Should Boris be booted?

by Syl Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:46 am

First topic message reminder :

Boris Johnson is being asked to at least apologise, at worst resign or be sacked over the piece he wrote in Mondays Daily Telegraph.
He likened Burka wearing women to resembling bank robbers and letter boxes.

Should May get rid of bungling Boris, or will this just enhance his popularity with his following?

https://news.sky.com/story/tory-peer-remove-whip-from-boris-over-burka-remarks-11464276

by Syl Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:15 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Syl wrote:

Thankfully we are not ruled by Sharia law here Mags, so it's pointless comparing our free country with countries that practice a law that we may think is barbaric.

Leicester? Luton (only a few miles from where I live)? There have already been demands by Muslim leaders in what are rapidly approaching the status of Muslim-controlled town and city local authorities for the incorporation of elements of Sharia Law into local bye-laws...and these would equally affect all residents.

And if these demands are met who would be to blame iyo?
The people who are making the demands or the people who rule in the UK?
If we are so politically correct and eager to allow others to dictate how our laws should change (for fear of being called racist) that may explain how sections of the Muslim communities have been allowed to groom and rape for decades.
So hopefully the law of the land in this country wont change to incorporate Sharia laws.

by Guest Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:19 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:ahhh...but heres the rub, a western woman CANT wear skin tight leggings (even on a size 10 butt) or any other sort of accepted western clothing in ANY area in or around the Muslim ghettos that have sprung up in and around our cities, without fear of abuse and worse........

once again the traffic is only one way.......

The reality here is this Victor

Those who wear the Burka, follow a very neo-conservative islam.

Salafism/Wahhabism

Its this very form of islam, that has brought about Al-Qaeda, ISIS etc

The doctrines are emphatically the same

Women who wear this believe that Homosexuals should be executed

They believe aspostates should be executed.

That women, not me, should be stonned to death for adultery

They believe that men can beat them up, if they do not obey their husbands.

They believe men can have sex with them and they must obey

I could go on, but they are taught basically to be subservant to their husbands and that they cannot even sit with men and often taught to look down on non-Muslims. Even worse they are brainwashed this is what some mythical god wants

This garment is a form of political control

The Taliban enforced women to wear the burka and still do

ISIS enforced women to wear the burka and still do

Its at the very root of evil found within Islamic extremism

And why countless people celebrated being free from ISIS by burning the Burka

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/islamic-state-syrian-women-burn-burqas-burkas-in-celebration-after-being-freed-from-isis-manbij-sdf-a7173671.html

Those I hear defending the burka, seriously have not got a clue on this. All they see is the case we are a liberal country and fail to see countless women are forced to wear this oppressive garment

Even a number of Muslim countries also ban the burka, because its not Islamic

Nicko has asked this very point and people keep evading it.

What is happenning here is those supporting, are supporting the most extreme forms of islam. Not the many Muslims who stand against it

Posted again

by magica Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:32 pm

Original Quill wrote:
magica wrote:This is not a Muslim country yet. They can wear scarves. They wear the veils to make a point.

And the native American in your avvie, is his dress offensive? Indeed, the attitude of anti-immigrant America toward Indians, is identical to your attitude about Muslims.

And before you reply that they weren't born here, they are native Americans. They had this land far before the English. It's English imposed borders, created just a few years ago, that dictate that they are foreigners.

They are the same people that Trump calls rapists, criminals and drug dealers, and is kidnapping their children. They even still speak the same native language ... native American, despite being called Hispanics.

Granted, I'm talking about America. But it is analogous because it's the identical argument you give for Muslims.

No its so different. American indians lived in America for thousands of years. Their land was taken from them by an American government. No comparison.

by Original Quill Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:38 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Ah, but race was a term alive and kicking when it meant profits for rich, white entrepreneurs of yesteryear. We still live on that estate paid for on the backs of third-worlders, innit?

Would it be rude of me to suggest that aging RW'ers are the ones who want to forget the term "racist" these days? The chickens have come home to roost. The younger generation is picking up steam with ideas of remediation.

You call Boris a White Supremacist. Even though he is against the ban of the Burka. You do this everytime, you politicize everything with racism

Now Boris is a cock and uses public opinion to gain attention

That does not mean he is a white supremacist and all can see you claimed this yesterday

Its why I posted the meme, "shout racist"

I think the term I used is white nationalist...or if I slipped and in my haste wrote white supremacist, I was thinking of the European version. A 'supremacist' says I am better then them! A nationalist says, keep them fookers off my well-tended grass! Granted, in both the urge is toward disfavoring people of color, but the latter elevates it to 'heritage' and removes it from the personal.

Didge wrote:The point Victor is trying to tell you, is that you make the term racism meaningless, when you cast anyone you disagree with as racist

You can be much better than that and used to be. You used to argue the points, not deligitimise those giving the opinion. Just saying

Well, I go back to the same premise. The term 'racist' was not invented in political dialogue of today. It was built upon a concept of racial distinction and exploitation that our white ancestors started. In language, words follow practice, and the term 'racist' was just a way of creating a dialogue about the concept.

In politics, sometimes there is confusion between what is actually happening, and what we wish to see happen. I think older RW'ers would like to see the term 'racist' diminish in their world, and indeed it probably does down at the old folks' pub.

But in fact, as the world gets smaller, and we are squished up against each other, people of color are causing the word to creep into our discussions more and more. And the younger generation agrees with them. Dialogue about racism is inevitably increasing... #Charlottesville. #Black lives matter. #Separating 3rd-world families seeking asylum at borders. Whew...it's getting hotter, not cooler.

by Guest Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

You call Boris a White Supremacist. Even though he is against the ban of the Burka. You do this everytime, you politicize everything with racism

Now Boris is a cock and uses public opinion to gain attention

That does not mean he is a white supremacist and all can see you claimed this yesterday

Its why I posted the meme, "shout racist"

I think the term I used is white nationalist...or if I slipped and in my haste wrote white supremacist, I was thinking of the European version. A 'supremacist' says I am better! A nationalist says, keep them fookers off my well-tended grass! Granted, in both the urge is toward disfavoring people of color, but the latter elevates it to 'heritage' and removes it from the personal.

Well, I go back to the same premise. The term 'racist' was not invented in political dialogue of today. It was built upon a concept of racial distinction and exploitation. In language, words follow practice, and the term 'racist' was just a way of creating a dialogue about the concept.

In politics, sometimes there is confusion between what is actually happening, and what we wish to see happen. I think older RW'ers would like to see the term 'racist' diminish in their world, and indeed it probably does down at the old folks' pub.

But in fact, as the world gets smaller, and we are squished up against each other, people of color are causing the word to creep into our discussions more and more. And the younger generation agrees with them. Dialogue about racism is inevitably increasing... #Charlottesville. #Black lives matter. #Separating 3rd-world families seeking asylum at borders. Whew...it's getting hotter, not cooler.

So what you are saying is that nationalism is the same as racism, to the view that people who are concerned at the level of immigration are white supremacist. Even though many of these people are actually not even white.
nationalism, is a form of identity, which the Americans have done better than most. They identify through Americanism, no matter the ethnic group.

Hence the lunacy of your argument

You already hold a belief that some beliefs are wrong, correct?

You have a major issue with a mass of Southern Americans to the point you want to have a Californian Brexit

As you want to have the views held within that state stay the same and to remove anything you see as oppressive

Let me let you into a secret

That makes you a conservative

As you want to maintain the views of california over the rest of the US

That is Conservatism

Ouch

You see your argument fundementally falls down to the same methodology as the people of brexit

You both have concerns and want to maintain a certain way of life, away from oppression and inequality

People here speak out on the fact we are importing poor beliefs. You speak out and want to seperate from poor beliefs

That makes you a nationalist also, in the sense of Californian

So that makes you in line with Tommy

Go figure

by Original Quill Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:47 pm

magica wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

And the native American in your avvie, is his dress offensive? Indeed, the attitude of anti-immigrant America toward Indians, is identical to your attitude about Muslims.

And before you reply that they weren't born here, they are native Americans. They had this land far before the English. It's English imposed borders, created just a few years ago, that dictate that they are foreigners.

They are the same people that Trump calls rapists, criminals and drug dealers, and is kidnapping their children. They even still speak the same native language ... native American, despite being called Hispanics.

Granted, I'm talking about America. But it is analogous because it's the identical argument you give for Muslims.

No its so different. American indians lived in America for thousands of years. Their land was taken from them by an American government. No comparison.

Yes, we've already covered that. Read above.

by Guest Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:54 pm

Original Quill wrote:
magica wrote:

No its so different. American indians lived in America for thousands of years. Their land was taken from them by an American government. No comparison.

Yes, we've already covered that. Read above.

She has a point and how your nationalism wants to see California split from the rest of the US

You are showing more and more what a Conservative you are mate
The Arabs/Muslims did take lands that was not theirs, to the point they Arabinized the Middle east and North Africa

Where is your call for the Arabs to pay back here?

by Original Quill Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:56 pm

Didge wrote:So what you are saying is that nationalism is the same as racism, to the view that people who are concerned at the level of immigration are white supremacist.

Think about the terms, with the modifiers. 'White supremacy' says directly, "I'm better than non-whites, dammit!" A 'white nationalist' says, "I don't care who is better, I only want my neighbors to be white like me."

Both are based upon disfavoring non-white people. It's a concept that we (white's) invented, so the lexicon is ours as well. Nationalism refers to your nation; white nationalism says you are, or support a white nation.

by Guest Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:So what you are saying is that nationalism is the same as racism, to the view that people who are concerned at the level of immigration are white supremacist.

Think about the terms, with the modifiers. 'White supremacy' says directly, "I'm better than non-whites, dammit!" A 'white nationalist' says, "I don't care who is better, I only want my neighbors to be white like me."

Both are based upon disfavoring non-white people. It's a concept that we (white's) invented, so the lexicon is ours as well. Nationalism refers to your nation; white nationalism says you are, or support a white nation.

So what you are saying is that you are a Californian supremacist and that the people of the Southern states are inferior

Youi are no different to the thinking of those racist and white supremacists in the Southern states

You think they are inferior

by Syl Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:02 pm

magica wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

And the native American in your avvie, is his dress offensive? Indeed, the attitude of anti-immigrant America toward Indians, is identical to your attitude about Muslims.

And before you reply that they weren't born here, they are native Americans. They had this land far before the English. It's English imposed borders, created just a few years ago, that dictate that they are foreigners.

They are the same people that Trump calls rapists, criminals and drug dealers, and is kidnapping their children. They even still speak the same native language ... native American, despite being called Hispanics.

Granted, I'm talking about America. But it is analogous because it's the identical argument you give for Muslims.

No its so different. American indians lived in America for thousands of years. Their land was taken from them by an American government. No comparison.

I agree, I dont understand the comparison.
Britain has been a Christian country since the first century, Muslims arrived here in the 16th.
American Indians are indigenous to the US. scratch

by Guest Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:03 pm

You don’t hear the outraged of Twitter going on about the BBC and the Guardianmocking the burka. Stephen Fry made the same joke as Boris on Have I Got News For You, before Ian Hislop and Paul Merton joined in:

Stephen Fry: “I just posted something in that.”
Ian Hislop: “We must stop meeting like this, Camilla.”
Paul Merton: “Prince Charles is surprised when a pint of Guinness looks at him in a funny way.”

This was Polly Toynbee in the Guardian:

Something horrible flits across the background in scenes from Afghanistan, scuttling out of sight. There it is, a brief blue or black flash, a grotesque Scream 1, 2 and 3 personified – a woman. The top-to-toe burka, with its sinister, airless little grille, is more than an instrument of persecution, it is a public tarring and feathering of female sexuality. It transforms any woman into an object of defilement too untouchably disgusting to be seen. It is a garment of lurid sexual suggestiveness: what rampant desire and desirability lurks and leers beneath its dark mysteries? In its objectifying of women, it turns them into cowering creatures demanding and expecting violence and victimisation. Forget cultural sensibilities

Steerpike has found this Guardian piece offering an alternate use of the Burka, as a ‘relaunched postbox’.

https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/

Should Boris be booted? - Page 4 Burkapostguardian

So when lefties joke about the burka it’s funny, when Tories do it it’s a five day news story…

by Original Quill Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:12 pm

Didge wrote:She has a point and how your nationalism wants to see California split from the rest of the US

I think you missed her point. She was referring to Native Americanism, and we covered that in my original response to Fred. Muslims entering the UK are not natives...that is her point.

BTW, the leader of the California separatist movement, Louis Marinelli, has abandoned the effort. Not much enthusiasm, I guess.

Foreign Policy wrote:California Secessionist Leader Throws in Towel, Moves to Russia

He just wanted the Golden State to be independent, with a little help from the Kremlin.

What do you do when you’re the leader of a U.S. secessionist movement losing support because you’re backed by Russia? If you’re California’s Louis Marinelli, you give up and decide to settle in Russia.

The Yes California Independence Campaign is not the only secession movement with suspected Kremlin support (Russian backing, like the stars, shines bright deep in the heart of Texas), but it is the one Marinelli championed. But backers of Yes California were put off by its ties to Russia, which seemed especially shady given that Marinelli’s physical whereabouts were unclear during the campaign. And so they pulled the proverbial plug. As the Sacramento Bee reported, “Organizers said they want to make a clean break from any push tainted by perceived links to Russian leader Vladimir Putin.”

“I have found in Russia a new happiness, a life without the albatross of frustration and resentment towards ones’ [sic] homeland, and a future detached from the partisan divisions and animosity that has thus far engulfed my entire adult life,” Marinelli wrote in a letter to his supporters on Monday, referring to the Golden State as “occupied California.”

In a December interview with Russia’s RT, everyone’s favorite state-backed news outlet, Marinelli said his strategy was to court countries with U.N. Security Council veto power, namely Russia and China, to recognize the movement even if Washington and its allies rejected it. Russian nationalists, who’ve made a hobby out of supporting secessionist movements in Europe, were happy to oblige. That month, Marinelli established a makeshift “Embassy of the Independent Republic of California” in Moscow. He’s been there ever since, but now wants to make Russia his official home.

“If the people of Russia would be so kind as to welcome me here on a permanent basis, I intend to make Russia my new home,” he wrote. No word yet on whether the Kremlin will be so kind.

But fear not, California independence supporters. He said when California gains its independence, he will return “to live once again under our bear flag.”

And Ruiz Evans, Yes California’s now former vice president, is joining the California Freedom Coalition, another Calexit political group, and hopes to file a new proposal for Californian nationhood by the end of the month — one without any Russian baggage. Evans believes his movement would have more money and backing if people weren’t worried about ties to Russia.

Setting Kremlin hijinks aside, the movement still has some numbers issues to sort out. Per state rules, the California Freedom Coalition needs 585,000 signatures to qualify for a ballot measure on independence. Yes California only has 97,463 registered supporters.

While Evans plots another campaign from his new digs, Marinelli will remain the leader of Yes California from, yes, Russia.

“Until then I will continue to serve as the representative of the Republic of California to Russia,” he concluded, not clarifying who gave him this authority or what the role would actually entail.

It appears it was a Russian Bot all along. Shocked

by Guest Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:22 pm

So you are now bacltracking when i proved your arguments are exactly the same as Tommy

Your view is to hold the Southern people as inferior and not to be allowed to be part of your new country

You are more similar to Tommy than you even realise[/quote]

by Original Quill Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:29 pm

Didge wrote:So what you are saying is that you are a Californian supremacist and that the people of the Southern states are inferior

Well, yes. But it's by their own choice. Of course, I believe racism is inferior, and California would be better off separated from racists, but you miss the important point: that's not based upon arbitrary skin color. Southerners elect to be racists, and we only elect not to subscribe to their racist views.

A racist looks down upon a congenital factor (skin) and that is arbitrary and cannot be avoided. But a racist, himself, elects to hold racist views. That can be avoided.

We call the real southern aficionados deplorables! Razz

by nicko Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:30 pm

Is this man for real ?

by Original Quill Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:32 pm

nicko wrote:Is this man for real ?

You are wondering if I reject racism??? You shouldn't have to ask. Mad

by eddie Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:34 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:

+10

Wise, and quite timely post.

Yep. I’m glad you agree.
That’s why I bumped it again. Wink

by Original Quill Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:39 pm

Didge wrote:
So you are now bacltracking when i proved your arguments are exactly the same as Tommy

Your view is to hold the Southern people as inferior and not to be allowed to be part of your new country

You are more similar to Tommy than you even realise

Didge, this is not about you. Nor is it about me. Quit bragging about the size of your dick!

In fact, it isn't that big, anyway. Laughing

You haven't thought the point through. Southerners elect to be racists, so it's their belief that people should be judged by skin color that disqualifies them. They could change if they wanted, they just don't.

Now, people of color can't change. That, and slavery, is the basis of sympathy toward them.

by Guest Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:
So you are now bacltracking when i proved your arguments are exactly the same as Tommy

Your view is to hold the Southern people as inferior and not to be allowed to be part of your new country

You are more similar to Tommy than you even realise

Didge, this is not about you. Nor is it about me. Quit bragging about the size of your dick!

In fact, it isn't that big, anyway. You haven't thought the point through. Southerners elect to be racists, so it's their belief that people should be judged by skin color that disqualifies them. They could change if they wanted, they just don't.

Now, people of color can't change. That, and slavery, is the basis of sympathy toward them.

Copout mate

I am not bragging about dick size

I am, of course exposing your arguments as the same as Tommy

You are a nationalist Quill, when you support Calexit

by Guest Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:So what you are saying is that you are a Californian supremacist and that the people of the Southern states are inferior

Well, yes. But it's by their own choice. Of course, I believe racism is inferior, and California would be better off separated from racists, but you miss the important point: that's not based upon arbitrary skin color. Southerners elect to be racists, and we only elect not to subscribe to their racist views.

A racist looks down upon a congenital factor (skin) and that is arbitrary and cannot be avoided. But a racist, himself, elects to hold racist views. That can be avoided.

We call the real southern aficionados deplorables!

Ao you admit you are no better than white supremacists

They argue the same in how a place wouold be better off witghout people.

You both view them as inferior

by Fred Moletrousers Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:50 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

It's not quite the same, is it? Although we in this country have undergone invasions by Vikings, Saxons, Romans and Normans, major Muslim enclaves are a relatively recent phenomenon and our national religion has been Christianity for some 1,500 years.

Repressive attitudes and behaviour towards women, apart from being illegal, are alien to our established Western culture and while we appear to be exhorted in some quarters to tolerate them "in the interests of social cohesion" I see no reason why we should be required to accept them without question.

And if that makes me a "racist", then so be it.

Hi Fred. Welcome to the discussion.

I was anticipating that argument as I wrote (yes, I am most critical of myself and my ideas). Native Americans had the land first, and we Americans came along and snatched it away from them; thus it is utter hypocrisy to call them immigrants.

On the other hand, the Muslims came to your country of origin, true. But, tell me how those Pakistanis got the inclination to come to your island in the first place? What caused those people (of Pakistan) to feel that Britain was home? Don't we go back to the British Empire, and the British East India Company, and all those profits y'all took away in your dominion over them? Now they come home to Moma, and bad mother that you are, you slap them in the face.

I don't think you are racist. Or, if we whites are, it's a definition that was given to us by out ancestors. But, now that we live in that definitional schemata--that we, ourselves created--don't you think we ought to clean up before we leave? If we willingly and enthusiastically opened their home for everyone, we might at least offer our home to them.

It goes back to 1947 when India gained its independence and was partitioned to form the Muslim-dominated north - now Pakistan - and the predominently Hindu south - now India.

The cost, sadly, was about a million dead and 15 million displaced and conflict, as always, led to refugees and migration to other countries, notably the UK, by both Pakistanis and Indians.

I'm not denying that my forebears exploited the people of India and that there were atrocities (on both sides, actually), and I suppose that I must admit to being a bit closer to that period of Colonial history than most because I am the great-grandson of a Soldier of the Queen (Victoria) who spent many years serving on the sub continent.

But I'm damned if I'm going to join in any silly, meaningless "apologies" for things that I did not do and for which I hold no responsibility, and I flatly refuse to be party to the weasel-worded contrition and faux contriteness of politicians - of any political persuasion - that stems from a craven capitulation to the barmy phenomenon of political correctness.

by Guest Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:58 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Hi Fred. Welcome to the discussion.

I was anticipating that argument as I wrote (yes, I am most critical of myself and my ideas). Native Americans had the land first, and we Americans came along and snatched it away from them; thus it is utter hypocrisy to call them immigrants.

On the other hand, the Muslims came to your country of origin, true. But, tell me how those Pakistanis got the inclination to come to your island in the first place? What caused those people (of Pakistan) to feel that Britain was home? Don't we go back to the British Empire, and the British East India Company, and all those profits y'all took away in your dominion over them? Now they come home to Moma, and bad mother that you are, you slap them in the face.

I don't think you are racist. Or, if we whites are, it's a definition that was given to us by out ancestors. But, now that we live in that definitional schemata--that we, ourselves created--don't you think we ought to clean up before we leave? If we willingly and enthusiastically opened their home for everyone, we might at least offer our home to them.

It goes back to 1947 when India gained its independence and was partitioned to form the Muslim-dominated north - now Pakistan - and the predominently Hindu south - now India.

The cost, sadly, was about a million dead and 15 million displaced and conflict, as always, led to refugees and migration to other countries, notably the UK, by both Pakistanis and Indians.

I'm not denying that my forebears exploited the people of India and that there were atrocities (on both sides, actually), and I suppose that I must admit to being a bit closer to that period of Colonial history than most because I am the great-grandson of a Soldier of the Queen (Victoria) who spent many years serving on the sub continent.

But I'm damned if I'm going to join in any silly, meaningless "apologies" for things that I did not do and for which I hold no responsibility, and I flatly refuse to be party to the weasel-worded contrition and faux contriteness of politicians - of any political persuasion - that stems from a craven capitulation to the barmy phenomenon of political correctness.

Now the above is how to argue with reason

great post

by Fred Moletrousers Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:11 pm

Syl wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Leicester? Luton (only a few miles from where I live)? There have already been demands by Muslim leaders in what are rapidly approaching the status of Muslim-controlled town and city local authorities for the incorporation of elements of Sharia Law into local bye-laws...and these would equally affect all residents.

And if these demands are met who would be to blame iyo?
The people who are making the demands or the people who rule in the UK?
If we are so politically correct and eager to allow others to dictate how our laws should change (for fear of being called racist) that may explain how sections of the Muslim communities have been allowed to groom and rape for decades.
So hopefully the law of the land in this country wont change to incorporate Sharia laws.

That is most certainly the case in Rotherham (a town that I know well, having been born four miles away; having family still living there and being the nephew of a former Mayor - who must be spinning in his grave at what has happened.)

Indeed, the police and authorities have admitted it (I believe it was where the excuse "in the interests of social cohesion" originated).

The problem with bye-laws is that their creation is, as I understand it, within the gift of the local authority and will obviously be determined by the majority faction. I am told that the ability of national government to intervene is limited unless, of course, a bye-law directly contravenes the law of the land, in which the Supreme Court would, hopefully, intervene.

by Original Quill Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:19 pm

Didge wrote:Now the above is how to argue with reason

great post

Fred is a great and colorful writer He's a consummate professional. I can disagree with him...still I can't help but admire his work.

Fred M. wrote:But I'm damned if I'm going to join in any silly, meaningless "apologies" for things that I did not do and for which I hold no responsibility, and I flatly refuse to be party to the weasel-worded contrition and faux contriteness of politicians - of any political persuasion - that stems from a craven capitulation to the barmy phenomenon of political correctness.

Well, what do you want to do Fred? Let the other guy continue to pay the price? What your ancestors did is leave us with an unpaid debt. As I said in my other post, if it were a bank loan, or a mortgage, it would have to be repaid.

by Guest Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:22 pm

Original Quill wrote:Fred is a great and colorful writer He's a consummate professional. I can disagree with him...still I can't help but admire his work.

Fred M. wrote:But I'm damned if I'm going to join in any silly, meaningless "apologies" for things that I did not do and for which I hold no responsibility, and I flatly refuse to be party to the weasel-worded contrition and faux contriteness of politicians - of any political persuasion - that stems from a craven capitulation to the barmy phenomenon of political correctness.

Well, what do you want to do Fred? Let the other guy continue to pay the price? What your ancestors did is leave us with an unpaid debt. As I said in my other post, if it were a bank loan, or a mortgage, it would have to be repaid.

Okay, who should this unpaid debt be paid too?

To people who never ever were wronged?

That is not repaying a wrong in the past, is it?

You only call for this to make yourself feel better

Where you are wrong on this is. Is you will never achieve that

As you cannot even begin to think what its like. To live in the past

Start living in the present Quill

by Original Quill Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:32 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Fred is a great and colorful writer He's a consummate professional. I can disagree with him...still I can't help but admire his work.

Well, what do you want to do Fred? Let the other guy continue to pay the price? What your ancestors did is leave us with an unpaid debt. As I said in my other post, if it were a bank loan, or a mortgage, it would have to be repaid.

Okay, who should this unpaid debt be paid too?

To people who never ever were wronged?

Never wronged? They live in poverty (or East London, whichever is worse Laughing

), and I'm not raising reparations or special programs. I'm just saying, be tolerant and kind to those who have come to the UK to live.

Didge wrote:That is not repaying a wrong in the past, is it?

You only call for this to make yourself feel better

Where you are wrong on this is. Is you will never achieve that

As you cannot even begin to think what its like. To live in the past

Start living in the present Quill

I think you are confusing this with the other thread. In that thread we were discussing reparations and present effects of past discrimination. Here, I am just mentioning that Pakistanis have a right to expect to be welcome in the UK...given as they welcomed the British in their home for so long.

Granted, I use the bank analogy in both, so it might be confusing.

by Raggamuffin Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:36 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

Okay, who should this unpaid debt be paid too?

To people who never ever were wronged?

Never wronged? They live in poverty (or East London, whichever is worse ), and I'm not raising reparations or special programs. I'm just saying, be tolerant and kind to those who have come to the UK to live.

Didge wrote:That is not repaying a wrong in the past, is it?

You only call for this to make yourself feel better

Where you are wrong on this is. Is you will never achieve that

As you cannot even begin to think what its like. To live in the past

Start living in the present Quill

I think you are confusing this with the other thread. In that thread we were discussing reparations and present effects of past discrimination. Here, I am just mentioning that Pakistanis have a right to expect to be welcome in the UK...given as they welcomed the British in their home for so long.

Granted, I use the bank analogy in both, so it might be confusing.

Who says they're not welcome?

by eddie Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

Okay, who should this unpaid debt be paid too?

To people who never ever were wronged?

Never wronged? They live in poverty (or East London, whichever is worse ), and I'm not raising reparations or special programs. I'm just saying, be tolerant and kind to those who have come to the UK to live.

Didge wrote:That is not repaying a wrong in the past, is it?

You only call for this to make yourself feel better

Where you are wrong on this is. Is you will never achieve that

As you cannot even begin to think what its like. To live in the past

Start living in the present Quill

I think you are confusing this with the other thread. In that thread we were discussing reparations and present effects of past discrimination. Here, I am just mentioning that Pakistanis have a right to expect to be welcome in the UK...given as they welcomed the British in their home for so long.

Granted, I use the bank analogy in both, so it might be confusing.

Who says they're not welcome?

Quill does and he knows. Rolling Eyes

by Original Quill Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:38 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Never wronged? They live in poverty (or East London, whichever is worse ), and I'm not raising reparations or special programs. I'm just saying, be tolerant and kind to those who have come to the UK to live.

I think you are confusing this with the other thread. In that thread we were discussing reparations and present effects of past discrimination. Here, I am just mentioning that Pakistanis have a right to expect to be welcome in the UK...given as they welcomed the British in their home for so long.

Granted, I use the bank analogy in both, so it might be confusing.

Who says they're not welcome?

Well originally the discussion was about burkas. I think 'welcoming' came up because some were critical of their dress.

by Raggamuffin Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:40 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Who says they're not welcome?

Well originally the discussion was about burkas. I think 'welcoming' came up because some were critical of their dress.

Oh, I see. Most people here don't wear burkas, whether they're Pakistani or not. Also, not all Muslims are from Pakistan.

by Fred Moletrousers Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:29 pm

[quote="Original Quill"

Well, what do you want to do Fred? Let the other guy continue to pay the price? What your ancestors did is leave us with an unpaid debt. As I said in my other post, if it were a bank loan, or a mortgage, it would have to be repaid.[/quote]

Well, given the fact that both India and Pakistan are major players on the international scene and both have space and nuclear industries - and in the case of India a likely mega-economy - I don't want to do anything because I think they did - rightly - benefit from our long presence . And nor do I think there is any necessity for my government to do anything.

As I indicated elsewhere, I, by the same token of your argument, could be demanding that the Italian government apologise and pay reparations to me for the invasion and subjugation of my Brigante tribal lands in Yorkshire in the past.

And maybe governments in Scandinavia, France and Germany might like to chip in, because in the past they all did unto us what we have done unto others over the centuries.

It's how nations are created. It's called history.

by Vintage Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:27 am

The Indians on the whole aren't too bothered about the Imperial past, their attitude seems to be - that was then, this is now -. The say bad things happened before the British Empire got there, bad things happened, with both sides after they did arrive but on the whole both learnt beneficial things from the other.

by Fred Moletrousers Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:30 pm

Vintage wrote:The Indians on the whole aren't too bothered about the Imperial past, their attitude seems to be - that was then, this is now -. The say bad things happened before the British Empire got there, bad things happened, with both sides after they did arrive but on the whole both learnt beneficial things from the other.

I would say that Indians have made by far the greatest contribution to society of all the many nationalities that have come here.

by eddie Sat Aug 11, 2018 1:05 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Vintage wrote:The Indians on the whole aren't too bothered about the Imperial past, their attitude seems to be - that was then, this is now -. The say bad things happened before the British Empire got there, bad things happened, with both sides after they did arrive but on the whole both learnt beneficial things from the other.

I would say that Indians have made by far the greatest contribution to society of all the many nationalities that have come here.

I think you’re right actually.

by Guest Sat Aug 11, 2018 1:18 pm

eddie wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I would say that Indians have made by far the greatest contribution to society of all the many nationalities that have come here.

I think you’re right actually.

What about all the Irish navvies that built the British railroads? Rolling Eyes

by nicko Sat Aug 11, 2018 2:34 pm

They dug out the Canals as well !

by Guest Sat Aug 11, 2018 2:37 pm

nicko wrote:They dug out the Canals as well !

Very ture

Not knocking the Indians, as they have very much largely contributed to this country. Its why I place them alongside the Irish and not above each other.

by nicko Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:00 pm

I'll just mention ,my Mom was Irish, Dad was a Scot !

by Guest Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:11 pm

nicko wrote:I'll just mention ,my Mom was Irish, Dad was a Scot !

A True Celt and someone proud to be English

One of the finest qualities mate and you even fought alongside Australian brothers in arms

I am in awe mate, as everyone else should be. To top this off, you have mixed ethnic black grandkids

Those who call you a racist and baby killer are simple idiots mate. There is not a racist bone in your body. You stood to defend people being oppressed, even in Vietnam. The Australians have an exemplary record in Vietnam, who helped defend many villager lives from the murdereous Vietconq. When Lefties look at this conflict, they continually ignore the crimes of the Vietconq and only centre on those western. When both sides committed wrongs

I am proud of you mate and sadly some yanks have never really understood this conflict. Quill for one has no conception how in fact you did end up saving the lives of babies from Communist murderers. You were not part of the Yank brigade that did commit attrocities and why Quill when he uses this pathetic unwarranted charge on you, is gutless. He would be the first to turn tale in a fight.

I suggest veya get out a massive loan to pay you mate reparations, as he is part French ancestry and the Normans did slaughter countless celts when they invaded...

by nicko Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:40 pm

I just did my job Didge, and I'm proud I did it !

by Original Quill Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:50 pm

Fred M. wrote:As I indicated elsewhere, I, by the same token of your argument, could be demanding that the Italian government apologise and pay reparations to me for the invasion and subjugation of my Brigante tribal lands in Yorkshire in the past.

Did the Italians invade Yorkshire? I hadn't heard.

Never mind, I do think that the land mass of Italy should have been handed over to the Jews, for the creation of the state of Israel: it's on the Med, and the Italians started it all, thus t'would be true justice relating to the Axis shenanigans. The Italians were really the culprits of WWII, and we needn't have bothered the poor Palestinians.

by Guest Sat Aug 11, 2018 6:11 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Fred M. wrote:As I indicated elsewhere, I, by the same token of your argument, could be demanding that the Italian government apologise and pay reparations to me for the invasion and subjugation of my Brigante tribal lands in Yorkshire in the past.

Did the Italians invade Yorkshire? I hadn't heard.

Never mind, I do think that the land mass of Italy should have been handed over to the Jews, for the creation of the state of Israel: it's on the Med, and the Italians started it all, thus t'would be true justice relating to the Axis shenanigans. The Italians were really the culprits of WWII, and we needn't have bothered the poor Palestinians.

Yes the Romans did

York was a major Roman city, from 71 AD. When a Roman legion set up camp there mate

This really is wierd. As how would you think, if you handed American indegenous indians land in Africa, they would feel?

What you are doing is excusing the faults of the Arabs here.

It would be like excusing Hitler and Stalin invading Poland, as they did not believe in their self determination and claim they have rights over Polish people

The Jews had their genesis in the land of Judea and happen to be the only indegeneous people, you do not back to reclaim the land their ancestors lived in. You back the colonial arabs who conquered this land

What is worse here, is the British Mandate for Palestine, gave 78% of this land to the Arabs, as what is now come to be known as Jordan. They were not happy with this, the Arabs, within the 22% of the rest of the British Mandate. They wanted all of this land. None of which they had any right to own in the first place. Jews had bought up land and many arabs owned land based on an elitist system. Something, I kn ow you are very much against.

Your view is that this problem would be better served to bow down to hate and not peace and living together.

You sound like Neville Chamberlain. He also bowed down to such pressure and in realty, allowed Hitler more time to prepare for war. All he ever did right, was one thing. Build up the RAF

I mean imagine you saying to Indegeneous Native Indians, that have to move to Africa

They would tell you to fuck off

Yet you think the problem to solve in the Middle East. Is to bow down to Arab imperialism and ethically cleanse the Jews

wow

These descendents have returned to a place that now is safe for them and you want to placer them in Italy?

Have you never heard of the crusades, where Jews were butchered?

by Fred Moletrousers Sat Aug 11, 2018 6:50 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Fred M. wrote:As I indicated elsewhere, I, by the same token of your argument, could be demanding that the Italian government apologise and pay reparations to me for the invasion and subjugation of my Brigante tribal lands in Yorkshire in the past.

Did the Italians invade Yorkshire? I hadn't heard.

Never mind, I do think that the land mass of Italy should have been handed over to the Jews, for the creation of the state of Israel: it's on the Med, and the Italians started it all, thus t'would be true justice relating to the Axis shenanigans. The Italians were really the culprits of WWII, and we needn't have bothered the poor Palestinians.

Oh, yes, and they named our great and lovely city of York Eboracum. And unless I am mistaken they managed to grow grapes and make wine up there.
That, at least, would explain why we Yorkshiremen are such accomplished boozers.

Of course they called themselves Romans in those days.

Personally, I am a Tyke, a moniker that is properly bestowed on those who were born and bred in or at least close to the mining town of Barnsley in South Yorkshire. In modern parlance, the word has been hijacked to mean either a mischievous child or a coarse and uncouth man.

by Original Quill Sat Aug 11, 2018 7:06 pm

Interesting history, but I was thinking of events a bit more recent. Some Jews hold a grudge against the Romans, but it is a bit removed from WWII.

Love the story about 'Tyke'. Etymology is a bit of a hobby of mine. Wonderful book by Edward Rutherfurd, titled simply London, is full of small bits of British history...mostly around the City.

by Guest Sat Aug 11, 2018 7:09 pm

Original Quill wrote:Interesting history, but I was thinking of events a bit more recent. Some Jews hold a grudge against the Romans, but it is a bit removed from WWII.

Love the story about 'Tyke'. Etymology is a bit of a hobby of mine. Wonderful book by Edward Rutherfurd, titled simply London, is full of small bits of British history...mostly around the City.

Wow

Why on earth would Jews hold a grudge against Italians?

I could understand a grudge with germans and Romanians, but Italian?

What rationality did that come from?

by Vintage Sat Aug 11, 2018 7:25 pm

Reparations, how far back do you go? Who decides? If one section of society or culture has to pay for occupying anothers land, using their resources or taking slaves, how is it fair to exclude others from further back in history? Let's all repay each other, and the whole thing will be cancelled out and perhaps we can get on with getting on.
The Jews are now thought to actually be the people they supposedly replaced in the promised land, its now thought the replacement was a question of a cultural and religious shift started by the mountain people in the region.

Jews and Italians, the Roman occupation of Judea? That's a way back though but I suppose a people almost continually repressed and oppressed, forcibly removed en mass from their countries. Assyrians, Babylonians etc.you don't forget.
Just about everyone on the planet has had their city states, tribal lands or country over run by someone else at some time in human history, a lot of the time the entire population would be killed in the take over. William didn't do too badly with the harrying of the north, which was to put it mildly devastated in the true sense of the word, villages burned people killed, domesticated animals slaughtered, crops burnt and lets not forget the same thingf happened to the Iceni after Boudicca's revolt. France in WW2 at least one an entire town raised to the ground and the inhabitants killed - forget the name of it.

by Guest Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:00 pm

Vintage wrote:Reparations, how far back do you go? Who decides? If one section of society or culture has to pay for occupying anothers land, using their resources or taking slaves, how is it fair to exclude others from further back in history? Let's all repay each other, and the whole thing will be cancelled out and perhaps we can get on with getting on.
The Jews are now thought to actually be the people they supposedly replaced in the promised land, its now thought the replacement was a question of a cultural and religious shift started by the mountain people in the region.

Jews and Italians, the Roman occupation of Judea? That's a way back though but I suppose a people almost continually repressed and oppressed, forcibly removed en mass from their countries. Assyrians, Babylonians etc.you don't forget.
Just about everyone on the planet has had their city states, tribal lands or country over run by someone else at some time in human history, a lot of the time the entire population would be killed in the take over. William didn't do too badly with the harrying of the north, which was to put it mildly devastated in the true sense of the word, villages burned people killed, domesticated animals slaughtered, crops burnt and lets not forget the same thingf happened to the Iceni after Boudicca's revolt. France in WW2 at least one an entire town raised to the ground and the inhabitants killed - forget the name of it.

+1

Do you know why Quill wot ask for reparations for the Arab slave trade?

Because not only white Europeans were enslaved but those African, were denied an inheritance by birth

The men were castrated and the women sexual slaves had their childen butchered

Its why hardly any Africans now live in the Middle east. Even though, the Arabs enslaved far more Africans that Europeans did

He is silent on this

by Vintage Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:11 pm

Many people are silent on the fact of African on African slavery and the economics of it. They also forget slavery was a way of life in almost every culture and that's only the traditional defination. They also forget that many British Llives were lost fighting to stop slavery. Many point to the comenstation to slave owners for freeing their slaves and yes it could have been handled better but surely it was done to ensure slaves were freed, iot may have taken a lot longer to achieve otherwise.
The British may be many things but once they decide something is unacceptable, they really go for it to change it and thankfully have been a giant force, for size, in getting things done, something we should be proud of, I certainly am.

by HoratioTarr Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:59 am

by Syl Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:19 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:

And what of the women who insist it empowers them rather than diminishes them?

by Sponsored content