Let's Talk About America

First topic message reminder :

20th March 2014


Interesting facts - please discuss.

Tommy Monk wrote:It's you who have been coming out with the multitude of excuses and leftie waffle that I have seen in a long time!


All have been shown to be rubbish and now you continue ignoring the make hard facts and try to run away!



Hilarious!

Yes hilarious you call me Leftie when I am RW showing you wish to diverge from your stupidity in explaining a disparity.
So again you avoid answering, because you have failed to answer why a black person is more likely to commit a crime in detail, by detail, stats only show that is an increased possibility some more will commit crime and this off only the current stats on prison numbers, showing how again you fail to comprehend there has to be a detailed reason for differences, hence showing why you are a complete dummy. You reasoning is black and white, the stats at present show a possibility for more to commit crime, not though as to why they might.

Thus why you have failed to answer once, and we ll know why when I exposed your view point on immigrants when we are talking about Black people who some are British, but you see them as all immigrants, so we know your reasons behind why you think there is a disparity, but you have not the balls to say so

Tommy Monk wrote:I gave my answer above, can you read or not?

If you have a theory then back it up with some facts or it is just speculation.

.You can't demand that I provide facts to back up one of your theories, that is not how this game works.

Look, Tom, we are way beyond the reason you gave. You simply don't want to move with us; hence we all shake our heads and wonder about your reasoning ability.

What was originally posted were static prison population numbers, without even reference to proportions. Your hypothesis is that skin colour is determinative, and that, therefore skin pigmentation is the reason why people of colour are disproportionately represented in prisons.

You offer no causal connection for this. You have no idea how even your own theory would work. More importantly, you refuse to consider the many counter-hypotheses that make a lot more sense. You simply keep pounding your head on the same old post. ::hdintowll::

We are way beyond where you are stuck. Why don't you wish to discuss it further? Well, several people have suggested that you are not comfortable with advanced reasoning. Your intransigence suggests they may be right. You leave us with no other choice.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I gave my answer above, can you read or not?

If you have a theory then back it up with some facts or it is just speculation.

.You can't demand that I provide facts to back up one of your theories, that is not how this game works.

Look, Tom, we are way beyond the reason you gave.  You simply don't want to move with us; hence we all shake our heads and wonder about your reasoning ability.

What was originally posted were static prison population numbers, without even reference to proportions.  Your hypothesis is that skin colour is determinative, and that, therefore skin pigmentation is the reason why people of colour are disproportionately represented in prisons.

You offer no causal connection for this.  You have no idea how even your own theory would work.  More importantly, you refuse to consider the many counter-hypotheses that make a lot more sense.  You simply keep pounding your head on the same old post.  ::hdintowll::

We are way beyond where you want to go.  Why don't you wish to discuss it further?  Well, several people have suggested that you are not comfortable with advanced reasoning.  Your intransigence suggests they may be right.  You leave us with no other choice.

HI Quill


Excellent post and bang on the money.
He has had plenty of opportunities to supply reasoning but provides excuses not to.

Anyway have to go, so enjoy and fond farewell to all

Bye didge.

Have a great evening.

So after all the previous denial and waffle, we now have an admission from Didge.....

"...a black person is more likely to commit a crime.....stats [only] show that is an increased possibility some more will commit crime..."


Now we have established agreement on the facts!

Tommy Monk wrote:So after all the previous denial and waffle, we now have an admission from Didge.....

"...a black person is more likely to commit a crime.....stats [only] show that is an increased possibility some more will commit crime..."


Now we have established agreement on the facts!

Didge wrote:you have failed to answer why a black person is more likely to commit a crime in detail, by detail, stats only show that is an increased possibility some more will commit crime and this off only the current stats on prison numbers, showing how again you fail to comprehend there has to be a detailed reason for differences

(Emphasis mine)

Yes, a round about admission of the facts and a claim there is a reason for this.


In other words, agreement!!!

My gawd, some people can't see beyond the end of their noses, their prejudice makes them determined not to. Deep thinking isn't Tommy's thing obviously, just stay with the obvious and never question.

My gawd, some will bend over backwards to avoid seeing the obvious facts right under their noses.

This is only avoiding the issue, and even helping to allow a problem to continue by providing excuses for only some criminals and effectively holding only them to a lower level of expectation.

All in the name of 'equality' mind!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:My gawd, some will bend over backwards to avoid seeing the obvious facts right under their noses.

This is only avoiding the issue, and even helping to allow a problem to continue by providing excuses for only some criminals and effectively holding only them to a lower level of expectation.

All in the name of 'equality' mind!!!

Nobody is answering your call of stupidity, even when there is many RW posters on here, which you think means all RW people agree with your racial mindset, what does that tell you?
It tells you racial idiotic arguments as you claim are embarrassing to even include all RW people into your train of ignorant racial views, sadly some already do, but again you failed to answer yet again. The fact is you are basing your own reasoning to why at present more blacks are in prison per percentage of the black population to whites, even though whites commit far more crimes, off the currents stats. As if that is a reason why some blacks have been sent to jail for crimes they have committed, ignoring the fact whites get off more than 20% on the same types crimes in sentencing, even worse being the fact they commit more crimes shows so many of them get off being sent to jail, showing a huge reason behind this disparity, of which you offer no reason to, other than a possible reason to predict crime from an ethnic group, not to why they might commit more crime as a group percentage of their population.
Showing why you are an idiot

So again stop embarrassing yourself and actually define why you think they do Tommy alias matti

While we are talking about my country, the USA, one of my FB friends posted this graphic and I agree with it 100%:

As I've already pointed out, your 20% claim does not explain the huge over representation of blacks in prison even if it were true and completely accurate, which it isn't as it is based on only a limited study and also doesn't take into account other mitigating factors and circumstances, or previous criminal history, which has a major bearing on sentencing.
Also as it only focuses on blacks, it does not explain the 3 times over representation of muslim/asians in prison either.
Showing how you are clutching at straws and why you are an idiot for continuing with it.
You also keep claiming (without proof) that whites commit more crime, but is this indigenous white British overall? (Which would be expected as white British make up the overwhelming majority of the population). Or is this a percentage based claim by crime/national population?
Either way, the type of crime would be the important factor as we are talking about serious crimes that result in prison terms.
And the easiest way of assessing this is by actually looking at the prison population itself as we have been.
Now I thought we were getting somewhere with your recent admission of the facts, only to have you start waffling again and trying to cloud the issue!
Most amusing!!!

Oh dear fail again from poor Tommy just repeating everything he said before failing every time to provide a reason. Again nobody claims the 20% accounts for all of th disparity, even though you do not recognize that it does account for some of it.
Your responses have been excuse and excuse and excuse and excuse and never an answer, just complete stupidity. You go off a period of time and stats who is in prison to then claim blacks committing more crimes is due to the increased probability of more blacks percentage of the population ending up in jail, yet never explain why. So the probability ou see of blacks committing more crimes is based off a time frame, and not why of those sentences are they in jail in the first place
So stop being a right complete twat and answer why you think there is a reason to why blacks per percentage per population commit more crime, because your anwer to stats is based off a time frame, not a reason why in that time frame there is at present more per percentage per population and again in thus country with blacks compared to whites.

Stop being a halfwit  

Conclusion.

You are an Idiot and have proved this by your answers Matti


Untill tomorrow

Your reply is just vitriolic hyperbole encased in waffle.

It doesn't make much grammatical sense, as well as being bereft of any real content that could be recognised as relevant argument.

In fact you now even undermine and discredit your own previous argument of your claim of the 20% theory, by actually stating that...

"...nobody claims the 20% accounts for all of the disparity..."

While then going on to proclaim that (although discredited) it still must be credible but only enough to explain only some of it!!!

Quite bizarre!!!


The rest of your post, is quite frankly 'gobbledegook'!!!!!

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

Been discredited?


Since when, 20% of whites getting off is huge, that is one in 5, if you tally up the numbers that accounts for quite a substantial amount of the disparity, not a small amount dummy.

Again not once have you provided a reason, all you are dong is making an assumption based off the stats, which does not explain why there is a disparity and showing you are the biggest embarrassment to the forum so far ha ha ha ha ha

WE know you are matti, he calls me dodge, which is funny because you are the only one dodging the question here and we all know why, because your real reason is racial and you have not the guts to say so. Only Matti posted videos of that dickhead Pat Condell, exposing yourself further, so we all know your views before hand dummy to the idiot you are.


Thus one factor behind this disparity is a bias in sentencing, other factors will be social factors, which again you think you know now better than experts on what causes crime, one moment

 ://?roflmao?/: 


I happy to continue to show you up for the idiot you are and I enjoy doing so, as seen many here have offered explanations to the disparity, you though are showing yourself up as a complete twat, but please continue, the forum is enjoying your stupidity, it is great entertainment

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I gave my answer above, can you read or not?

If you have a theory then back it up with some facts or it is just speculation.

.You can't demand that I provide facts to back up one of your theories, that is not how this game works.

Look, Tom, we are way beyond the reason you gave.  You simply don't want to move with us; hence we all shake our heads and wonder about your reasoning ability.

What was originally posted were static prison population numbers, without even reference to proportions.  Your hypothesis is that skin colour is determinative, and that, therefore skin pigmentation is the reason why people of colour are disproportionately represented in prisons.

You offer no causal connection for this.  You have no idea how even your own theory would work.  More importantly, you refuse to consider the many counter-hypotheses that make a lot more sense.  You simply keep pounding your head on the same old post.  ::hdintowll::

We are way beyond where you are stuck.  Why don't you wish to discuss it further?  Well, several people have suggested that you are not comfortable with advanced reasoning.  Your intransigence suggests they may be right.  You leave us with no other choice.

I notice he fail to answer your post Quill, that speaks volumes

Tommy Monk wrote:.............................

And fleakeeper, I don't know what you are going on about, I am sharing my opinion which is as valid as yours or anybody elses.

I am also backing it up with facts where necessary.

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

 

BLAH, blah, baloney and triple blah..

More like you're supplying references whenever you feel like doing so !

Attempting to disguise rampant racism and xenophobia as mere "opinion" is a quite blatant distortion of the very concept of genuine "debates"..

Especially that bad habit that so many of you bigots have of "going to water",  whenever any of us "green" meanies, wicked "left wingers" and those bleeding heart "liberals" have the temerity to rebuke you over some of your more ridiculous and OTT statements...

Didge, we're going round in circles here as I keep answering the questions but you then keep posting a load of waffle and accusing me of not answering.
As well as that I'm still not sure whether you acknowledge the statistics that have been presented as true or not?
So I'll say it again to be clear.
The 20% theory is discredited because it is only a very limited study and doesn't take into account the other mitigating circumstances or previous convictions which all have an impact on sentencing given.
Also it only focuses on blacks, so doesn't explain the over representation of muslim/asians either.
You then try to roll social factors into the mix while ignoring that social factors will apply to all groups so again irrelevant.
There is nothing to answer in quills post, he suggests that these groups commit more crime because of the pigmentation of their skin, I have already said that people are more different than just colour of skin.
And fleakeeper, you have shown nothing other than insults and accusation of lying without actually providing anything to back this up!
That is not adding anything to debate at all!
Now add something of relevance or piss off!

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge, we're going round in circles here as I keep answering the questions but you then keep posting a load of waffle and accusing me of not answering.
Yes we are going around in circles because you refuse to offer any explanations as to why you think certain groups based upon a probability may commit more crimes, which as seen many people are laughing at you and none backing you either, so hey ho, this is great entertainment to be honest
As well as that I'm still not sure whether you acknowledge the statistics that have been presented as true or not?
I have acknowledged the stats for what they are
So I'll say it again to be clear.
The 20% theory is discredited because it is only a very limited study and doesn't take into account the other mitigating circumstances or previous convictions which all have an impact on sentencing given.
It is not a theory, but a fact in disparity, which is an extensive study done by the Ministry of Justice which you claim is flawed based off assumptions. These would be taken into consideration on the sentence thus excluded as part of the issue, so again on that factor your bull does not discredit them in any form what so ever, which shows you did not even bother to read the report showing what an utter idiot you are:

The report separates conviction and sentencing rates by comparable offences and pleas, excluding the possibility of the data being inaccurately skewed. The Ministry of Justice said yesterday that ministers were aware “without a shadow of a doubt” that there were problems with the system, and said work had begun to address it as an area of “increasing concern”.

Also it only focuses on blacks, so doesn't explain the over representation of muslim/asians either.
Er it does for Asians also, of which most Muslims are Asians proving once again you are a dummy:
The disturbing report, produced by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), shows that black and Asian defendants are almost 20 per cent more likely to be sent to jail than those who are white.
You then try to roll social factors into the mix while ignoring that social factors will apply to all groups so again irrelevant.
Social factors do play a part in increasing the possibility of crimes, that is a fact, which many academics back, not some numpty on a forum, who is racially prejudice
There is nothing to answer in quills post, he suggests that these groups commit more crime because of the pigmentation of their skin, I have already said that people are more different than just colour of skin.
You have said they are different how exactly when biologically humans are all one race, the variance in difference is so minimal like skin colour being few of the differences, but not in the make up of our brains, so again you failed to answer that also with some feeble attempt to once again avoid


And fleakeeper, you have shown nothing other than insults and accusation of lying without actually providing anything to back this up!
That is not adding anything to debate at all!
Now add something of relevance or piss off!

So again you have been exposed from not evening reading the evidence of bias in sentencing showing what an idiot you are and also not once provide a reason why you Blacks and Asians as a percentage of their population is bigger than for whites on the present data shown for those in prison, as stats do not provide a reason, they only shown there is a disparity and you are going off this stats to make a possible prediction on further crime, which is a flawed methodology when you do not have reasons behind why you think a group might be more susceptible to commit crimes. But I am loving making you look the inept idiot you are, it makes my day

I mean I am not sure how many times someone cannot providing explanations behind crime levels and all he offers is possibilities to who might commit crime off stats, so flawed it is embarrassing to watch

Study is limited and doesn't take into consideration other mitigating circumstances or previous convictions that have a massive impact on sentencing.



It only says blacks are 20% more likely anyway which doesn't account for the 7 times more blacks in prison than national population.



I have already said before that blacks and muslims are more likely to be in prison because they have a higher propensity towards crime, and they are committing more crimes.


The poor disadvantaged victim card does not wash with me as it applies to all groups and many don't get involved in crime while other well off people sometimes do.


Was this woman a poor disadvantaged victim of racism and judge/jury racist bias......?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284578/Dentist-Joyce-Trail-charged-stealing-1m-biggest-NHS-fraud.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-19845764

Point 1) Bull is it limited, it states clearly it takes into account many factors

Point 2) Bull again, Blacks and Asians are 20% more likely to be sent to Jail, if the same percentage of whites had been sent to jail, being as there is far more whites that commit crimes, far more whites would be in jail, which would very much bring down much of the disparity, because by far, many more whites would be in jail. Thus this accounts for some of the disparity.

Point 3) Bull again. all you are doing is making a possibility based off the stats, that is not a reason why there is a disparity, showing again you avoid a reason as to why at every opportunity

Point 4) I really do not care if you think social factors do not wash with you, that is an irrelevant answer which does not dispute the fact social factors increase the possibilities of crime.

So again you are getting utterly spanked, you fail to offer anything other than assumptions, you base a possibility on more committing crimes based off stats, when as seen the stats are badly flawed, based on facts showing how whites get let off way more than blacks and Asians and not sent to prison. You ignore all expert views on the causes of crime and say it does not wash with you, an utterly pathetic reply.

No need to say any more here, you got a hiding in debating and have refused to even back your views with any sound reasoning.
So thanks, I always enjoy educating you, it is good to know even an idiot like yourself can learn something

  

Didge wrote:Point 1) Bull is it limited, it states clearly it takes into account many factors
It is a limited study on a limited amount of cases. And it does not take into account mitigating factors or previous convictions does it?!
Point 2) Bull again, Blacks and Asians are 20% more likely to be sent to Jail, if the same percentage of whites had been sent to jail, being as there is far more whites that commit crimes, far more whites would be in jail, which would very much bring down much of the disparity, because by far, many more whites would be in jail. Thus this accounts for some of the disparity.
it's saying 20% more likely, not 20% of white British get off! And this claimed 20% more likely does not explain an over representation by a factor of 7, or Muslim over representation of 3. I think the study is flawed and misleading and therefore unreliable and worthless to debate.
Point 3) Bull again. all you are doing is making a possibility based off the stats, that is not a reason why there is a disparity, showing again you avoid a reason as to why at every opportunity
they are more criminally minded. Not victims of judge/jury racism or bias, they just do more crime, maybe it's cultural! Less respect for the police and rule of law. To really see a more accurate picture of what is going on, we need to know what crimes the people are in prison for.
Point 4) I really do not care if you think social factors do not wash with you, that is an irrelevant answer which does not dispute the fact social factors increase the possibilities of crime.
social factors may play a part in crime but the same social factors apply to all races and groups, not just some blacks and some muslims, so balances out across the prison population as a whole.
So again you are getting utterly spanked, you fail to offer anything other than assumptions, you base a possibility on more committing crimes based off stats, when as seen the stats are badly flawed, based on facts showing how whites get let off way more than blacks and Asians and not sent to prison. You ignore all expert views on the causes of crime and say it does not wash with you, an utterly pathetic reply.
it's you who is getting spanked, you haven't been battered round the ring this much since your boyfriend stayed with you for the weekend!
No need to say any more here, you got a hiding in debating and have refused to even back your views with any sound reasoning.
the facts have been presented and backed up. It is not my job to explain why blacks and muslims are doing disproportionately more crime, I'm sure people will look at the facts and draw their own conclusions, I'm just taking the time to back up the figures and show your leftie excuses to be a load of waffle and bullshit.
So thanks, I always enjoy educating you, it is good to know even an idiot like yourself can learn something
  

In your dreams dodge!
Although I am constantly surprised by the extent of your waffle and bullshit!

Oh my it just gets funnier by the minute, so lets take this one at a time, what evidence to you have the report by the ministry of Justice about its own system being bias in sentencing is flawed?


I mean lets face I have read the report have you and you are making daft assumptions based upon no evidence.

All the rest is again ignoring the evidence so lets embarrass you with each point one by one.


The only person coming out with waffle is you twatti ha ha

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Look, Tom, we are way beyond the reason you gave.  You simply don't want to move with us; hence we all shake our heads and wonder about your reasoning ability.

What was originally posted were static prison population numbers, without even reference to proportions.  Your hypothesis is that skin colour is determinative, and that, therefore skin pigmentation is the reason why people of colour are disproportionately represented in prisons.

You offer no causal connection for this.  You have no idea how even your own theory would work.  More importantly, you refuse to consider the many counter-hypotheses that make a lot more sense.  You simply keep pounding your head on the same old post.  ::hdintowll::

We are way beyond where you are stuck.  Why don't you wish to discuss it further?  Well, several people have suggested that you are not comfortable with advanced reasoning.  Your intransigence suggests they may be right.  You leave us with no other choice.

I notice he fail to answer your post Quill, that speaks volumes

I didn't think he would, to be honest. I posted that message as much for his sake, as for anyone's. I was urging that he refocus his sights, and suggesting the direction in which he should go.

Even with that assistance, he snapped right back into character--argument and epithet. There are two possible alternatives: 1) he is incapable of reasoning any further; or, 2) he doesn't want to. I have seen both modes of response many times in my years of teaching university.

No. 1: Very often, someone sees a glimmer of reason like the one Tommy has found, and s/he is so afraid of challenges that they over-guard their finding rather than explore it. It's like a momma lion who hovers over her cub...everything and everybody is a threat, even though some might be helpful, such as a veterinarian. Tommy apparently is afraid of any comment from anyone, the fear being they might somehow corrupt his precious finding. In this situation, like the momma lion, everything turns into a fight. In this scenario, higher reasoning is the perceived threat and he is incapable of moving on.

No. 2: Sassy's hypothesis...he doesn't want to go any further. He is not an agent of serious inquiry, rather he is a polemicist, dogmatically asserting a position. "A polemic /pəˈlɛmɪk/ is a contentious argument that is intended to establish the truth of a specific understanding and the falsity of the contrary position." A polemicist has to live or die with his evidence, and apparently Tommy is willing to go down with his grain of insight. Hence, all of the epithets and slurs.

In either case, unless an adversary is willing to move forward, there is nothing to be gained by carrying on. It is at best boring, and anyway, unproductive. I would just give him a 'D-' and look to see if anyone else has a better answer.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


I notice he fail to answer your post Quill, that speaks volumes

I didn't think he would, to be honest.  I posted that message as much for his sake, as for anyone's.  I was urging that he refocus his sights, and suggesting the direction in which he should go.

Even with that assistance, he snapped right back into character--argument and epithet.  There are two possible alternatives: 1) he is incapable of reasoning any further; or, 2) he doesn't want to.  I have seen both modes of response many times in my years of teaching university.

No. 1: Very often, someone sees a glimmer of reason like the one Tommy has found, and s/he is so afraid of challenges that they over-guard their finding rather than explore it.  It's like a momma lion who hovers over her cub...everything and everybody is a threat, even though some might be helpful, such as a veterinarian.  Tommy apparently is afraid of any comment from anyone, the fear being they might somehow corrupt his precious finding.  In this situation, like the momma lion, everything turns into a fight.  In this scenario, higher reasoning is the perceived threat and he is incapable of moving on.

No. 2: Sassy's hypothesis...he doesn't want to go any further.  He is not an agent of serious inquiry, rather he is a polemicist, dogmatically asserting a position.  "A polemic /pəˈlɛmɪk/ is a contentious argument that is intended to establish the truth of a specific understanding and the falsity of the contrary position."  A polemicist has to live or die with his evidence, and apparently Tommy is willing to go down with his grain of insight.  Hence, all of the epithets and slurs.

In either case, unless an adversary is willing to move forward, there is nothing to be gained by carrying on.  It is at best boring, and  anyway, unproductive.  I would just give him a 'D-' and look to see if anyone else has a better answer.

Hi Quill indeed and very true, what makes me laugh is his claim to the Ministry of Justice proving their own system is bias, why would they do that, unless they cannot hide these facts and his claims to it being flawed is embarrassing to say the least, where he offers no evidence to state this is the case.

I mean I have read the report and clearly he has not because he would not come out with such a daft claim, he missed points like this also:


Disturbingly, in every year studied, a higher proportion of white defendants had previous convictions – which would normally result in a greater number of prosecutions and harsher sentences. But this does not appear to be the case.

Which proves they look at previous convictions, thus debunking his claim to this not being detailed, proving he ignores all the evidence

His answer to social factors was comical, to him that does not add up, but again fails to explain why, but you are right, it is not worth it after pages and pages he can off no reason for the disparities

I have answered Sassy and quill, I did not create the OP or the original statistics, merely added to the thread that a similar racial disparity could also be seen across the UK prison population by race.
A whole load of factors are in play on prison numbers etc, the main one being that they have committed crimes, enough of And serious enough To warrant being sent to jail.
Many different types of people from all different backgrounds are in prison at any one time, and I've already pointed out that statistically our MPs are the most likely group to be in prison. Blowing the theory that all in prison are deprived and victims of race etc. Including the dentist in the link earlier who was caught defrauding the NHS for over a million quid, after already being caught doing it years earlier for nearly half a million which she was told to pay back.
Again hardly a victim of deprivation etc.
In fact the 'socio-economic deprived' argument cannot be used against convictions for many crimes which land people in prison.
And many people from hard up places don't ever get involved in crime while many other well off people may well do.
And the 20% theory doesn't explain very much of the difference in numbers either.
It is up to Sassy to put some flesh on the bones of her theory/question. It is not up to me to prove or disprove a comment of pure speculation.
But I've already shown that criminal behaviour is not the sold responsibility of those worse off.
But why let facts get in the may of a good bit of leftie waffle and bullshit!?

Still no evidence to back his views or any reasonable account for the disparity, so hilarious and again he backs no evidence to the report from the Ministry of Justice being flawed as he claims, because we know he has not read it ha ha

Thank you for proving Quill right


Epic Fail

What views do I have to back that I have not already?


The statistics are clear on prison numbers and overrepresentation of blacks and muslims.


Leading to the obvious conclusion that this is because they overall commit more or more serious crimes per percentage of population than others.



It is you who are trying to throw up theories as to why this is, and I am showing them to be rubbish.


I don't need to explain why these numbers exist, only that they do. And interestingly a very similar pattern can be seen in USA.

Epic fail again with no evidence or reasoning ha ha ha ha ha

I've already said the statistics are the facts and evidence.


You don't need reasoning to see the numbers and the disproportionate numbers of blacks and muslims in prisons.


You have been trying to explain it with leftie waffle and excuses and have failed miserably!

Still an epic fail ha ha

The fail is all yours Didge.

So no coherent explanation to why there is a huge over representation of blacks And muslims in prison?


So it must be just as simple as blacks and muslims/asians are just more criminally minded and have a higher propensity towards crime!

Tommy Monk wrote:
I have answered Sassy and quill, I did not create the OP or the original statistics, merely added to the thread that a similar racial disparity could also be seen across the UK prison population by race.
A whole load of factors are in play on prison numbers etc, the main one being that they have committed crimes, enough of And serious enough To warrant being sent to jail.
Many different types of people from all different backgrounds are in prison at any one time, and I've already pointed out that statistically our MPs are the most likely group to be in prison. Blowing the theory that all in prison are deprived and victims of race etc. Including the dentist in the link earlier who was caught defrauding the NHS for over a million quid, after already being caught doing it years earlier for nearly half a million which she was told to pay back.
Again hardly a victim of deprivation etc.
In fact the 'socio-economic deprived' argument cannot be used against convictions for many crimes which land people in prison.
And many people from hard up places don't ever get involved in crime while many other well off people may well do.
And the 20% theory doesn't explain very much of the difference in numbers either.
It is up to Sassy to put some flesh on the bones of her theory/question. It is not up to me to prove or disprove a comment of pure speculation.
But I've already shown that criminal behaviour is not the sold responsibility of those worse off.
But why let facts get in the may of a good bit of leftie waffle and bullshit!?

 
   "TOMMY MONK" the resident classsicc xenophobic idiot, fascist troll and loopy racist, proves even further just what a demented idiot he is...

Bad grammar.

Poor comprehension.

Lacking keyboard skills..

High rate of illiteracy, as shown through his continuous misuse of words and lack of understanding even of what he c&p's on here so often.

Irrational thought processses. Lacks ability to analyse and recognise why his foolish beliefs are so wrong..

His automatic defense whenever he's been cornered or trounced for his inherent stupid thinking ~ he keeps on screaming his tired old refrain:  "..a good bit of leftie waffle and bullshit!?" over and over again !   ::dedhrs::

Lone Wolf wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
I have answered Sassy and quill, I did not create the OP or the original statistics, merely added to the thread that a similar racial disparity could also be seen across the UK prison population by race.
A whole load of factors are in play on prison numbers etc, the main one being that they have committed crimes, enough of And serious enough To warrant being sent to jail.
Many different types of people from all different backgrounds are in prison at any one time, and I've already pointed out that statistically our MPs are the most likely group to be in prison. Blowing the theory that all in prison are deprived and victims of race etc. Including the dentist in the link earlier who was caught defrauding the NHS for over a million quid, after already being caught doing it years earlier for nearly half a million which she was told to pay back.
Again hardly a victim of deprivation etc.
In fact the 'socio-economic deprived' argument cannot be used against convictions for many crimes which land people in prison.
And many people from hard up places don't ever get involved in crime while many other well off people may well do.
And the 20% theory doesn't explain very much of the difference in numbers either.
It is up to Sassy to put some flesh on the bones of her theory/question. It is not up to me to prove or disprove a comment of pure speculation.
But I've already shown that criminal behaviour is not the sold responsibility of those worse off.
But why let facts get in the may of a good bit of leftie waffle and bullshit!?

 
   "TOMMY MONK" the resident classsicc xenophobic idiot, fascist troll and loopy racist, proves even further just what a demented idiot he is...

Bad grammar.

Poor comprehension.

Lacking keyboard skills..

High rate of illiteracy, as shown through his continuous misuse of words and lack of understanding even of what he c&p's on here so often.

Irrational thought processses. Lacks ability to analyse and recognise hy his foolosh beliefs are so wrong..

His automatic defense whenever he's been cornered or trounced for his inherent stupid thinking ~ he keeps on screaming his tired old refrain:  "..a good bit of leftie waffle and bullshit!?" over and over again !   ::dedhrs::

Silence, pervert!

 

IN  'BigAndy NewSpeak', his personal and singular meaning for the term "pervert" ?

Pervert  =   anyone who dares questions or laughs at any of B'Andys friends and racist associates !    

Amusing. Tommy is still at it? I'm surprised, not because he has already been refuted, but that he has so much energy and nowhere to go. Lol. He could easily lift himself out of his non sequitur by trying a new tact, but he doesn't.

Despite the harsh words, lil andy, I have to agree precisely with wolf: bullshit over and over.

Original Quill wrote:Amusing.  Tommy is still at it?  I'm surprised, not because he has already been refuted, but that he has so much energy and nowhere to go.  Lol.  He could easily lift himself out of his non sequitur by trying a new tact, but he doesn't.

Despite the harsh words, lil andy, I have to agree precisely with wolf: bullshit over and over.

Seconded, his words maybe harsh but are bang on the money

Double post - deleted

Lone Wolf wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
I have answered Sassy and quill, I did not create the OP or the original statistics, merely added to the thread that a similar racial disparity could also be seen across the UK prison population by race.
A whole load of factors are in play on prison numbers etc, the main one being that they have committed crimes, enough of And serious enough To warrant being sent to jail.
Many different types of people from all different backgrounds are in prison at any one time, and I've already pointed out that statistically our MPs are the most likely group to be in prison. Blowing the theory that all in prison are deprived and victims of race etc. Including the dentist in the link earlier who was caught defrauding the NHS for over a million quid, after already being caught doing it years earlier for nearly half a million which she was told to pay back.
Again hardly a victim of deprivation etc.
In fact the 'socio-economic deprived' argument cannot be used against convictions for many crimes which land people in prison.
And many people from hard up places don't ever get involved in crime while many other well off people may well do.
And the 20% theory doesn't explain very much of the difference in numbers either.
It is up to Sassy to put some flesh on the bones of her theory/question. It is not up to me to prove or disprove a comment of pure speculation.
But I've already shown that criminal behaviour is not the sold responsibility of those worse off.
But why let facts get in the may of a good bit of leftie waffle and bullshit!?

 
   "TOMMY MONK" the resident classsicc xenophobic idiot, fascist troll and loopy racist, proves even further just what a demented idiot he is...
Bad grammar.
Poor comprehension.
Lacking keyboard skills..
High rate of illiteracy, as shown through his continuous misuse of words and lack of understanding even of what he c&p's on here so often.
Irrational thought processses. Lacks ability to analyse and recognise why his foolish beliefs are so wrong..
His automatic defense whenever he's been cornered or trounced for his inherent stupid thinking ~ he keeps on screaming his tired old refrain:  "..a good bit of leftie waffle and bullshit!?" over and over again !   ::dedhrs::

Says fleakeeper the biggest troll on here, who just pops up every now and to throw unsubstantiated unnecessary insults at people, with absolutely no evidence to back any of his accusations up.
Complete with the regular SIXHIRB style assault we hear so regularly from the left when their arguments have been shown to be ludicrous and they have run out of intelligent debate. This whole attacking style is deliberately avoiding debate and used with the sole intention of silencing any further discussion.
The truth must be wrong because the truth is not (politically) correct!
I've said it before and I'll say it again, add to debate or piss off!
Your continual trolling is becoming embarrassing to behold!
You may think you are being clever, but in reality you are just showing yourself to be a twat!

 

I'm amazed Tommy !!!

I didn't know that you could even spell "twat" ~ I am impressed !!

Though I STILL doubt that you understand the meanings of even half those big words [i.e., anything with more than two syllables] that you like to use to try and impress us mere mortals on this forum.    


P.S. as with Tess, Gerbil, eddie, L'ilAndy and Sassy before you ~ you too prove that you have ZERO knowledge and understanding of just what "Trolling" and "Trolls" actually are !!!

 

There you go again fleakeeper!
Bringing nothing to debate, but just another unwarranted and irrelevant personal attack and bullshit!
Still waiting for you to provide some proof for your previous aspertions cast against me?
And for your education (as you obviously need some educating!).....
"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
Piss off troll!