Angry White and Thick

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're free to live where you choose, but yes, many choose to live in these compounds for the reasons you gave.
Woman can also drive within those areas, but not outside them.
I wonder what the response would be if we started campaigning to allow these things outwith the designated areas?
Or if we set up designated areas over here for people outwith our culture to be able to enjoy theirs?
 
I wonder what the response would be if we started campaigning to allow these things outwith the designated areas?
Or if we set up designated areas over here for people outwith our culture to be able to enjoy theirs?

Give it a go and report back.
I'm sure Steve'll give you a hand ;)
 
Or rather they've forced is into them whereas we welcomed them into ours.

"We welcomed them into ours" - did you Steve, really?

Or I think that you are making up any nonsense that first comes into your mind at a feeble attempt at making a point
 
However, to want to be a part of western life certain things they have brought with them need left behind (Burkhas, Schaperoning women etc). It's incompatible with our way of life

Has anyone noticed the irony here?

In a previous post, ST4 stated his admiration for the US and the fact that he might like to live there.

A country which was taken over by immigrants who imposed their ways, culture and religion and drove the natives almost to extinction. Nothing the founders of the US did was compatible with the native Americans' way of life.


Steve.
 
Has anyone noticed the irony here?

In a previous post, ST4 stated his admiration for the US and the fact that he might like to live there.

A country which was taken over by immigrants who imposed their ways, culture and religion and drove the natives almost to extinction. Nothing the founders of the US did was compatible with the native Americans' way of life.


Steve.
Don't forget about Australia and the aborigines either.
 
A bit like Muslims coming here, living here, getting an education then flying off to Syria to be trained in the art of killing us?

How many are we talking about. What's the actual figure and whats your source. Then whats the figure of those born here and those who weren't.

Oh and
Bigotry is a state of mind where a person strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.[1] Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.
 
My pal who lived in Saudi said pork and alcohol were not able to be procured. He was fine with it, their country, their rules and all that jazz.

Oh and thats further stuff that's wrong. Alcohol is indeed easily available in Saudi, usually in the British compounds, where the brits all keep together, doing their own rules, customs, cultures. Lots of drinking, prayer groups etc.

But then I've been there not relying on third hand information to feed my views.
 
Oh and thats further stuff that's wrong. Alcohol is indeed easily available in Saudi, usually in the British compounds, where the brits all keep together, doing their own rules, customs, cultures. Lots of drinking, prayer groups etc.

But then I've been there not relying on third hand information to feed my views.

Your are not suggesting Steve hasn't got an accurate grasp of the facts!
 
How many are we talking about. What's the actual figure and whats your source. Then whats the figure of those born here and those who weren't.

Oh and
Bigotry is a state of mind where a person strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.[1] Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.

Where do I strongly and unfairly dislike other people?

I think you've read what I've said and constructed what I've said into something you've wanted me to have said. I note my comments about welcoming people in and tolerance has been ignored entirely because I also said we shouldn't let what we do in our own land be dictated to by others.
 
Where do I strongly and unfairly dislike other people?

I think you've read what I've said and constructed what I've said into something you've wanted me to have said. I note my comments about welcoming people in and tolerance has been ignored entirely because I also said we shouldn't let what we do in our own land be dictated to by others.

You mean you want to torpedo boats containing people you like????? OK, sounds reasonable.....
 
Where do I strongly and unfairly dislike other people?

I think you've read what I've said and constructed what I've said into something you've wanted me to have said. I note my comments about welcoming people in and tolerance has been ignored entirely because I also said we shouldn't let what we do in our own land be dictated to by others.

It isn't Steve, we've had nearly 1500 posts telling you that, only you're too blinkered to see
 
It isn't Steve, we've had nearly 1500 posts telling you that, only you're too blinkered to see

So what about the links/events I've posted to you and the cases of terrorism in western europe. I have NO PROBLEM with Muslims that come here and live peacefully. I do have a big problem with those that come here, complain about our education system, complain about dogs (they are a part of our culture) and refuse people bus travel because their dog offends their religion.

If they wish to live with that, they can, and should be made to live elsewhere, irrespective of being born here.

For the umteenth time, what is peoples problem with that view point?
 
The Catholics seem to do it well enough.

really ? - how many paedophile prirests have been excomunicated then ? How many terrorists ??
 
. I have NO PROBLEM with Muslims that come here and live peacefully. ?

apart from wanting to torpedo the ship s they are on and meet them on the beaches the machine gun fire :confused:
 
On this whole Islam being a race, Richard Dawkins put it:

"If Islam is a race, then socialism is a race, birdwatching is a race, femaleness is a race."

The Rotherham case was a perfect example of people in power ignoring politically inconvenient truths which left rapists to do as they please to 1400 kids. Child sex exploitation is bad enough, but to create this climate of fear and nervousness about speaking out because of the race of the criminals is unforgivable.

They can try and blame any excuse they like about a racist viewpoint in the past by someone else meant they couldn't bring up the race of the perpetrators, it changes nothing. Anyone that used that flimsy excuse cannot be trusted in a position of power in case it happened again.
Complete b******t!

The failure of the authorities in Rotherham, was exactly the same failing in every badly handled rape/sexual abuse case. The victim isn't important enough to be considered. Mostly white kids, from troubled homes or in care, if you read the reports when police were involved, the attitude wasn't "we can't approach the Muslim perpetrators" it was simply that the kids were 'trouble'. 13 year old kids half naked and drunk at midnight aren't seen as victims, but as hassle to deal with, by the police and social workers. Those people we pay to protect our kids, but of course, these aren't 'our' kids, they're feral kids who don't really 'belong' the same way ours do.

The authorities ignoring these kids is criminal, but it'll happen again tomorrow, the truth is now, less likely to happen if the perpetrator is a brown taxi driver, but if he's a white architect or black Judge, the victim will not be trusted.

To see this from a clear perspective (clear of race/religion/community), think about the remarks of the judge who recently described a 16year old child of 'grooming' her teacher. It's f*****g sickening how we've got to this point.
 
Complete b******t!

The failure of the authorities in Rotherham, was exactly the same failing in every badly handled rape/sexual abuse case. The victim isn't important enough to be considered. Mostly white kids, from troubled homes or in care, if you read the reports when police were involved, the attitude wasn't "we can't approach the Muslim perpetrators" it was simply that the kids were 'trouble'. 13 year old kids half naked and drunk at midnight aren't seen as victims, but as hassle to deal with, by the police and social workers. Those people we pay to protect our kids, but of course, these aren't 'our' kids, they're feral kids who don't really 'belong' the same way ours do.

The authorities ignoring these kids is criminal, but it'll happen again tomorrow, the truth is now, less likely to happen if the perpetrator is a brown taxi driver, but if he's a white architect or black Judge, the victim will not be trusted.

To see this from a clear perspective (clear of race/religion/community), think about the remarks of the judge who recently described a 16year old child of 'grooming' her teacher. It's f*****g sickening how we've got to this point.
Considering the NCA didn't begin its enquiry until 18/12/2014 I find it amazing you already have all the answers and can call someone else's opinion complete b*****ks. You could be right, you could be wrong, heck why not blame Baroness Thatcher ;), it is not concluded what the reasons are, and as such I think you are a little premature.
 
Considering the NCA didn't begin its enquiry until 18/12/2014 I find it amazing you already have all the answers and can call someone else's opinion complete b*****ks. You could be right, you could be wrong, heck why not blame Baroness Thatcher ;), it is not concluded what the reasons are, and as such I think you are a little premature.
I'm not talking about the outcome of the enquiry, I'm talking about interviews we all saw on TV when the story broke.

Trying to belittle or ridicule what I said doesn't alter the fact that it's true.

But if that helps you....
 
Complete b******t!

The failure of the authorities in Rotherham, was exactly the same failing in every badly handled rape/sexual abuse case. The victim isn't important enough to be considered. Mostly white kids, from troubled homes or in care, if you read the reports when police were involved, the attitude wasn't "we can't approach the Muslim perpetrators" it was simply that the kids were 'trouble'. 13 year old kids half naked and drunk at midnight aren't seen as victims, but as hassle to deal with, by the police and social workers. Those people we pay to protect our kids, but of course, these aren't 'our' kids, they're feral kids who don't really 'belong' the same way ours do.

The authorities ignoring these kids is criminal, but it'll happen again tomorrow, the truth is now, less likely to happen if the perpetrator is a brown taxi driver, but if he's a white architect or black Judge, the victim will not be trusted.

To see this from a clear perspective (clear of race/religion/community), think about the remarks of the judge who recently described a 16year old child of 'grooming' her teacher. It's f*****g sickening how we've got to this point.

So the authorities involved can be incompetent and prejudicial but not aware of the racial s***storm they would create? Here is some salient points from the reports, media and committees:

Jay report:

By far the majority of perpetrators were described as 'Asian' by victims, yet throughout the entire period, councillors did not engage directly with the Pakistani-heritage community to discuss how best they could jointly address the issue. Some councillors seemed to think it was a one-off problem, which they hoped would go away. Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.

It was reported that a number of workers in the town involved with the issue believed that one of the difficulties which prevented CSE being dealt with effectively was the ethnicity of the perpetrators

In the broader organisational context, however, there was a widespread perception that messages conveyed by some senior people in the Council and also the Police, were to 'downplay' the ethnic dimensions of CSE. Unsurprisingly, frontline staff appeared to be confused as to what they were supposed to say and do and what would be interpreted as 'racist'.

The issue of race, regardless of ethnic group, should be tackled as an absolute priority if it is known to be a significant factor in the criminal activity of organised abuse in any local community. There was little evidence of such action being taken in Rotherham in the earlier years. Councillors can play an effective role in this, especially those representing the communities in question, but only if they act as facilitators of communication rather than barriers to it. One senior officer suggested that some influential Pakistani-heritage councillors in Rotherham had acted as barriers.

Several councillors interviewed believed that by opening up these issues they could be 'giving oxygen' to racist perspectives that might in turn attract extremist political groups and threaten community cohesion.

Print media:

A researcher who raised the alarm over the sexual abuse of teenage girls in Rotherham more than a decade ago was sent on a 'ethnicity and diversity course' by child protection bosses who refused to act on her evidence.

Recalling the reaction of one official after she had submitted the report, the researcher said: "She said you must never refer to that again. You must never refer to Asian men.

"And her other response was to book me on a two-day ethnicity and diversity course to raise my awareness of ethnic issues."

One of the girls who was allegedly abused, whose name was changed to Isabel to protect her identity, said that her abuser told her he would "play the race card" if the police tried to take action.

Last week, Denis MacShane, the former MP for Rotherham, admitted he might have not done enough about child sexual exploitation by Asian men in his constituency because he was a "Guardian-reading liberal leftie"

"I think there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat, if I may put it like that."

He recalled having a “huge row” with another local MP and council grandees because they were complaining about a newspaper investigation into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, which unearthed uncomfortable truths they did not want to hear.

This is Andrew Norfolk of The Times who broke the story at the Home Affairs Committee meeting which is an uncorrected transcript:

Q632 Chair: Finally, before colleagues come in, let me deal with the issue of ethnicity. You were very, very specific that you felt that there was a racial and cultural issue here in this child grooming-that these were Pakistani men who were exploiting and grooming young white girls. Your articles were very, very clear on this. Is that right? Tell us why you think that is the case.

Andrew Norfolk: When we finally started looking at this in 2010, it was after a case in Rochdale, ironically, that was barely covered at all: nine men were convicted of horrific offences against one 14-year-old girl who was in a children’s home. It was not the case that got all the publicity. I was on holiday in Scotland and I heard a BBC report on the radio that mentioned that nine men had been convicted, but did not say anything about them. Because of all these other cases, I was in my car thinking, "I bet I do know something about them." When I got back I checked and, sure enough, these were South Asian Muslim names. That was when we decided we must try to work out whether there was any truth in this pattern.

Q634 Chair: So in particular, relating to organised grooming, this is a problem specifically for the British Pakistani community.

Andrew Norfolk: It is a problem that has put down deep roots in northern communities for the last 20 years. To this day, despite all the very good changes that have happened in the last two years, no official body, to my knowledge, has said, "We need to understand why."

Q635 Chair: And are you telling this Committee the reason why perhaps this has not been dealt with more severely by some of the authorities is that, because they were of Pakistani origin, there was a fear of trampling on cultural sensitivities? Is that what you are telling this Committee? You can be very frank with us; we are very keen to hear from you.

Andrew Norfolk: Okay. One of the big problems is wider than that, which is there was a genuine failure to understand what was going on.

Chair: We understand that.

Andrew Norfolk: That was not related to that, but yes. After we ran our first story, in January last year, I was contacted by so many people who had refused to speak to me before. When you have a Director of Children’s Services ringing and saying, "My staff are jumping for joy in the office today because finally somebody has said what we have not felt able to say," and when you have very senior police officers saying exactly the same-

Q636 Chair: And they have said this to you?

Andrew Norfolk: Yes.

Chair: They have actually said this to you-off the record, clearly, because you have not quoted them in your article?

Andrew Norfolk: Yes. Absolutely. There was a fear of treading into a cultural minefield that they did not really know anything about-a fear of marginalising; a fear of stereotyping-and it allowed this situation to develop to where we were two years ago.

Chair: That is very helpful
 
Last edited:
So the authorities involved can be incompetent and prejudicial but not aware of the racial s***storm they would create? Here is some salient points from the reports, media and committees:
Jay report:
Print media:
This is Andrew Norfolk of The Times who broke the story at the Home Affairs Committee meeting:

Why are you lot looking for the race card to play. It's unimportant. The guys perpetrating this were scumbags, not Muslim scumbags or Pakistani scumbags, just scumbags.

In the same way that Saville et al aren't white scumbags or celebrity scumbags, just scumbags.

In the same way that scumbag catholic priests....

My point is lost here. Because you'd rather find fault with Muslims and blame leftie do-gooders. Completely forgetting that the first and last point of contact for most of these complaints are front line coppers (not known for their lefty leanings or political sensitivity).

The simple fact is that these victims are considered unimportant, if that wasn't true, it'd take a huge political machine to cover this stuff up. The reality is, their complaints go ignored because of who they are, not because of who the perpetrators are.
 
Why are you lot looking for the race card to play. It's unimportant. The guys perpetrating this were scumbags, not Muslim scumbags or Pakistani scumbags, just scumbags.

In the same way that Saville et al aren't white scumbags or celebrity scumbags, just scumbags.

In the same way that scumbag catholic priests....

My point is lost here. Because you'd rather find fault with Muslims and blame leftie do-gooders. Completely forgetting that the first and last point of contact for most of these complaints are front line coppers (not known for their lefty leanings or political sensitivity).

The simple fact is that these victims are considered unimportant, if that wasn't true, it'd take a huge political machine to cover this stuff up. The reality is, their complaints go ignored because of who they are, not because of who the perpetrators are.

The quotes above show you're completely wrong. Why you refuse to believe the independent report or the journalist involved is your own problem. Even as a journalist he was fearful it would give oxygen to the BNP but he continued anyway. These front line coppers were arresting 13 year olds for being drunk and disorderly when they were with older men or arresting the father of the girls when they went to get them back. Not to mention the other stupid reasons they wouldn't pursue a case. It wasn't only a white underclass of children abused either, professional parents had their children abused and a Sikh and Muslim women were abused as well.

The Savile case is the way white men predominantly operate in these cases as mostly lone abusers. These Pakistani groups of brothers, uncles, friends and workmates operated entirely differently. If you think it is some Muslim bashing then Andrew Norfolk addressed this finding the Pakistani/Kashmiri Muslims almost all to blame and none from the Gujarati Muslims. He has to follow the leads and if it upsets people these patterns emerge and will continue to emerge then tough.
 
I'm not talking about the outcome of the enquiry, I'm talking about interviews we all saw on TV when the story broke.

Trying to belittle or ridicule what I said doesn't alter the fact that it's true.

But if that helps you....
Of course, so it is an opinion on other opinions, yup that is naturally a fact then...I'm not trying to belittle anyone, merely highlighting that the full outcome and reasoning is not known yet. As laudrup has linked the jay report was dare, and an enquiry is being run. I merely thought you were a little premature to call out another poster as absolute b*****ks whilst that is underway...But hey Phil knows best right?
 
It's funny that them OP titled this thread "Angry White and Thick". ( It was actually called "Angry White and Proud" for those who missed it ). There have been many who have pointed out the "Stars" of the show were EDL/BNP types with poor education. By comparison, the people who are going out to Syria to kill are university educated types with great careers. Who's the worst, someone who doesn't really know any better or someone who damn well does ? In the show they were going to premises where they had been told Muslims were operating/plotting against Uk residents to protest, and, marching in Rotherham against alleged organised Asian gangs raping UK children.

All the people participating in this thread have gone to great lengths to shut down the opinions of others by reverting to the good old tried and tested "you're a bigot" "you're a racist" "you're a Daily Mail Reader" etc etc. ST4 was even called a repressed homosexual ! ! ! ! ! The definition of a 'bigot' was quoted as being someone intolerant of others beliefs. Err hello, the irony of it :) It's because of this, people who don't agree with our countries stance on immigration, feel they have no voice. Its a fair opinion to have, why should someone left of me politically, try to refuse me an opinion UNLESS it coincides with their train of thought, outrageous. Remember Gordon Brown and his disastrous meet and greet, when he was floored by a little old lady stating her opinion on immigration. He had no answers for her worries, and knew he'd been exposed. ( remember, it was New Labour policy to "rub the rights nose in diversity" )

Recently it was leaked how Labour wanted to steer questions away from immigration when asked on the doorstep whilst canvassing for the upcoming election. No wonder UKIP are on the rise. Stifling opinions of an argument they know they can't win.

Certain members of society are trying to "socially engineer an experiment" of how they think the UK should look............... After women spending decades of fighting inequality in our society, we now are embracing a religion that would take that back centuries.
 
The UK isn't embracing a religion though. It is embracing people. This country has a proud tradition of welcoming people from all over the world and because of that our lives have been enriched.

This isn't a religious nation remember. It is secular.
 
The UK isn't embracing a religion though. It is embracing people. This country has a proud tradition of welcoming people from all over the world and because of that our lives have been enriched.

This isn't a religious nation remember. It is secular.
I disagree, the Queen is head of state, and is also the supreme governor of the Church of England. Further more there are also 26 Bishops in the House of Lords which naturally influence laws that affect the whole of the UK.

Now, I acknowledge that I'm using Nation and State interchangeably, but even I didn't do that. Of the nation only 25% declares no religion, and 7% refused to respond. I would like to learn how you deduct from such outcomes that this isn't a religious nation but secular instead?
 
All the people participating in this thread have gone to great lengths to shut down the opinions of others .

I might be wrong but I really don't think anyone here wants to shut down other people's opinions when those opinions are stated in a well reasoned manner. Opinions, and the discussions around them, are what forums are about.

I actually don't care what the opinions are of someone who regularly advocates execution without trial, has stated that men, women and children should be allowed to drown and sees no problem with dead immigrant children left on a beach.

Those "opinions" are beyond the pale and have no place in a forum such as this.
 
Perhaps best not to perpetuate those views and provide them the attention then. Personally I think it is a game where both sides are in the game, looking beyond those dramatised statements there isn't in reality any such extreme views nor action. But ever since once they were made in a certain context they've remained alive, not least egged on by those who took objection to them out of context of the original remark. And so the snowball rolled and rolled.

Anyway, just my view that it isn't so one-sided as some portray it to be ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top