racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Open or closed borders?
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38227
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by spot »

anastrophe wrote: so 'all' means 'all' unless you mean 'some'. fair enough.I'm being very clear in what I write. I don't understand what this means, though.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by anastrophe »

spot wrote: Come on, that has nothing to do with what I wrote. I agree with both of your sentences but they're not my sentences.


that doesn't negate your equivocation. most societies on earth recognize the meaning of national borders. i realize you waive the flag, as is your choice. borders exist, whether you like them or not, and i dare say that the world will not be dropping all of its borders for some time to come. pity? blessing? irrelevant to the here and now.



the border exists. it is against the law to breach it without following the laws of our land in order to secure legal entry. it is our choice as a sovereign nation. i know you don't like that choice, but that's not anyone's problem but your own. when someone climbs over the fence at the border, they are breaking into our country. they are trespassing. the damage a permeable border has done to the US is significant, and hopefully that will be rectified.



want to blame a government? blame mexicos government for sustaining conditions within their borders that are so unpleasant that their citizens feel it's worth it to break into ours for a better life. hold the mexican government accountable. or is that not within your balance sheet?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by anastrophe »

spot wrote: Come on, that has nothing to do with what I wrote. I agree with both of your sentences but they're not my sentences.



additional thought: in this country, the burglar has commited an offence before crossing the threshold. At least in most circumstances, and possibly in all.



edit: I did try to post this a second time (rather than edit-add) but vBulletin seems too clever to allow the second post, it got merged back. My apologies.


please, would you do the courtesy of putting major revisions of your thoughts into a separate post? i realize there are no rules behind the 'edit' button. but i consider it impolite to significantly alter the content of an extant post after the fact. in less ethical hands one could use it to exculpate from a nasty comment. here, i'll show you.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by anastrophe »

spot is a prince.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Issie
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:42 am

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by Issie »

spot wrote: Anyone capable of writing "he was here illegally and he knew it and refused to stop when he was asked too…. consequently he lost his life" deserves spitting in the face of, and should the chance occur I'll take it. It is the most disgusting lie that he refused to stop, or that he was asked to stop, or that he was ordered to stop. The man was killed without any warning whatever, without having run, without having vaulted gates, without even knowing he was being followed, and he was surveilled and followed all the way until he had reached a location where the "shoot to kill" orders could be invoked. And "Issie" says it's his own fault he's dead? Issie, pensioner or (far more likely) not, you're a pernicious blight on the nation.

Oh no, I'm not a supporter of the BNP, I'm a laydee?

You're an evil git, whatever you keep in your underwear.


So, YOU know 100% conclusively that he was not asked to stop.? yeh right.

Thanks for the compliment...a git I may be, but evil ? God will be the judge of that NOT ******* YOU :mad:

So, you don`t think I am who I say I am,? why, are pensioners to have a dumb worn out brains by the age they reach 60.?

You call me a blight on the Nation, Sonny boy people like me made this nation for you to wallow and whinge in today.

I was born in 1946 end of, I`ve just retired from working in the NHS all my life, now do you want to know how many times I get shagged a week these days as well.?

So, what is it about this forum then, we all agree with Spot ?

How about we all agree with his idea of open the flood gates and let the whole ******* lot of them in.

I never said he deserved to get shot, so stop twisting my words, just like you tried to yesterday over the issue of speaking the lingo.

I was pointing out the media coverage and money spent on an illegal, rather than focussing on the 52 people who had been blown up the day before, but **** you too, if you think he deserves more than the victims of the bombs.

And yes, women pensioner swear when they are angry.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by anastrophe »

spot wrote: I'm being very clear in what I write. I don't understand what this means, though.


'all' apparently means 'all saudis'.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38227
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by spot »

anastrophe wrote: please, would you do the courtesy of putting major revisions of your thoughts into a separate post? i realize there are no rules behind the 'edit' button. but i consider it impolite to significantly alter the content of an extant post after the fact. in less ethical hands one could use it to exculpate from a nasty comment. here, i'll show you.I *did* try to post it a second time (rather than edit-add) but vBulletin seems too clever to allow the second post, it got merged back. My renewed apologies, since the first were ineffective. Had it been a second post as I'd intended, it would have been in sequence as well as the first being in sequence.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by anastrophe »

anastrophe wrote: 'all' apparently means 'all saudis'.


to expand a little. the original statement was thus:

Arabic does not have a word to convey the sense of ownership. The verb 'to have' does not translate into Arabic.



if that is the case, then their ability to decide that 'everything is shared' appears to have a structural limit to 'everything is shared among the saudis'. so 'all' doesn't mean 'all', it means 'some'.



but i have to get on to my daily business, so i'll drop this line for now, much to the mercy of all i'm sure.



(PS - if you ran a poll, it would find 100% agreement with your belief of the inate racism of your countrymen? so, you're saying you're a racist? you'd vote the same as them in the poll? apparently 100% doesn't mean 100% otherwise)
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by OpenMind »

I don't know if this law has been changed or not. But as it did stand, any person could enter any house in the UK providing they didn't break in. A burglar is called such once they have broken in (being the basic definition of a burglar and the distinction between a burglar and a thief).



Arabic shopkeepers also charge for selling goods. It could be seen as sharing with one another two commodities. The barter is based upon the shopkeeper's perception of the buyer's affluence. Trade is a form of sharing at a second level. We just don't perceive it like that. It all becomes rather semantical when you try and break it down.
Issie
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:42 am

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by Issie »

spot wrote: Oh... I didn't see that. Nobody, but nobody, would make a fuss if the illegal immigrant were a white South African, or a New Zealander, or an Aussie, or an Rhodesian farmer expelled from his farm. I know this for an utter certainty, living here as I do.
How do you know that.? based on what.?

I couldn`t care less if the illegal was from Mars, the point in question is wherever they come from and whatever the colour of their skin, it is irrelevant to the drain on the system....

And you accuse me of being racist.?

I have never once referred to a persons skin colour or their religion....which had I been a member of the BNP , I think I would have shown my "dark site"

Where excactly do you live? Bristol Somerset area.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38227
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by spot »

Issie wrote: So, YOU know 100% conclusively that he was not asked to stop.? yeh right.http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=69 hasn't had the least squeak of complaint from the Met since it appeared ten days ago in the Evening Standard. I see no reason for you to challenge the truth of the account.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Lulu2
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:34 pm

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by Lulu2 »

Spot, help me here, because I've read this thread and I can't make sense of your point. What is it?

Illegals aren't "illegal" because it's all the fault of the government of the receiving country? Since Arabs don't have a word for ownership, are you suggesting we could all just MOVE there and be given a piece of their pie?

How could you possibly know that a white Zimbabwean, illegally in the country, would be accepted before a black one?
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38227
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by spot »

Lulu2 wrote: Spot, help me here, because I've read this thread and I can't make sense of your point. What is it?

Illegals aren't "illegal" because it's all the fault of the government of the receiving country? Since Arabs don't have a word for ownership, are you suggesting we could all just MOVE there and be given a piece of their pie?

How could you possibly know that a white Zimbabwean, illegally in the country, would be accepted before a black one?I didn't bring up Arabs, that was someone else. My point is that if you blame illegal immigrants for the woes of the country, and nobody can distinguish legal from illegal on the street, then the blame settles on the legal ones as well, which is pernicious. I ask that the big powerful government be blamed for not immediately deporting all of the illegal immigrants and for not barring the border to illegal immigration, since then nobody would want to blame the legal immigrants for anything and we'd all be in a paradise of our own making.

I know that a white Zimbabwean, illegally in the country, would be accepted before a black one because if I were to put it to a vote I'm sure it would gain 100% backing from all white people that I put it to, including me. It's a very specific issue and it applies, as I said, to Anglo-white South Africans and to New Zealanders and Aussies as well. And, though I failed to mention it, to all Canadians.

It's a consequence of sending family abroad over the years whose descendents have subsequently been disqualified from a right of residence in the UK, which the emigrant families assumed their descendants would retain (as was the law at the time), and which the UK government bureaucratically altered to their detriment within my memory. Nobody has ever managed to get that undone, and it's universally regarded here as an outrage. Most white English have relatives in what were the dominions. All the white English I have ever spoken to about it have invariably said that they'd give preferential rights of residence and citizenship to returning descendants. It's not, in my opinion, a racist position, it's a familial one.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Lulu2
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:34 pm

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by Lulu2 »

Thank you.

Now, let me understand this: " It's not, in my opinion, a racist position, it's a familial one."

You've just said that 100% of the population where you live would give preference to a white person over a black one.

How can that NOT be considered "racist?"
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38227
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by spot »

Lulu2 wrote: Thank you.

Now, let me understand this: " It's not, in my opinion, a racist position, it's a familial one."

You've just said that 100% of the population where you live would give preference to a white person over a black one.

How can that NOT be considered "racist?"Because the people it relates to are *family*, not because they're white. It's a matter of history that the emigrants were all white. The whiteness doesn't come into it except as a convenient category for family ties in those specific countries.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by OpenMind »

Lulu2 wrote: Thank you.



Now, let me understand this: " It's not, in my opinion, a racist position, it's a familial one."



You've just said that 100% of the population where you live would give preference to a white person over a black one.



How can that NOT be considered "racist?"


It is human nature to give preference to one's own over a stranger. It actually takes an acquired spiritual quality to truly become non-racist in heart as well as in word.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38227
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by spot »

I don't regard people I still exchange birthday cards with as strangers, they're family. They just no longer have a right of residence in the UK because some idiot at the Foreign Office once thought he was saving money that way. My opinion is that anyone who can trace their ancestry back to UK records, or provide DNA evidence of descendancy, should have an automatic residential passport right. That seems fair in that it was the legal position at the time my relatives moved to the dominions with UK government encouragement.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
Issie
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:42 am

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by Issie »

spot wrote: I don't regard people I still exchange birthday cards with as strangers, they're family. They just no longer have a right of residence in the UK because some idiot at the Foreign Office once thought he was saving money that way. My opinion is that anyone who can trace their ancestry back to UK records, or provide DNA evidence of descendancy, should have an automatic residential passport right. That seems fair in that it was the legal position at the time my relatives moved to the dominions with UK government encouragement.
The world has moved on since your relatives time.

And if the absurd suggestion is put into practice, how do you propose to accomodate the people who have a right by holding a British passport and are therefore eligible to come and live in the UK.?

Considering we are already full up and resources are already at bursting point.?
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38227
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by spot »

Given the choice, madam? You'd be on the first boat to France.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
Issie
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:42 am

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by Issie »

spot wrote: Given the choice, madam? You'd be on the first boat to France.


Spot you obviously have personal issues that you are hiding behind.

Thank you for at least establishing that I am indeed a woman, and I will take madam as a compliment as oppose to an evil git.

What a lovely member you are when you meet someone who does not agree with your views.

France? ...sorry can you make that Spain.

What a shame this thread has turned personal.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38227
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by spot »

Issie wrote: What a shame this thread has turned personal.If I trusted you in the slightest or believed a word you'd said so far, I'd apologise. Tell me your username on RR and I'll tell you why you're here.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Lulu2
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:34 pm

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by Lulu2 »

Obviously, I'm not a citizen of the UK, but I've spent a fair share of time there and I know that people "of colour" (fill in the shades) have been citizens for literally hundreds of years.

Are they not "family," too? How is it that "family" only means "white?"
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
User avatar
Lulu2
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:34 pm

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by Lulu2 »

Yes, I understand that....but earlier he talked about deporting blacks. Clearly, this is beyond me.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Issie
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:42 am

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by Issie »

spot wrote: If I trusted you in the slightest or believed a word you'd said so far, I'd apologise. Tell me your username on RR and I'll tell you why you're here.


Would you like to tell me what RR is please.

How many times do I have to tell you that I am not who you think I am.

What can I do to convince you....why don`t the Admin check my ISP address and then they can confirm that I am in Yorkshire in the UK.

Hang on a minute, try this forum that I sometimes go on, my username is Isabella, and Issie is my pet name.

http://www.generalchat.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=2

I`ll wait for the apology Spot, but I fear calling me evil will never be forgiven by me....I`ll wait for God to decide that, which considering my age, may not be too far in the distant future.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38227
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by spot »

Lulu2 wrote: Yes, I understand that....but earlier he talked about deporting blacks. Clearly, this is beyond me.Lulu, I have looked and I truly have no idea what this relates to at all. I have nowhere talked about deporting blacks! That's a shabby accusation to make and the thread's easily checkable.

As for this bit:I know that people "of colour" (fill in the shades) have been citizens for literally hundreds of years. Are they not "family," too? How is it that "family" only means "white?"can we try backing away from this notion that England has been generally or more-than-slightly mixed-race for "literally hundreds of years" please? I've no idea where you're getting your fact from, but finding evidence for a figure is hard work. There were coloured people in British Ports from 1600 onward, in small numbers and mostly as transient sailors, though some settled. The highest figure I can find is an estimate of 0.5%-1% in London in 1800, most of whom will have been transient. In inland areas of the country the figure will, I'm sure, have been well under 0.1% until 1900. By all means find better figures, those are the best I can manage without a copy of Wrigely, EA, and Schofield, RS (1981) The Population History of England, 1540-1871 which I can't access from here.

Let me try one more time to make my point. The people to whom the change of UK regulations on residency applied, call them the X people, are predominantly those whose emigrant ancestors left England before 1920. Overwhelmingly (excluding French Canadians) the immigrants to the Dominions during that period were from the UK and white, with the exception of Indian immigrants to South Africa (who didn't get there from England!). My use of the word "white" in referring to the X people is because I have no other shorthand expression for them that would be generally understood in England. By all means suggest another, preferably in one syllable rather than thirty. This entire conversation is sullied by that fact that there *are* people in England who would give preference here on a racial basis, many of whom are associated with the British National Party whom I heartily detest, whose heartland is Yorkshire.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38227
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by spot »

Issie wrote: Would you like to tell me what RR is please.

How many times do I have to tell you that I am not who you think I am.

What can I do to convince you....why don`t the Admin check my ISP address and then they can confirm that I am in Yorkshire in the UK.

Hang on a minute, try this forum that I sometimes go on, my username is Isabella, and Issie is my pet name.

http://www.generalchat.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=2

I`ll wait for the apology Spot, but I fear calling me evil will never be forgiven by me....I`ll wait for God to decide that, which considering my age, may not be too far in the distant future.I've don't doubt you're from Yorkshire in the slightest. So's bloody Six, if it comes to that. Your intro thread mentioned what I took to be a reference to a singularly unpleasant part of the Internet Forum world called RR, and I assumed you'd followed me here from there. I'll go and look back over those of your posts which have got my back up - most of them, I might say - and see whether that assumption coloured the way I read them. I doubt whether they'll be any more appetising than they were first time around.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by OpenMind »

Pinky wrote: God, if they ever got into Parliament, I'd either move, or do a Guy Fawkes, but get it right. They deserve to be clouted with their own DM's.


Forgive me, Pinky. I'm a stupid ignoramus. What's a DM (other than Dungeon Master which instantly springs to mind - clouted with their own Dungeon Masters - could do it:wah: ).
Issie
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:42 am

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by Issie »

spot wrote: I've don't doubt you're from Yorkshire in the slightest. So's bloody Six, if it comes to that. Your intro thread mentioned what I took to be a reference to a singularly unpleasant part of the Internet Forum world called RR, and I assumed you'd followed me here from there. I'll go and look back over those of your posts which have got my back up - most of them, I might say - and see whether that assumption coloured the way I read them. I doubt whether they'll be any more appetising than they were first time around.


Well, all I can say is, that you have a serious problem if you cannot debate with someone who disagrees with you, and then you resort to personal insults.

Maybe it is your lack of maturity that shines through, because your manners definately do not.
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by OpenMind »

Pinky wrote: Dungeon Masters!!!!:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl



I meant Doctor Martens Boots!!!:D


Thanks for the clarification, Pinky.



Doctor Martens, eh. That's got to hurt.

But what a show, eh? It's like a hasty unrehearsed farce.:D
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38227
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by spot »

Issie wrote: Well, all I can say is, that you have a serious problem if you cannot debate with someone who disagrees with you, and then you resort to personal insults.

Maybe it is your lack of maturity that shines through, because your manners definately do not.The thread gets up my nose, the racists who congregate to it like moths get up my nose, the constant appearance of BNP apologists who flit into FG for two weeks and then toddle off to pastures new get up my nose. Perhaps if you look at http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=72 you'll see why the word "Yorkshire" conjoined with your "Well, I agree with everything Ruth has said.100%", having beelined in here in the first place, triggered my ire.

You seriously claim no association with these race-supremacists, do you?
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by anastrophe »

OpenMind wrote: I don't know if this law has been changed or not. But as it did stand, any person could enter any house in the UK providing they didn't break in. A burglar is called such once they have broken in (being the basic definition of a burglar and the distinction between a burglar and a thief).


here in the US, you don't have to 'break' anything for it to be breaking in. you could theoretically be charged with breaking and entering by just walking in the open front door of a home. if you do not have any business being in the home - if you were not invited, if you do not know the occupants, if there was no sign on the door saying "come on in" - then you are violating their property by trespass at minimum. if a person is not authorized to be within that home, then one can assume they are not there on a pacific mission.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by anastrophe »

spot wrote: a reference to a singularly unpleasant part of the Internet Forum world called RR


google search, "rr forum"



responsible retailers forum

rolls-royce enthusiasts forum

roadrunner forum

ram raider forum

rapture ready forum

railroad forum

rhodesian ridgeback forum

reseller ratings forum

RC radio control forum

range rovers forum



&c.



can you help me out here?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Issie
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:42 am

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by Issie »

spot wrote: The thread gets up my nose, the racists who congregate to it like moths get up my nose, the constant appearance of BNP apologists who flit into FG for two weeks and then toddle off to pastures new get up my nose. Perhaps if you look at http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=72 you'll see why the word "Yorkshire" conjoined with your "Well, I agree with everything Ruth has said.100%", having beelined in here in the first place, triggered my ire.

You seriously claim no association with these race-supremacists, do you?
How much longer has this got to go on,? why should I have to continually try to defend myself because I live in Yorkshire and I hold strong views on certain subjects?

Yorkshire is where I live, so I`m obviously going to "home in like a moth" as you describe it....just as someone living in Seattle would pick up on the word Seattle.

Let me try and tell the people on this forum about Yorkshire.

It is in the middle of England, it was the heartland of the coal mines, everybody`s son became a miner...until Margaret Thatcher closed the mines down after the 1984 National miners strike.

In part of Yorkshire is a town called Bradford and the immigrants from Pakistan built such a vast community in the town and the surrounding areas, that Bradford locally became known as Bradistan, because we now have the biggest Pakistani population outside Pakistan living there.

Many of the "English" people objected at what they saw as a "take over" of their town by immigrants, this and the lack of employment due to lack of investment in the area by the British government, led to the birth of the BNP, which stands for the British National Party.

Yorkshire is quite a big place, many years ago, when I was a girl, it was divided into 3 ridings, or counties/states.

What happened in one riding, did not reflect the opinions of the whole county.

Now, you spot have a problem if you cannot see that I was supporting Ruth with her posts, having lived in Yorkshire all my life, and knowing first hand what happens before my eyes, not what I read in the newspapers, or see on the TV.....and just in case you have forgotten, that is 60 years.

You are so possessed with your own "racist" issues, that you want to attack anyone who you THINK because they live in Yorkshire MIGHT have any connection with the BNP.

You actually know very little, because whilst the BNP party was "born" in Yorkshire, the people do not support it, otherwise can you explain why to the members of this forum, no BNP candidate has ever won a local election in Yorkshire? It is a labour stronghold and if your theory was correct, then the hatred that you imagine is in Yorkshire would put the BNP in power tomorrow.

I`ll not apologise for living in Yorkshire, it`s a pretty dam good place to live in the world, but you need to sort your own issues out, if you suspect anyone who mentions Yorkshire are racist and BNP members undercover coming on the bloody internet to seek you out.

I must apologise to the members of this forum, for the way it has deteriorated into a personal attack, but, I`ll not be accused of something that Iam not.
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by OpenMind »

anastrophe wrote: here in the US, you don't have to 'break' anything for it to be breaking in. you could theoretically be charged with breaking and entering by just walking in the open front door of a home. if you do not have any business being in the home - if you were not invited, if you do not know the occupants, if there was no sign on the door saying "come on in" - then you are violating their property by trespass at minimum. if a person is not authorized to be within that home, then one can assume they are not there on a pacific mission.


Quite an interesting difference between our laws. It shows up the little differences in our attitudes.

But, I confess that thinking about our laws and all the recent changes has my head spinning.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38227
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by spot »

anastrophe wrote: google search, "rr forum"



responsible retailers forum

rolls-royce enthusiasts forum

roadrunner forum

ram raider forum

rapture ready forum

railroad forum

rhodesian ridgeback forum

reseller ratings forum

RC radio control forum

range rovers forum



&c.



can you help me out here?You must be joking. I keep my private lives in separate compartments.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by OpenMind »

In the city of York, it is still legal for any person born in York to shoot a Scottish man with a bow and arrow.:p
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38227
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by spot »

OpenMind wrote: In the city of York, it is still legal for any person born in York to shoot a Scottish man with a bow and arrow.:pThe City of York has always had an incendiary way with people who were different. I can't remember any prominent monument to the fact there, though.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by OpenMind »

spot wrote: The City of York has always had an incendiary way with people who were different. I can't remember any prominent monument to the fact there, though.


The by-law only refers to Scotsmen found out in the streets. I found this out when I was there back in 2001. Amazing considering the vast numbers of Scotsmen that live there. No Yorkers have taken up a bow and arrow against a Scotsman for some considerable time now.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38227
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by spot »

Pinky wrote: It's still legal to shoot a Welsh person with a longbow after 10pm, provided you're on a castle battlements.This practice began when the English retook Caernarfon Castle in 1295 and instituted regular guard patrols of the high level walkways. During the long summer months, local Welsh maidens were allowed to take flagons to the men on duty. "Shoot" and "Longbow" were famous euphemisms of the day for far less lethal pursuits.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by OpenMind »

Pinky wrote: It's still legal to shoot a Welsh person with a longbow after 10pm, provided you're on a castle battlements.


You're quite right regarding time and place, but it was definitely Scotsmen. Actually, Spot isn't Welsh. He simply abides there.:D
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38227
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by spot »

OpenMind wrote: You're quite right regarding time and place, but it was definitely Scotsmen. Actually, Spot isn't Welsh. He simply abides there.:DI'm close enough to Caernarfon to show Pinky the battlements though.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by anastrophe »

OpenMind wrote: Quite an interesting difference between our laws. It shows up the little differences in our attitudes.

But, I confess that thinking about our laws and all the recent changes has my head spinning.


admittedly what i describe is the theoretical broad presumption of the 'your home is your castle' concept. normally, if someone wandered into a house, there would be other extenuating factors that would make it obvious it wasn't done with criminal intent - it was your next door neighbor, they saw that the door was open, etc - however if the person found in the house is unknown to the occupants, has a weapon of some sort on his/her person, can't provide a plausible explanation for being there - then it becomes an easier interpretation.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

racial crime up 600% in london (sky news)

Post by anastrophe »

spot wrote: You must be joking. I keep my private lives in separate compartments.


your private life is in an online public forum? well, whatever. it was just idle curiousity, and not even related to you, just the forum mentioned.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]

Return to “Immigration”