a follow on to the 'mothers banned for being British thread' where it appeared it was OK for the racists among us us to swallow it hook-ine-and-sinker. But should anyone dare speak out against them they were to be branded 'immigrant lovers' and 'activists'. I was merely putting the shoe on the other foot.

The irony of it (quite predictably) went straight over their heads - as it appears to have with the 'fear factor' and fear factor 2' threads.

we have seen no reasonable arguments for a racist point of view, and as any reasonable person knows, racism is never, has never, will never be a good thing!

There are no historic examples of good racism only bad ones

extreme-4x4 · 24-01-2011, 20:16

but that is the same. as todays big news that fuel is possibly going to be on a quoter and could be as much as 175 a litre ......

that is just another thing the high up people want you to read .... so when your paying 140 a litre . you think the world is not as bad as it could be ....

well it bloody is .... i was pi55ed off at a pound a litre ..... im kin seething now at 130 -140 .

its just propaganda and the paper love it as does the government.
it keeps the majority in line

24-01-2011, 20:21

this country has selective rascisym,iraq was invaded to save its people from an evil tyrant who persucuted them yet saudi arabia had public stonnings,limb amputations yet were not invading them maybe flogging them billions £ worth of weapons and stopping investigation into bungs!
i would also argue both world wars were racist towards germany!

(RIP) PLANK · 24-01-2011, 20:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by extreme-4x4

but that is the same. as todays big news that fuel is possibly going to be on a quoter and could be as much as 175 a litre ......

that is just another thing the high up people want you to read .... so when your paying 140 a litre . you think the world is not as bad as it could be ....

well it bloody is .... i was pi55ed off at a pound a litre ..... im kin seething now at 130 -140 .

its just propaganda and the paper love it as does the government.
it keeps the majority in line

Well said that man! and all this blaming the immigrants for everything is proof of the propaganda 'divide-em-and-rule' tactics working!

when we had threads on the fuel crisis, the racists jumped in banging on about immigration then and i made the same point.

it's time to pack in all this divisive nonsense and concentrate on mutually important issues.

A tongue in cheek P.S. that £1.75 a liter story, wasn't in the paper was it? don't believe everything you read

Deleted account DD · 24-01-2011, 20:32

For those who are in any doubt :
Section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides a definition of the term 'racially or religiously aggravated' for the purposes of section 29 (aggravated assaults), section 30 (aggravated criminal damage), section 31 (aggravated public order) and section 32 (aggravated harassment).
28(1) An offence is racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 if-
(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group; or
(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group.

Deleted account DD · 24-01-2011, 20:36

and Mr Bigot who opened his gob then apealed and lost when rightly convicted:
R is an incapacitated man aged 52 years. On his way home along a pavement on his 'mobility scooter' he encountered three Spanish women. R was in drink and following an altercation he called the women "bloody foreigners" and told them to "go back to their own country" before pursuing them to a kebab house in an aggressive manner.R was convicted of using racially aggravated abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intent to cause fear or provoke violence contrary to section 31(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The prosecution argued that R's behaviour had demonstrated hostility towards the women based on their racial group whereas R argued that 'foreigners' did not constitute a racial group as defined by section 28 of the Act therefore a finding of hostility based on membership of a racial group could not be made.
The Court of Appeal held that where an offence is racially motivated for the purposes of section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 the defendant must first form the view that the victim is a member of a racial group as defined in section 28(4) of the Act. Something had then to be said that demonstrated hostility towards the victim as a member of that racial group. Hostility based on the fact that a person was 'foreign' could be just as objectionable as if it were based on a more specific racial characteristic.
DPP v M (2005) EWCA Crim 889 had been correctly followed but it should be noted that section 28 was designed to deal with racial behaviour; prosecutions, therefore, should not be brought unless the facts truly suggest that the offence was aggravated by racism - compare where vulgar abuse had included racial epithets that did not indicate hostility to the race in question.
R appealed to the House of Lords arguing that hostility had to be shown towards a particular group as opposed to foreigners as a whole, mere xenophobia could not be said to be regarded by the ordinary person as hostility towards a racial group for the purposes of section 28 of the 1998 Act.

Deleted account DD · 24-01-2011, 20:38

Appeal dismissed. Conviction upheld.
Section 28(4) defines a racial group beyond groups defined by colour, race or ethnic origin and included nationality, citizenship and national origin which was deliberately done so by Parliament. The statute also intended that a broad approach be taken as opposed to a construction made up of distinctions. It follows that the offences do not require particular words to be used and the necessary hostility could be demonstrated also by actions such as the wearing of swastikas. "Foreigners" and those who are not British undoubtedly constituted a racial group within section 28(4)

24-01-2011, 20:39

it would seem to me no matter what colour/race the sailor was he was gonna get a kicking and the very fact he walked away from 20 lads suposedly beating on him says three things he was as hard as nails,they were crap fighters or the asault was grossly over hyped to make prosecuting force seem hard on race crime.

briggie · 24-01-2011, 20:48

im all for a free debate , but one thing concerns me about the possible implications of engaging in a illegal activity ... ie inciting racial hatred ...... im not sure of the implications of that collectively as a forum.... i suspect that in the worse case scenario the forum could be closed down , but i dunno , im not trying to be dramatic im just trying to make people aware of the possible implications..... none of us want that to happen to this great forum surely ? .... im sure someone in the know will either dismiss or confirm my fears

24-01-2011, 20:48	#120
briggie Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: peoples democratic republic of west yorkshire Vehicle: " alice " Posts: 10,473	an observation im all for a free debate , but one thing concerns me about the possible implications of engaging in a illegal activity ... ie inciting racial hatred ...... im not sure of the implications of that collectively as a forum.... i suspect that in the worse case scenario the forum could be closed down , but i dunno , im not trying to be dramatic im just trying to make people aware of the possible implications..... none of us want that to happen to this great forum surely ? .... im sure someone in the know will either dismiss or confirm my fears

24-01-2011, 13:18	#107
jace Guest Posts: n/a	how do we know it was his colour and not just drunken louts he cant tell us can he!

24-01-2011, 13:28	#109
jace Guest Posts: n/a	your not alone lol

24-01-2011, 19:37	#111
extreme-4x4 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: WALES Posts: 6,295	to make an unbiased view id need to obtain the facts i would want . evidence or transcripts of the hearing . it would be wrong to base my opinions on what a paper is allowed to print . would it not be dangerous to allow the papers or anyone to have full control of your thinking and opinions many powerful people throughout history, have had people following there nasty propaganda . and millions of innocent people have been murdered and tormented . based on what is allowed to be printed . sad that most people choose to believe without question . just what is written in print. is it not better to question , what is the norm . have your own thoughts . and question what people want you to beleive... oh and plank im not picking on your thread personally, you know me better than that . im not even that fussed . im in the same view as tt2 was on that woman who got murdered .... its not happened anywhere near me. plenty more local stuff goes on , but never reaches the news . maybe this story did because it rattles a few cages and gets a reaction from EVERYONE

24-01-2011, 20:16	#113
extreme-4x4 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: WALES Posts: 6,295	but that is the same. as todays big news that fuel is possibly going to be on a quoter and could be as much as 175 a litre ...... that is just another thing the high up people want you to read .... so when your paying 140 a litre . you think the world is not as bad as it could be .... well it bloody is .... i was pi55ed off at a pound a litre ..... im kin seething now at 130 -140 . its just propaganda and the paper love it as does the government. it keeps the majority in line

24-01-2011, 20:21	#114
jace Guest Posts: n/a	this country has selective rascisym,iraq was invaded to save its people from an evil tyrant who persucuted them yet saudi arabia had public stonnings,limb amputations yet were not invading them maybe flogging them billions £ worth of weapons and stopping investigation into bungs! i would also argue both world wars were racist towards germany!

24-01-2011, 20:32	#116
Deleted account DD Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 4,705	For those who are in any doubt : Section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides a definition of the term 'racially or religiously aggravated' for the purposes of section 29 (aggravated assaults), section 30 (aggravated criminal damage), section 31 (aggravated public order) and section 32 (aggravated harassment). 28(1) An offence is racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 if- (a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group; or (b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group.

24-01-2011, 20:36	#117
Deleted account DD Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 4,705	and Mr Bigot who opened his gob then apealed and lost when rightly convicted: R is an incapacitated man aged 52 years. On his way home along a pavement on his 'mobility scooter' he encountered three Spanish women. R was in drink and following an altercation he called the women "bloody foreigners" and told them to "go back to their own country" before pursuing them to a kebab house in an aggressive manner.R was convicted of using racially aggravated abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intent to cause fear or provoke violence contrary to section 31(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The prosecution argued that R's behaviour had demonstrated hostility towards the women based on their racial group whereas R argued that 'foreigners' did not constitute a racial group as defined by section 28 of the Act therefore a finding of hostility based on membership of a racial group could not be made. The Court of Appeal held that where an offence is racially motivated for the purposes of section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 the defendant must first form the view that the victim is a member of a racial group as defined in section 28(4) of the Act. Something had then to be said that demonstrated hostility towards the victim as a member of that racial group. Hostility based on the fact that a person was 'foreign' could be just as objectionable as if it were based on a more specific racial characteristic. DPP v M (2005) EWCA Crim 889 had been correctly followed but it should be noted that section 28 was designed to deal with racial behaviour; prosecutions, therefore, should not be brought unless the facts truly suggest that the offence was aggravated by racism - compare where vulgar abuse had included racial epithets that did not indicate hostility to the race in question. R appealed to the House of Lords arguing that hostility had to be shown towards a particular group as opposed to foreigners as a whole, mere xenophobia could not be said to be regarded by the ordinary person as hostility towards a racial group for the purposes of section 28 of the 1998 Act.

24-01-2011, 20:38	#118
Deleted account DD Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 4,705	Appeal dismissed. Conviction upheld. Section 28(4) defines a racial group beyond groups defined by colour, race or ethnic origin and included nationality, citizenship and national origin which was deliberately done so by Parliament. The statute also intended that a broad approach be taken as opposed to a construction made up of distinctions. It follows that the offences do not require particular words to be used and the necessary hostility could be demonstrated also by actions such as the wearing of swastikas. "Foreigners" and those who are not British undoubtedly constituted a racial group within section 28(4)

24-01-2011, 20:39	#119
jace Guest Posts: n/a	it would seem to me no matter what colour/race the sailor was he was gonna get a kicking and the very fact he walked away from 20 lads suposedly beating on him says three things he was as hard as nails,they were crap fighters or the asault was grossly over hyped to make prosecuting force seem hard on race crime.