Oscar Pistorius: pay your dues!

First topic message reminder :

Finally, law and order comes to the lawless land of South Africa. An appeals court has termed the 6-year sentence for murder as "disgraceful". Oscar Pistorius brutally shot his beautiful, and beloved girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, after an argument. He was originally sentenced to 5-years. But:

People wrote:...In its decision, the five-judge Supreme Court of Appeal ordered Pistorius — originally sentenced to six years in prison for murdering Reeva Steenkamp — to spend 13 years and five months behind bars, according to the Associated Press, the BBC and The New York Times.

The new ruling reportedly bring Pistroius’ sentence in line with the recommended minimum of 15 years for murder in South Africa, minus the time he has already served either in prison or under house arrest.

According to the AP, the appellate court’s decision is likely the final development in Pistorius’ case. It began not long after he fatally fired four times on Steenkamp, a law grad and model, on Valentine’s Day 2013, shooting her through a closed bathroom door in his Pretoria, South Africa, home.

Pistorius, 31, has always maintained he believed there was an intruder that night, but prosecutors said they suspected he was motivated by an earlier argument with his 29-year-old girlfriend of less than a year. At his first trial, they argued that he was gun-crazy and temperamental.

The shooting came months after the 2012 Summer Olympics at which Pistorius — an amputee runner nicknamed the “Blade Runner,” for the prosthetic legs he used to compete — was an international star. After several successful Paralympic Games, he competed at the Olympics, a first for a double-amputee.

His arrest and trial made months of headlines around the world. Though he was initially convicted of culpable homicide and served one year in prison, prosecutors appealed and he was found guilty of murder in 2015.

Likewise, with Friday’s decision, prosecutors have successfully appealed his initial sentence, which the trial judge reportedly attributed, in part, to Pistorius’ attempts at a personal apology to Steenkamp’s family.

Shoulda gotten a bullet to the temple, but this is a little bit better.

Didge wrote:So smelly is excusing someone not checking to see the noises that wakes them up is there girlfriend, based off murder rates and break in's.

I really have to say, that is the lamest argument going.

Ignoring that the girlfriend had locked herself within a bathroom she shares with her partner?

Has he at any point explained both these problems to his argument?

What if they had a child?

Would he have excused him blasting away into the bathroom, and the child was in there, based off a very remote possbility, an intruder was in the bathroom?

I mean lets even look at this. As why would an intruder hide within a bathroom, if they were looking to rob the place and even more if they were armed?

In other words smellys argument has no bases.

I agree. I've said before what burglar locks themselves in a toilet and waits to be caught.

He knew it was Reeva, and he murdered her, pure and simple.

magica wrote:

Didge wrote:So smelly is excusing someone not checking to see the noises that wakes them up is there girlfriend, based off murder rates and break in's.

I really have to say, that is the lamest argument going.

Ignoring that the girlfriend had locked herself within a bathroom she shares with her partner?

Has he at any point explained both these problems to his argument?

What if they had a child?

Would he have excused him blasting away into the bathroom, and the child was in there, based off a very remote possbility, an intruder was in the bathroom?

I mean lets even look at this. As why would an intruder hide within a bathroom, if they were looking to rob the place and even more if they were armed?

In other words smellys argument has no bases.

I agree. I've said before what burglar locks themselves in a toilet and waits to be caught.

He knew it was Reeva, and he murdered her, pure and simple.

I think he shot her in anger, that is for sure, but she clearly locked herself in to escape him.

I am still waiting for smelly to tackle these points made

He continually avoids them

eddie wrote:Okay, I accept that you're telling the truth about that.

I don't consider myself a racist but then again, that word is so misunderstood and overused I don't think it has any great meaning any more.

People ruin words.

liberals ruin words

its your lot that overused it to death

magica wrote:

Didge wrote:So smelly is excusing someone not checking to see the noises that wakes them up is there girlfriend, based off murder rates and break in's.

I really have to say, that is the lamest argument going.

Ignoring that the girlfriend had locked herself within a bathroom she shares with her partner?

Has he at any point explained both these problems to his argument?

What if they had a child?

Would he have excused him blasting away into the bathroom, and the child was in there, based off a very remote possbility, an intruder was in the bathroom?

I mean lets even look at this. As why would an intruder hide within a bathroom, if they were looking to rob the place and even more if they were armed?

In other words smellys argument has no bases.

I agree. I've said before what burglar locks themselves in a toilet and waits to be caught.

He knew it was Reeva, and he murdered her, pure and simple.

are you a burglar??

When I suggested to the writer Rachel Holmes, for decades my main informant on South Africa, that this was a case where knowing and not-knowing collide – we know he knew it was Steenkamp in the toilet, only of course we don’t, we can think we know but our knowing has its limits; our knowledge, we could say, is not flush with our desire – she suggested that the correct and far simpler distinction in this case is between knowing and having no proof.

Legally she is of course right, as Masipa dismissed the charge of premeditated murder on the grounds that his intention to kill Steenkamp had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

But, whichever way you read it, it is clear that, in Masipa’s words, “there are a number of aspects in the case that do not make sense”.

In her judgment she then listed a series of questions which, she stated, would “unfortunately remain a matter for conjecture”. Why, when Pistorius heard the bathroom window opening, as he claimed, did he not ascertain from the deceased whether she too had heard anything?

Since he did not get a response, why did he not ascertain whether the deceased had heard him before making his way to the bathroom? Why did the deceased, in the toilet and only a few metres away from the accused, not communicate with the accused, or phone the police as requested by the accused?

“It makes no sense,” Masipa said, to say she did not hear him scream “Get out,” since “it was the accused’s version that he screamed on top of his voice”.

Why did the accused fire not one but four shots before he ran back to the bedroom to try to find the deceased?

To which we can add the questions of Gerrie Nel, leading for the prosecution, and those of the judge at the original bail hearing: why would someone who slept with a firearm under his bed, and was apparently fearful of crime, fall asleep with a sliding door to the balcony wide open?

Although Pistorius claimed he had been the victim of violence and burglaries, there was no police record of his having been the victim of a crime.

Why did he not see that Steenkamp wasn’t in the bed at the time he unholstered his weapon? Why did the accused not ascertain the whereabouts of his girlfriend when he got out of bed? Why did he not even try to find out who exactly was in the toilet?

None of these questions was ever fully answered (though Pistorius’s defence worked hard to take them down one by one). The police who arrived on the scene made no bones about the fact they believed the intruder story to be fake.

The story doesn’t make sense, as Masipa conceded, even while arguing that Pistorius’s confused, contradictory, evasive and unreliable testimony was not in itself a proof of guilt.

Pistorius’s former girlfriend, Samantha Taylor, put it most simply: “It definitely didn’t make sense to me. I would … I don’t know, I find that kind of weird, I definitely wouldn’t close the door, especially if it’s not even connected to the bedroom. I don’t know why someone would lock the door, even if they are at their boyfriend’s house.”

Her comments have all the force of high-risk empathy: she is willing to imagine herself where she might have ended up – in Steenkamp’s place.

For anyone who reads this killing through the prism of domestic violence, and on behalf of the legions of women who have been its target, one question surely stands out from all the rest.

Why, as Pistorius always insisted, did Steenkamp not speak or cry out – not from the bedroom if that is where she was in his account, or from the toilet? Why, the whole time he was screaming, even when he was in the bathroom, did she not utter a word?

This is Pistorius in his final statement: “I got to the entrance of the bathroom, at the end of the passage, where I stopped screaming … At this point I started screaming again for Reeva to phone the police … I kept on screaming … I shouted for Reeva … I kept on shouting for Reeva.”

Why didn’t she answer or call out? A dead woman becomes a silent witness in the courtroom, voiceless now, voiceless then. Twice over, Pistorius silenced Steenkamp, turned her into a ghost.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/03/oscar-pistorius-appeal-murder-jacqueline-rose

smelly-bandit wrote:

magica wrote:

I agree. I've said before what burglar locks themselves in a toilet and waits to be caught.

He knew it was Reeva, and he murdered her, pure and simple.

are you a burglar??

Don't be stupid

magica wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

are you a burglar??

Don't be stupid

You profess to know what burglars do, so I asked the obvious question.

But haven't thought of the obvious question have you??

What if the burglar had only just gained entry, you assume he locked himself in, what if he had only just got in??

What if his entry made the noise which woke pistorius??

smelly-bandit wrote:

magica wrote:

Didge wrote:So smelly is excusing someone not checking to see the noises that wakes them up is there girlfriend, based off murder rates and break in's.

I really have to say, that is the lamest argument going.

Ignoring that the girlfriend had locked herself within a bathroom she shares with her partner?

Has he at any point explained both these problems to his argument?

What if they had a child?

Would he have excused him blasting away into the bathroom, and the child was in there, based off a very remote possbility, an intruder was in the bathroom?

I mean lets even look at this. As why would an intruder hide within a bathroom, if they were looking to rob the place and even more if they were armed?

In other words smellys argument has no bases.

I agree. I've said before what burglar locks themselves in a toilet and waits to be caught.

He knew it was Reeva, and he murdered her, pure and simple.

are you a burglar??

Are you?

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

are you a burglar??

Are you?  

Ive kicked a few doors down, why do you ask??

smelly-bandit wrote:

magica wrote:

Don't be stupid

You profess to know what burglars do, so I asked the obvious question.

But haven't thought of the obvious question have you??

What if the burglar had only just gained entry, you assume he locked himself in, what if he had only just got in??

What if his entry made the noise which woke pistorius??

Eh?

The Police stated there was no evidence of an intruder

So according to smelly, the first thing an intruder does when he enters is go for the most expensive items, which to smelly can be found in the bathroom.



So even more funnier, that based on the delusions of smelly, an intruder comes in and he is woken up by this and yet the victim does not make a single sound to this. Does not even shout out or call out to her partner.

The reality is as seen in the trial his claims do not add up, they conflict

Didge wrote:The reality is as seen in the trial his claims do not add up, they conflict

Which should have been an element discrediting the testimony of Oscar overall, according to the Rules of Evidence. Clearly the trial judge was not up on the law.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:The reality is as seen in the trial his claims do not add up, they conflict

Which should have been an element discrediting the testimony of Oscar overall, according to the Rules of Evidence.  Clearly the trial judge was not up on the law.

different countries have different laws and different ways of doing things.

you're experience in US law doesn't automatically translate to another countries justice system

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Which should have been an element discrediting the testimony of Oscar overall, according to the Rules of Evidence.  Clearly the trial judge was not up on the law.

different countries have different laws and different ways of doing things.

you're experience in US law doesn't automatically translate to another countries justice system

Yeah, I even thought of that. But Anglo-American law (including S. Afrika) is so closely knit that we frequently compare/agree on such things as due process and evidence.

Evidence is always evaluated on it's credibility. If someone's story on a single point is self-contradictory, or illogical, you can carry that over into his entire testimony. You might say, he's gained a reputation for unreliability. Makes sense.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

different countries have different laws and different ways of doing things.

you're experience in US law doesn't automatically translate to another countries justice system

Yeah, I even thought of that.  But Anglo-American law (including S. Afrika) is so closely knit that we frequently compare/agree on such things as due process and evidence.

Evidence is always evaluated on it's credibility.  If someone's story on a single point is self-contradictory, or illogical,  you can carry that over into his entire testimony.  You might say, he's gained a reputation for unreliability.  Makes sense.

doesn't really sound fair

a person gets one detail wrong and everything else is a lie??

that scene from shawshank where every prisoner denies he did it is starting to make sense now.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yeah, I even thought of that.  But Anglo-American law (including S. Afrika) is so closely knit that we frequently compare/agree on such things as due process and evidence.

Evidence is always evaluated on it's credibility.  If someone's story on a single point is self-contradictory, or illogical,  you can carry that over into his entire testimony.  You might say, he's gained a reputation for unreliability.  Makes sense.

doesn't really sound fair

a person gets one detail wrong and everything else is a lie??

that scene from shawshank where every prisoner denies he did it is starting to make sense now.

That's why it's left to a jury to decide. That's exactly the closing argument you would make the the jury.

Good show.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

doesn't really sound fair

a person gets one detail wrong and everything else is a lie??

that scene from shawshank where every prisoner denies he did it is starting to make sense now.

That's why it's left to a jury to decide.  That's exactly the closing argument you would make the the jury.

Good show.

so your job isnt to find the truth, its to make the person look like he is lying so you can convict him on appearance?

you're a stand up guy quill

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's why it's left to a jury to decide.  That's exactly the closing argument you would make the the jury.

Good show.

so your job isnt to find the truth, its to make the person look like he is lying so you can convict him on appearance?

you're a stand up guy quill

The job of an attorney is to represent his client to the best of his abilities.  It's called an adversarial system because, only in the contest of claims, will the truth will out.

The jury system is better than the dunking chair, don't you think?

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

are you a burglar??

Are you?  

Ive kicked a few doors down, why do you ask??

And I've burgled a few houses. Yes I have.
Oh and.
Your point is horseshite.

smelly-bandit wrote:

magica wrote:

Don't be stupid

You profess to know what burglars do, so I asked the obvious question.

But haven't thought of the obvious question have you??

What if the burglar had only just gained entry, you assume he locked himself in, what if he had only just got in??

What if his entry made the noise which woke pistorius??

There never was any burglar/intruder... I don't believe he ever thought there was...


But he is still guilty of the crime of intentional homicide/killing of 'someone'... and has now got the right sentence for this (lesser) charge... although if it could be proven that he deliberately killed Reeva, then he would be on the much more serious charge of murder and given a much longer sentence!

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

so your job isnt to find the truth, its to make the person look like he is lying so you can convict him on appearance?

you're a stand up guy quill

The job of an attorney is to represent his client to the best of his abilities.  It's called an adversarial system because, only in the contest of claims, will the truth will out.

The jury system is better than the dunking chair, don't you think?

not really

the jury system is still flawed because people are flawed by bias and prejudice.

the jury is instructed to decide the fate of a person on the basis of debate, an argument, from the cold sterile safety of a courtroom.

how could the jury possibly be expected to understand the stresses he was under??

if the jury system is to be used then surely it would be sensible to run the jury members through intense scenario training first,training designed to test what they would do when placed in perceived danger and under extraordinary stresses that they are not used to??

when put through scenario training many of those jury members would end up "killing" innocent people because of what they thought was about to happen.

the jury system isn't perfect, we know for a fact that under the jury system many innocent men and women have been wrong ruined and sent to prison, i don't know what system would be better but its somewhat illogical to be 100% certain he was guilty using a system that is less than 100% reliable.

i think the level of lynch mob hatred being shown to pistorius on this forum is to divert peoples thinking away from the alternative, that maybe he was just an unstable asshole who made a mistake and kill his missus instead of the burglar he thought he was killing.

if he is guilty then he will pay his dues and then some, if he isnt then the system has just sent an innocent man to hell based on speculation.

you do realize that if it was a burglar he wouldn't even have seen the inside of a courtroom??

pay your dues pistorius

Tommy Monk wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

You profess to know what burglars do, so I asked the obvious question.

But haven't thought of the obvious question have you??

What if the burglar had only just gained entry, you assume he locked himself in, what if he had only just got in??

What if his entry made the noise which woke pistorius??

There never was any burglar/intruder... I don't believe he ever thought there was...


But he is still guilty of the crime of intentional homicide/killing of 'someone'... and has now got the right sentence for this (lesser) charge... although if it could be proven that he deliberately killed Reeva, then he would be on the much more serious charge of murder and given a much longer sentence!

yeah no shit he is guilty of killing someone

would you kill someone??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179171/Walkerville-family-murders-Horrific-death-boy-12-drowned-boiling-water-robbers-raped-mother.html

So smelly is excusing someone not checking to see the noises that wakes them up is there girlfriend, based off murder rates and break in's.

I really have to say, that is the lamest argument going.

Ignoring that the girlfriend had locked herself within a bathroom she shares with her partner?

Has he at any point explained both these problems to his argument?

What if they had a child?

Would he have excused him blasting away into the bathroom, and the child was in there, based off a very remote possbility, an intruder was in the bathroom?

I mean lets even look at this. As why would an intruder hide within a bathroom, if they were looking to rob the place and even more if they were armed?

In other words smellys argument has no bases.

Astounding that smell can go countless pages without ever answer these main points everyone points out to him.

Continues to go off the hearsay lies of the guilty, which as seen, if anyone reads the trial, shows his claims conflict

Some delusional gun nut could slaughter his whole family, mistaking them for an invading bunch of lefty liberal foreign refugee communistic terrorist black/yellow/brindled sexual perverts...

Amd Smelly would willingly give him/her a free pass, a cash reward, a medal, and an all-expenses-paid-holiday..

All because Smelly reckons they were rightfully justified in claiming that they believed that they were being invaded by drug-fuelled barbarian hordes out to kill their womenfolk, steal their children, and rape their horses.

Sounds right..          

are there any other kind of barbarian hordes??

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay, I accept that you're telling the truth about that.

I don't consider myself a racist but then again, that word is so misunderstood and overused I don't think it has any great meaning any more.

People ruin words.

liberals ruin words

its your lot that overused it to death

SmellyBum' remains the biggest racist, and the foullest sexist twat, that I have ever encountered around here on NewsFix...

I have only ever used the terms "racist" and "xenophobe" within their correct and proper meanings on here --  despite the ongoing fallacious claims to the contrary from a small gang of flppettes on here..

People such as Quill, veya, Ben and myself don't need those rude and obnoxious racist fools like Smelly, Tommy or the late Stormee claiming that we don't know the "meaning of racism" --  when we will have all grown up witnessing enough actual racism in front of us,  to know what it really is.

lol

to you the word racist applies to anyone who doesn't agree with you

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay, I accept that you're telling the truth about that.

I don't consider myself a racist but then again, that word is so misunderstood and overused I don't think it has any great meaning any more.

People ruin words.

liberals ruin words

its your lot that overused it to death

SmellyBum' remains the biggest racist, and the foullest sexist twat, that I have ever encountered around here on NewsFix...

I have only ever used the terms "racist" and "xenophobe" within their correct and proper meanings on here --  despite the ongoing fallacious claims to the contrary from a small gang of flppettes on here..

People such as Quill, veya, Ben and myself don't need those rude and obnoxious racist fools like Smelly, Tommy or the late Stormee claiming that we don't know the "meaning of racism" --  when we will have all grown up witnessing enough actual racism in front of us,  to know what it really is

You think I don't know what racism is or haven't experienced it? You assume the people
you named up there in your little clique are special people.

I grew up in London and dated back men for years. Don't tell me I haven't witnessed racism - I've probably witnessed it more than you have!

Your posts would be more readily accepted if you stopped grouping people together and just spoke of your own opinions.

He can't see that Eddie, never will !

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


SmellyBum' remains the biggest racist, and the foullest sexist twat, that I have ever encountered around here on NewsFix...

I have only ever used the terms "racist" and "xenophobe" within their correct and proper meanings on here --  despite the ongoing fallacious claims to the contrary from a small gang of flppettes on here..

People such as Quill, veya, Ben and myself don't need those rude and obnoxious racist fools like Smelly, Tommy or the late Stormee claiming that we don't know the "meaning of racism" --  when we will have all grown up witnessing enough actual racism in front of us,  to know what it really is

You think I don't know what racism is or haven't experienced it? You assume the people
you named up there in your little clique are special people.

I grew up in London and dated back men for years. Don't tell me I haven't witnessed racism - I've probably witnessed it more than you have!

Your posts would be more readily accepted if you stopped grouping people together and just spoke of your own opinions.

As to your experience, eds, I think wolf shares your sympathies.  But the British have no national racism.  Before you jump on me for saying that, understand that that's something to be proud of.  I've said it before, you Brits do a people proud.

Wolf and veya have experienced a two-tier system in Oz.  And no one will dare question Ben's and my nation's disgrace over racism.  What wolf also has said is, he and I are vehemently opposed to racism, and the idea of a privileged white class is an anathema to us.  

I think that wolf was very precise in singling out those people, who, by their own proud admission, favor white supremacy.  The people he singled out are quite gratified by their belief in white superiority.

So, it's all how you take it, eds.  Those mentioned are probably high-fiving over their white-supremacy.  Wolf paid them a compliment, in their estimation.  As for London, they've got nothing really to be ashamed of.

If anyone knows what racism is it's me.

I saw racism towards blacks under apartheid and then saw the open season revenge racism towards whites.

Most of you onky understand racism as the PC tactics of "everyone who doesn't agree with me is racist"

None of you have seen or experienced real racism.

I have though

smelly-bandit wrote:If anyone knows what racism is it's me.

I saw racism towards blacks under apartheid and then saw the open season revenge racism towards whites.

Most of you onky understand racism as the PC tactics of "everyone who doesn't agree with me is racist"

None of you have seen or experienced real racism.

I have though

Yes, you've seen racism.  But from a well vested point of view...you liked it.  What you may be witnessing now is a return to normalcy, only to you it's seems like "open season revenge".  Perhaps it offends you that blacks get the same taxicab as you...seems unfair.

That's the kind skewed view that comes from an openly racist nation.  We heard this often after the war in Europe.  Old men at social gatherings would say, The only thing Hitler did wrong was lose the war!  The rest of the Third Reich, to them, seem perfectly acceptable.  We have the same thing in our south.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:If anyone knows what racism is it's me.

I saw racism towards blacks under apartheid and then saw the open season revenge racism towards whites.

Most of you onky understand racism as the PC tactics of "everyone who doesn't agree with me is racist"

None of you have seen or experienced real racism.

I have though

Yes, you've seen racism.  But from a well vested point of view...you liked it.  What you may be witnessing now is a return to normalcy, only to you it's seems like "open season revenge".  Perhaps it offends you that blacks get the same taxicab as you...seems unfair.

That's the kind skewed view that comes from an openly racist nation.  We heard this often after the war in Europe.  Old men at social gatherings would say, The only thing Hitler did wrong was lose the war!  The rest of the Third Reich, to them, seem perfectly acceptable.  We have the same thing in our south.

You've never left your hometown have you??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, you've seen racism.  But from a well vested point of view...you liked it.  What you may be witnessing now is a return to normalcy, only to you it's seems like "open season revenge".  Perhaps it offends you that blacks get the same taxicab as you...seems unfair.

That's the kind skewed view that comes from an openly racist nation.  We heard this often after the war in Europe.  Old men at social gatherings would say, The only thing Hitler did wrong was lose the war!  The rest of the Third Reich, to them, seem perfectly acceptable.  We have the same thing in our south.

You've never left your hometown have you??

I've never really had a hometown. Born in Cambridge, MA, lived in Portsmouth, Pensacola, Philadelphia (during war), then finished my younger days in Berkeley and Los Angeles. A couple of years in and around the Mediterranean, New Brunswick, London, New York City, Tucson, Phoenix, and San Francisco, Mill Valley.

Tell me, where was I stuck?

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


SmellyBum' remains the biggest racist, and the foullest sexist twat, that I have ever encountered around here on NewsFix...

I have only ever used the terms "racist" and "xenophobe" within their correct and proper meanings on here --  despite the ongoing fallacious claims to the contrary from a small gang of flppettes on here..

People such as Quill, veya, Ben and myself don't need those rude and obnoxious racist fools like Smelly, Tommy or the late Stormee claiming that we don't know the "meaning of racism" --  when we will have all grown up witnessing enough actual racism in front of us,  to know what it really is

You think I don't know what racism is or haven't experienced it? You assume the people
you named up there in your little clique are special people.

I grew up in London and dated back men for years. Don't tell me I haven't witnessed racism - I've probably witnessed it more than you have!

Your posts would be more readily accepted if you stopped grouping people together and just spoke of your own opinions.

As to your experience, eds, I think wolf shares your sympathies.  But the British have no national racism.  Before you jump on me for saying that, understand that that's something to be proud of.  I've said it before, you Brits do a people proud.

Wolf and veya have experienced a two-tier system in Oz.  And no one will dare question Ben's and my nation's disgrace over racism.  What wolf also has said is, he and I are vehemently opposed to racism, and the idea of a privileged white class is an anathema to us.  

I think that wolf was very precise in singling out those people, who, by their own proud admission, favor white supremacy.  The people he singled out are quite gratified by their belief in white superiority.

So, it's all how you take it, eds.  Those mentioned are probably high-fiving over their white-supremacy.  Wolf paid them a compliment, in their estimation.  As for London, they've got nothing really to be ashamed of.

Okay. That seems fair enough I suppose.

I did see first hand racism back in the late 80's though, from London police to black boys I knew, but I think you're probably correct that London was a little more advanced than other places.
I got spat on by a few people for being with a black guy occasionally.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

You've never left your hometown have you??

I've never really had a hometown.  Born in Cambridge, MA, lived in Portsmouth, Pensacola, Philadelphia (during war), then finished my younger days in Berkeley and Los Angeles.  A couple of years in and around the Mediterranean, New Brunswick, London, New York City, Tucson, Phoenix, and San Francisco, Mill Valley.

Tell me, where was I stuck?

i get the feeling you're like the opposite of those redneck hicks who never leave their dead end towns and dead end jobs, never see a black person but when they do its like "pa pa there's a nigga in town"

but the polar opposite of that, its like you've lived in some liberal socialist "progressive" transgender feminist hive mind utopia, like something out of that film "the faculty" where you see a normal person and suddenly you are all staring through the blinds at the SIXHIRB.



you just dont seem very worldly to me.

its almost like everything you know you've read from a text book, even your definition and understanding of racism seems fabricated, like you're reciting lessons you've learned on the subject

come on ou can tell uncle smelly, you've never left you're hometown have you

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

As to your experience, eds, I think wolf shares your sympathies.  But the British have no national racism.  Before you jump on me for saying that, understand that that's something to be proud of.  I've said it before, you Brits do a people proud.

Wolf and veya have experienced a two-tier system in Oz.  And no one will dare question Ben's and my nation's disgrace over racism.  What wolf also has said is, he and I are vehemently opposed to racism, and the idea of a privileged white class is an anathema to us.  

I think that wolf was very precise in singling out those people, who, by their own proud admission, favor white supremacy.  The people he singled out are quite gratified by their belief in white superiority.

So, it's all how you take it, eds.  Those mentioned are probably high-fiving over their white-supremacy.  Wolf paid them a compliment, in their estimation.  As for London, they've got nothing really to be ashamed of.

Okay. That seems fair enough I suppose.  

I did see first hand racism back in the late 80's though, from London police to black boys I knew, but I think you're probably correct that London was a little more advanced than other places.
I got spat on by a few people for being with a black guy occasionally.  

now this IS interesting

what was the racism you witnessed?? and why was it racist??

sb wrote:what was the racism you witnessed?? and why was it racist??

Police brutality; because it singled out blacks and used instruments of violence.  Poor education for blacks.  Segregated schools.  Poor jobs for blacks.  Poor living conditions for blacks.  Segregated neighborhoods.  Discrimination in banking for blacks.

All of the above for Hispanics.

You forget...I was an Assistant Attorney General.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


There never was any burglar/intruder... I don't believe he ever thought there was...


But he is still guilty of the crime of intentional homicide/killing of 'someone'... and has now got the right sentence for this (lesser) charge... although if it could be proven that he deliberately killed Reeva, then he would be on the much more serious charge of murder and given a much longer sentence!

yeah no shit he is guilty of killing someone

would you kill someone??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179171/Walkerville-family-murders-Horrific-death-boy-12-drowned-boiling-water-robbers-raped-mother.html

If I woke up in middle of night by strange noises elsewhere in my home... then I would establish the whereabouts of my girlfriend first...


I would assume that she was the one making noise... and i would shout out to her to confirm this...


I wouldn't shoot and kill her, then try to excuse this by claiming I thought she was an intruder...

Original Quill wrote:

sb wrote:what was the racism you witnessed?? and why was it racist??

Police brutality; because it singled out blacks and used instruments of violence.  Poor education for blacks.  Segregated schools.  Poor jobs for blacks.  Poor living conditions for blacks.  Segregated neighborhoods.  Discrimination in banking for blacks.

All of the above for Hispanics.

You forget...I was an Assistant Attorney General.

soundbites

nothing but the empty vessel making its noise quill

racism is a soundbite

police brutality is a soundbite

you seem to be struggling to define racism there quill.

i think you struggle to reconcile the fact that you're the racist.

youre the one constantly telling blacks that they arent good enough and its because the whites are keeping them down,you're right of course, it is the whites, liberal whites like you giving blacks a free pass on everything, from crime to unemployment to lack of upward social mobility its all the white mans fault.

you tell them they are victims and then treat them like victims, they going to be victims.

whats the plan quill?? keep them on their knees?? never give them the courage or opportunity to stand on their own two feet??

its too easy to live on the social and blame the white man for all your woes.

you've breed into them a mentality of dependency and you've made them your slaves forever.

who needs chains of iron when your chains are made from self pity??

you liberals are nasty pieces of work you know that??

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

As to your experience, eds, I think wolf shares your sympathies.  But the British have no national racism.  Before you jump on me for saying that, understand that that's something to be proud of.  I've said it before, you Brits do a people proud.

Wolf and veya have experienced a two-tier system in Oz.  And no one will dare question Ben's and my nation's disgrace over racism.  What wolf also has said is, he and I are vehemently opposed to racism, and the idea of a privileged white class is an anathema to us.  

I think that wolf was very precise in singling out those people, who, by their own proud admission, favor white supremacy.  The people he singled out are quite gratified by their belief in white superiority.

So, it's all how you take it, eds.  Those mentioned are probably high-fiving over their white-supremacy.  Wolf paid them a compliment, in their estimation.  As for London, they've got nothing really to be ashamed of.

Okay. That seems fair enough I suppose.  

I did see first hand racism back in the late 80's though, from London police to black boys I knew, but I think you're probably correct that London was a little more advanced than other places.
I got spat on by a few people for being with a black guy occasionally.  

now this IS interesting

what was the racism you witnessed?? and why was it racist??

I've told this story many times on forums. The Police were constantly stopping the group of boys I hung out with. I actually heard and saw them being called all kinds of racist words. They were also beaten on a few different occasions in the back of the police van (or 'meat wagon' as we used tom call them).

I saw these things happen, smelly, with my own two eyes.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I've never really had a hometown.  Born in Cambridge, MA, lived in Portsmouth, Pensacola, Philadelphia (during war), then finished my younger days in Berkeley and Los Angeles.  A couple of years in and around the Mediterranean, New Brunswick, London, New York City, Tucson, Phoenix, and San Francisco, Mill Valley.

Tell me, where was I stuck?

i get the feeling you're like the opposite of those redneck hicks who never leave their dead end towns and dead end jobs, never see a black person but when they do its like "pa pa there's a nigga in town"

but the polar opposite of that, its like you've lived in some liberal socialist "progressive" transgender feminist hive mind utopia, like something out of that film "the faculty" where you see a normal person and suddenly you are all staring through the blinds at the SIXHIRB.

 

you just dont seem very worldly to me.

its almost like everything you know you've read from a text book, even your definition and understanding of racism seems fabricated, like you're reciting lessons you've learned on the subject  

come on ou can tell uncle smelly, you've never left you're hometown have you

I'm not trying to be worldly, Russ. Textbooks are only conversations you are having...kinda like here, innit? We read...we learn...we discuss.

What...are you more worldly because, instead of reading, you get drunk in pubs and pass out in gutters? I don't think that's very worldly.

sb wrote:youre the one constantly telling blacks that they arent good enough and its because the whites are keeping them down,you're right of course, it is the whites, liberal whites like you giving blacks a free pass on everything, from crime to unemployment to lack of upward social mobility its all the white mans fault.

you tell them they are victims and then treat them like victims, they going to be victims.

And what are you telling them, Russ?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Police brutality; because it singled out blacks and used instruments of violence.  Poor education for blacks.  Segregated schools.  Poor jobs for blacks.  Poor living conditions for blacks.  Segregated neighborhoods.  Discrimination in banking for blacks.

All of the above for Hispanics.

You forget...I was an Assistant Attorney General.

soundbites

nothing but the empty vessel making its noise quill

racism is a soundbite

police brutality is a soundbite

you seem to be struggling to define racism there quill.

i think you struggle to reconcile the fact that you're the racist.

youre the one constantly telling blacks that they arent good enough and its because the whites are keeping them down,you're right of course, it is the whites, liberal whites like you giving blacks a free pass on everything, from crime to unemployment to lack of upward social mobility its all the white mans fault.

you tell them they are victims and then treat them like victims, they going to be victims.

whats the plan quill?? keep them on their knees?? never give them the courage or opportunity to stand on their own two feet??  

its too easy to live on the social and blame the white man for all your woes.

you've breed into them a mentality of dependency and you've made them your slaves forever.

who needs chains of iron when your chains are made from self pity??

you liberals are nasty pieces of work you know that??

Is it any wonder that the lily-livered, yellow bellied, spineless little racist, draft-dodging/army deserting, sewer-mouthed nazi apologist, Apartheid-loving and women-hating SmellyBumBum' ran away from SA, to hide in his deep dank dark basement over there in England...

The cretinous little maggot knows that he wouldn't have the courage to spout his nazi-inspired xenophobic bile in public,  instead resorting to the anonymity of social media, trusting that his handful of floppette and floptard chums are standing-by to cheer him on and "green" him up..

Original Quill wrote:

sb wrote:youre the one constantly telling blacks that they arent good enough and its because the whites are keeping them down,you're right of course, it is the whites, liberal whites like you giving blacks a free pass on everything, from crime to unemployment to lack of upward social mobility its all the white mans fault.

you tell them they are victims and then treat them like victims, they going to be victims.

And what are you telling them, Russ?

Me??

I tell them to stop blaming everyone else and start doing things for themselves.

They aren't victims of my skin colour they are victims of their own attitude.

The system is not rugged against them, shit a black man was able to attain the highest office in the land.

You love Obama but you HAAAAAAATTTTTEEE!!!!!!! the fact that he was black, so much so that you treat him like he was white.

A black president??? That really screws up your narrative about how hard done by the back American is, you love pretending that the system is against them but stutter and splutter when Obamas name is mentioned.

No quill I would tell blacks that their skin colour is no hindrance to their individual potential and achievement.

Quite the opposite in fact, in the western world paralysed by legacy guilt over slavery the system is in fact tipped I'm favour of the black man, we have introduced systems to actively help ethnic minorities.

We don't call it reverse racism because that will never do, we call it "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination" we have adverts for jobs that openly state "no whites"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3621658/BBC-turn-trainees-WHITE-Job-applicants-stunned-told-corporation-wants-people-ethnic-minority-backgrounds.html

Never mind, in the land of make believe it's always racist-o-clock

Three guesses who "redded" me above there today  ?!?

Three clues :  one of three lonely English, most-likely female, floptards...

Fragile little snowflakes obviously "can't handle the truth" about their brave iconic 'hero' Smelly'..

Not me wolfie I only very give you green

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Three guesses who "redded" me above there today  ?!?

Three clues :  one of three lonely English, most-likely female, floptards...

Fragile little snowflakes obviously "can't handle the truth" about their brave iconic 'hero' Smelly'..

Does it matter? And whom, are you calling "three lonely English, most-likely female, floptards..."?

sb wrote:I tell them to stop blaming everyone else and start doing things for themselves.

Did you tell them that you will stop discriminating against them? Did you promise that you will make up for all the past discrimination against them, that presently holds them down and elevates your status?

Or are you just going to sit there an criticize?

Original Quill wrote:

sb wrote:I tell them to stop blaming everyone else and start doing things for themselves.

Did you tell them that you will stop discriminating against them?  Did you promise that you will make up for all the past discrimination against them, that presently holds them down and elevates your status?

Or are you just going to sit there an criticize?

i don't discriminate against blacks, so i don't need to stop doing it nor do i need to make up for anything, you liberals gave my country back to the blacks more than 20 years ago, its their bag now, theirs to ruin as they have, i got nothing to apologize for.

maybe you suffer legacy guilt but not me, my dues are paid in full

im not the one telling them they arent good enough quill, that's you.

see above, you say

" Did you promise ...................... that presently holds them down and elevates your status?"

that's you telling blacks they arent good enough because of the colour of my skin, and YOURS btw.

that's YOU holding them down, not me.

ill tell them to be more than their skin colour, you tell them they will never be anything more because of your skin colour.

stop telling blacks they are victims, stop making excuses for their failings, stop blaming white because cant take the opportunity to elevate themselves, and you can definitley stop preaching to me about how awful i am

it falls on deaf ears