The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Racism
Firstly define Racism for me? As I feel we’ve gone racism mad on everything, and have almost started going in the opposite way. From what I’ve read and heard over the past few months we, as a society, are taking things a step too far. In schools blackboards are now no longer allowed to be called blackboards but chalkboards, as otherwise it’s ‘claimed’ it’s racist towards Black people. How exactly does that work then, as quite simply it’s a board and it’s black…what’s racist about that?
On the other side of the board (boom boom – although no pun intended) white boards which are wipe clean and use a pen are allowed to be called white boards…which is in direct contrast to my point above!! I can’t really understand why people find issue with such things as we’re no different to one another and if the colour of an item is described as black or white that is because it is black or white. If the current trend carries on then it’ll surely lead to a banning of certain colours! No more Yellow lines on the road – Offensive to people of Asian decent and the Simpsons, no more white lines in the middle of roads - Offensive to white people, no more green grass – Offensive to the Poddington Peas, no more black suit and tie at funerals – Offensive to people of African decent. It’s utter lunacy. What about people that get sun tans or use sun beds too often (Dale Winton etc)? Is Tan Leather interior for cars going to be banned or made to change its name? Blimey at this rate even saying something transparent is going to be offensive to Jellyfish.
Have you ever seen any Def Jam comedy videos featuring the likes of Chris Rock, Bernie Mack, David Chapelle etc. If so you’ll notice that theres always the odd white person in the crowd that gets spotted and has the Mickey taken for being the only white guy/girl for several blocks. Ever seen a film such as Money Talks, Rush Hour or TV shows such as The Fresh Prince, Goodness Gracious Me (particularly the scene where they go for an English – Hilarious) etc – White and Chinese people are the butt of many a joke. But can you imagine what would happen to the career or someone like Lee Evans or Jack Dee if they made a joke about black people!
Anyone watched the MOBOs in recent years? Well the MOBO’s does exactly what it says on the tin, its an award ceremony to celebrate Music Of Black Origin. Anybody ever heard of the MOWOs (Music Of White Origin)…Nope?…That’s because it doesn’t exist. I personally think there isn’t one, because rather than white people not being proud of the roots of their music, there would be a huge problem from the black community that it shuns them etc.
Sex Discrimination
It’s a case of wanting the best of both worlds which you can’t have in todays day and age. Moving on nicely, but still keeping with the idea of groups/events which segregate people. Not so long back there was a row that erupted over a Mens golfing tour. The issue was that Laura Davis, Britains No. 1 Golfer and for World Number 1, wanted to compete alongside the men. Now again I’ve got no problem with this as why shouldn’t a female be able to complete with men at a sport! However the Mens PGA wasn’t happy with this as they saw it as a mens only tour. Unsurprisingly there was a backlash from women golfers and eventually the Mens PGA backed down and Let Laura play. Not before however they raised the question…so can we let a man, say Tiger Woods, play on the Womans tour. I’ll let you guess the answer but I’ll give you a clue, it begins with an N and ends with an O. Needless to say Laura Davis came last, missed the cut and has decided not to request playing on a mens tour since!!
Across the country there are also several ‘Mens’ clubs and associations, which all forbid the joining of female members. It amazes me that the people that won’t let Females join this club are actually over the age of 10. As last time I checked it was only men under this age that didn’t like a females company.
There’s also always talk of Women earning less money than men for the same job. Personally I’d like to bring to the attention of those people (and I don’t disagree with you) Tony and Cherrie Blair….Shes a Lawyer and earns Circa £200k a year…He (tries to) runs the country and earns circa £110k!!
There’s currently a big debate in many schools and I remember having the debate with a few teachers when I was at school, and that is that boys are not allowed to wear shorts in the summer, but girls are allowed to wear skirts. I found the only way to get around this was to either ask if it’s ok to wear a Kilt, or secondly, say you’re having a sexual identity crisis and could you wear a skirt…If they say no, ask them why they’re being homophobic!
Firstly define Racism for me? As I feel we’ve gone racism mad on everything, and have almost started going in the opposite way. From what I’ve read and heard over the past few months we, as a society, are taking things a step too far. In schools blackboards are now no longer allowed to be called blackboards but chalkboards, as otherwise it’s ‘claimed’ it’s racist towards Black people. How exactly does that work then, as quite simply it’s a board and it’s black…what’s racist about that?
On the other side of the board (boom boom – although no pun intended) white boards which are wipe clean and use a pen are allowed to be called white boards…which is in direct contrast to my point above!! I can’t really understand why people find issue with such things as we’re no different to one another and if the colour of an item is described as black or white that is because it is black or white. If the current trend carries on then it’ll surely lead to a banning of certain colours! No more Yellow lines on the road – Offensive to people of Asian decent and the Simpsons, no more white lines in the middle of roads - Offensive to white people, no more green grass – Offensive to the Poddington Peas, no more black suit and tie at funerals – Offensive to people of African decent. It’s utter lunacy. What about people that get sun tans or use sun beds too often (Dale Winton etc)? Is Tan Leather interior for cars going to be banned or made to change its name? Blimey at this rate even saying something transparent is going to be offensive to Jellyfish.
Have you ever seen any Def Jam comedy videos featuring the likes of Chris Rock, Bernie Mack, David Chapelle etc. If so you’ll notice that theres always the odd white person in the crowd that gets spotted and has the Mickey taken for being the only white guy/girl for several blocks. Ever seen a film such as Money Talks, Rush Hour or TV shows such as The Fresh Prince, Goodness Gracious Me (particularly the scene where they go for an English – Hilarious) etc – White and Chinese people are the butt of many a joke. But can you imagine what would happen to the career or someone like Lee Evans or Jack Dee if they made a joke about black people!
Anyone watched the MOBOs in recent years? Well the MOBO’s does exactly what it says on the tin, its an award ceremony to celebrate Music Of Black Origin. Anybody ever heard of the MOWOs (Music Of White Origin)…Nope?…That’s because it doesn’t exist. I personally think there isn’t one, because rather than white people not being proud of the roots of their music, there would be a huge problem from the black community that it shuns them etc.
Sex Discrimination
It’s a case of wanting the best of both worlds which you can’t have in todays day and age. Moving on nicely, but still keeping with the idea of groups/events which segregate people. Not so long back there was a row that erupted over a Mens golfing tour. The issue was that Laura Davis, Britains No. 1 Golfer and for World Number 1, wanted to compete alongside the men. Now again I’ve got no problem with this as why shouldn’t a female be able to complete with men at a sport! However the Mens PGA wasn’t happy with this as they saw it as a mens only tour. Unsurprisingly there was a backlash from women golfers and eventually the Mens PGA backed down and Let Laura play. Not before however they raised the question…so can we let a man, say Tiger Woods, play on the Womans tour. I’ll let you guess the answer but I’ll give you a clue, it begins with an N and ends with an O. Needless to say Laura Davis came last, missed the cut and has decided not to request playing on a mens tour since!!
Across the country there are also several ‘Mens’ clubs and associations, which all forbid the joining of female members. It amazes me that the people that won’t let Females join this club are actually over the age of 10. As last time I checked it was only men under this age that didn’t like a females company.
There’s also always talk of Women earning less money than men for the same job. Personally I’d like to bring to the attention of those people (and I don’t disagree with you) Tony and Cherrie Blair….Shes a Lawyer and earns Circa £200k a year…He (tries to) runs the country and earns circa £110k!!
There’s currently a big debate in many schools and I remember having the debate with a few teachers when I was at school, and that is that boys are not allowed to wear shorts in the summer, but girls are allowed to wear skirts. I found the only way to get around this was to either ask if it’s ok to wear a Kilt, or secondly, say you’re having a sexual identity crisis and could you wear a skirt…If they say no, ask them why they’re being homophobic!
Page:
Oh, and also, the whole cap on immagrants policy, does this include asylum seekers too...? Just because the whole perception of immigration and asylum is so muddled...
But anyway, if it does include asylum, then that's pretty terrible, as setting a cap on how many people fleeing oppression and persecution we are willing to take doesn't exactly instill me with pride.
But anyway, if it does include asylum, then that's pretty terrible, as setting a cap on how many people fleeing oppression and persecution we are willing to take doesn't exactly instill me with pride.
This system would only apply to the immigrants. In the case of refugees, which i've had arguments about this subject before but here it goes. No request for the asylum will be entertained from the refugees for whom the UK is not the first safe port of call. That sounds good to me, why should we allow refugees in the UK when you get a lot of theese people crossing other safe ports first? Here's the rest of things they would do....
No request for the asylum will be entertained from citizens of other multiparty democracies, since these will be deemed, like the UK, to be politically tolerant of varying points of view.
No request for asylum will be considered from the citizens of countries currently hosting international peacekeepers from the UN, the UK, or the other countries. Part of the job of such forces is to protect people from persecution in their own countries.
No more 'economic' immigration will be entertained except in very exceptional circumstances.
At the border
A UKIP government would give UK port, airport, and other authorities whatever resources it takes to check everyone at the point of entry into the country. Immigrants claiming asylum at point of entry will be held in humane but secure accommodation, and their cases processed within a fortnight. No asylum claims will be countenanced if submitted later, or away from the point of entry. At the end of the two week period successful asylum seekers will be released into the community and given whatever help is deemed appropriate. Unsuccessful applicants will be returned to their countries of origin.
Again this is the only party who are willing to do anything and for them recognising that fact I will stand by there ways.
And to light who mentioned RKS's contempt for Arabs and Arab culture, i've seen him stick up for plenty of arabs and other races when talking about racism on his talk shows. And yeah he did go over the top when making the statment about Arab culture, but the fact is you could see what poiint he was trying to make. The only point he was wrong about was when he mentioned the majority of them are terrorists when it's actually the minority. At the time he said the statement, look at the world situation then, it was true the majority of terrorist's at that time were in fact from a Arab nation. It's impossible to say that fact without sounding racist.You wan't a racist persons views just listen to the man with a hook on his arm, maybee, just maybee you'll see the diference.
No request for the asylum will be entertained from citizens of other multiparty democracies, since these will be deemed, like the UK, to be politically tolerant of varying points of view.
No request for asylum will be considered from the citizens of countries currently hosting international peacekeepers from the UN, the UK, or the other countries. Part of the job of such forces is to protect people from persecution in their own countries.
No more 'economic' immigration will be entertained except in very exceptional circumstances.
At the border
A UKIP government would give UK port, airport, and other authorities whatever resources it takes to check everyone at the point of entry into the country. Immigrants claiming asylum at point of entry will be held in humane but secure accommodation, and their cases processed within a fortnight. No asylum claims will be countenanced if submitted later, or away from the point of entry. At the end of the two week period successful asylum seekers will be released into the community and given whatever help is deemed appropriate. Unsuccessful applicants will be returned to their countries of origin.
Again this is the only party who are willing to do anything and for them recognising that fact I will stand by there ways.
And to light who mentioned RKS's contempt for Arabs and Arab culture, i've seen him stick up for plenty of arabs and other races when talking about racism on his talk shows. And yeah he did go over the top when making the statment about Arab culture, but the fact is you could see what poiint he was trying to make. The only point he was wrong about was when he mentioned the majority of them are terrorists when it's actually the minority. At the time he said the statement, look at the world situation then, it was true the majority of terrorist's at that time were in fact from a Arab nation. It's impossible to say that fact without sounding racist.You wan't a racist persons views just listen to the man with a hook on his arm, maybee, just maybee you'll see the diference.
kevstar wrote:
> This system would only apply to the immigrants. In the case of
> refugees, which i've had arguments about this subject before but here
> it goes. No request for the asylum will be entertained from the
> refugees for whom the UK is not the first safe port of call. That
> sounds good to me, why should we allow refugees in the UK when you
> get a lot of theese people crossing other safe ports first? Here's
> the rest of things they would do....
Umm...because they want to be British, want to contribute to our society, and at the same time want to do well for themselves? Christ, if someone has managed to get from Afghanistan to the UK then that is an ingenius person who will add a lot to society. OR an extraordinarily devious criminal. The point is, it's not possible to simply decide in that way. And how do you prove that this is their first port of call? What, do we criticise them for not fleeing a barbarous regime by means of a flight closer to their home?
>
> No request for the asylum will be entertained from citizens of other
> multiparty democracies, since these will be deemed, like the UK, to
> be politically tolerant of varying points of view.
Mwahahahahahaa! Indonesia will, I'm sure, be delighted by your vote of confidence. Hey, just ask the people of East Timor.
>
> No request for asylum will be considered from the citizens of
> countries currently hosting international peacekeepers from the UN,
> the UK, or the other countries. Part of the job of such forces is to
> protect people from persecution in their own countries.
What, like they did in Sarajevo? When the UN is properly funded then I'll agree with you. Until then...
>
> No more 'economic' immigration will be entertained except in very
> exceptional circumstances.
So in other words, you're going back on what you said earlier about allowing economic migrants. Did you read anything about our gradually collapsing economy?
>
> At the border
> A UKIP government would give UK port, airport, and other authorities
> whatever resources it takes to check everyone at the point of entry
> into the country. Immigrants claiming asylum at point of entry will
> be held in humane but secure accommodation, and their cases processed
> within a fortnight. No asylum claims will be countenanced if
> submitted later, or away from the point of entry. At the end of the
> two week period successful asylum seekers will be released into the
> community and given whatever help is deemed appropriate. Unsuccessful
> applicants will be returned to their countries of origin.
Heh. Way to go; so in other words, once people are already in, they then have no incentive whatsoever to apply for asylum or immigrant status?
>
> Again this is the only party who are willing to do anything and for
> them recognising that fact I will stand by there ways.
Yeah, they and the BNP are the only 2 parties willing to be firm on immigrants...
>
> And to light who mentioned RKS's contempt for Arabs and Arab culture,
> i've seen him stick up for plenty of arabs and other races when
> talking about racism on his talk shows. And yeah he did go over the
> top when making the statment about Arab culture, but the fact is you
> could see what poiint he was trying to make. The only point he was
> wrong about was when he mentioned the majority of them are terrorists
> when it's actually the minority. At the time he said the statement,
> look at the world situation then, it was true the majority of
> terrorist's at that time were in fact from a Arab nation. It's
> impossible to say that fact without sounding racist.You wan't a
> racist persons views just listen to the man with a hook on his arm,
> maybee, just maybee you'll see the diference.
Heh; I'll post the same rant now as I did back then;
You may have seen over the weekend that Robert Kilroy-Silk has quit his job as the Most Annoying Little Smear of Dogturd on British Television, saying, "the time is right for me to go" (though personally I felt that 1976 was the right time for him to go, preferably into an oversized mincing machine). I'm sure that the fact that the BBC scored an extra million viewers in the slot where his program was before it was suspended did nothing at all to convince the arrogant dollop of rectal bacteria that maybe the public DIDN'T share his belief that he could walk on water, and maybe cure lepers of their ailment. And I'm especially sure that the uproar over his column in the Sunday Express branding all Arab people as barbaric, suicide bombing, women abusing limb amputators had no bearing at all on his long overdue decision.
Anyway, I've just about stopped laughing at the downfall of this abhorrent little man now, so I now find myself looking back over the couple of weeks since his initial racist faux pas. There are two things about it that really interest me. One is the response of Kilroy to the swathes of people who were offended by what he wrote. The other is the somewhat surprising defence used by his apologists; that he was simply exercising freedom of speech.
So then; what did the silver haired simpleton say in his defence? Well, firstly he said that he couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. To a certain extent, he actually has a point; the column was a reprint that had been published earlier in 2003 with not a squeak of protest being raised. He then went on to apologise for causing offence whilst, at the same time, standing by what he'd said. This is a quite stultifying piece of arrogance on his part; he seemed to be implying that, as what he said is sparkling with universal truth, it must therefore be the fault of those oversensitive suicide bombers that they got offended. As he was magnanimous enough to forgive them for that and say sorry, he assumed it would sooth their angry, tea towel encased heads.
Even the fact that he stood by what he said should indicate that Kilroy thought he was hosting an edition of his program. Only this time, he was unable to shout down or ignore guests who disagreed with his ill-informed bigotry. He couldn't fake the face of a sensitive listener before closing the program with a semi-retarded stream of clichés that belittled whichever poor sod he'd just been patronising, whilst trying to bolster his own hype of a straight talking man of the people. No, this time he found that he was on the defensive. And faced with the task of justifying how "Arabs have never contributed anything to civilisation" is a valid statement (all the science, mathematics, medicine, and astronomy that we got from Arabic and Persian worlds mustn't count in his world; I'll make the differentiated between Arabs and Persians, even if Kilroy didn't know or care about it), he decided to tuck his tail between his legs and resign. Though he didn't actually withdraw his remarks. He didn't even spend much time trying to qualify them; had he been pointing the finger at one or two Middle Eastern governments, I daresay that he wouldn't have come in for so much, or any, flak. So, not only has the BBC lost a bullying, arrogant egotist, but a cowardly and stupid one to boot.
And it would have ended there, were it not for the multitude of people who were willing to defend Kilroy for braying this jingoistic headspew. When I read about the BBC's decision to suspend him from his job because of the comments made I, perhaps naively, expected the reaction of the overwhelming majority to be the same as mine; hate-filled, mocking laughter. Instead, there was a chorus of cries that Kilroy was being picked on for his "courageous stance on free speech" and that his suspension was "political correctness gone mad".
This was a reaction that took me entirely by surprise; Kilroy had made some pretty hateful comments; had he replaced the word 'Arab' with the word 'Jew' or 'Black', then there would have been a race to Kilroy's house, with the lucky winner getting to change him from an annoying minor celebrity into about 200 pounds of rapidly cooling meat. Should we really be talking about protecting bigotry under the heading of free speech? Does that mean I can start ranting about wogs, spiks, kikes, poofs, sl@gsragheads, and so on and so forth, and claim the same justification? Of course it doesn't.
So what about the charge that the BBC are pandering to the politically correct by suspending him? Well, there is a certain amount of logic to that argument; why the hell wasn't he suspended when the article was first published? But beyond that, there is no real case for the BBC to answer. There are laws against inciting racial hatred in this country, and Kilroy has fallen foul of them by pretty much anybody's definition. His employer has every right to suspend him for his public declaration of racism. Would you expect to still have a job if you marched into work offering a cheery "Sieg Heil" to all of your colleagues? If you wrote a newspaper article stating that all Black people are worthless as a race, would you really be surprised to find a P45 waiting for you in your day job? Personally, I find it far more offensive that he got away with these remarks earlier. If I were to complain about anything in this incident, it would be that the media are only against racism when it's newsworthy.
Finally, as we reached the last desperate dregs of humanity who attempted to stand up on behalf of Kilroy, we had that old favourite; "There wouldn't have been as much fuss if it had been a non-white making these comments". I always enjoy seeing racists whining that they're not allowed to be as bigoted as those goddamn pesky coons. Well, much though I hate to sprinkle foul-smelling urine on their parade, they're talking complete and utter asshat. If this is a case of de poor ol' white man getting victimised, how come he had to publish the bilious cack twice before anyone raised an objection? And if non-whites do get away with more bigotry than whites, how come Abu Hamza (the London based Moslem cleric/James Bond villain wannabe with the hook for a hand) was barred from preaching at his Finsbury Park Mosque for his racist, anti-Semitic nonsense?
All in all, I find myself wondering whether these apologists have been quite as vehement in defending an Arab making negative comments about English culture? If it's all about free speech, then those same people are presumably equally irate at Hamza being silenced. Except that they're not. The majority of these people are arguing for the same right that Kilroy seems to have dedicated his life and career too; the right to remain ignorant racists. If stopping someone in the public eye from encouraging hatred of another person based on nothing more than race is "Political Correctness gone mad", then pass me the straitjacket.
Oh, and if anyone reading this actually sympathised with Kilroy and gets offended at being called racist, relax; it's just me exercising my right of free speech.
> This system would only apply to the immigrants. In the case of
> refugees, which i've had arguments about this subject before but here
> it goes. No request for the asylum will be entertained from the
> refugees for whom the UK is not the first safe port of call. That
> sounds good to me, why should we allow refugees in the UK when you
> get a lot of theese people crossing other safe ports first? Here's
> the rest of things they would do....
Umm...because they want to be British, want to contribute to our society, and at the same time want to do well for themselves? Christ, if someone has managed to get from Afghanistan to the UK then that is an ingenius person who will add a lot to society. OR an extraordinarily devious criminal. The point is, it's not possible to simply decide in that way. And how do you prove that this is their first port of call? What, do we criticise them for not fleeing a barbarous regime by means of a flight closer to their home?
>
> No request for the asylum will be entertained from citizens of other
> multiparty democracies, since these will be deemed, like the UK, to
> be politically tolerant of varying points of view.
Mwahahahahahaa! Indonesia will, I'm sure, be delighted by your vote of confidence. Hey, just ask the people of East Timor.
>
> No request for asylum will be considered from the citizens of
> countries currently hosting international peacekeepers from the UN,
> the UK, or the other countries. Part of the job of such forces is to
> protect people from persecution in their own countries.
What, like they did in Sarajevo? When the UN is properly funded then I'll agree with you. Until then...
>
> No more 'economic' immigration will be entertained except in very
> exceptional circumstances.
So in other words, you're going back on what you said earlier about allowing economic migrants. Did you read anything about our gradually collapsing economy?
>
> At the border
> A UKIP government would give UK port, airport, and other authorities
> whatever resources it takes to check everyone at the point of entry
> into the country. Immigrants claiming asylum at point of entry will
> be held in humane but secure accommodation, and their cases processed
> within a fortnight. No asylum claims will be countenanced if
> submitted later, or away from the point of entry. At the end of the
> two week period successful asylum seekers will be released into the
> community and given whatever help is deemed appropriate. Unsuccessful
> applicants will be returned to their countries of origin.
Heh. Way to go; so in other words, once people are already in, they then have no incentive whatsoever to apply for asylum or immigrant status?
>
> Again this is the only party who are willing to do anything and for
> them recognising that fact I will stand by there ways.
Yeah, they and the BNP are the only 2 parties willing to be firm on immigrants...
>
> And to light who mentioned RKS's contempt for Arabs and Arab culture,
> i've seen him stick up for plenty of arabs and other races when
> talking about racism on his talk shows. And yeah he did go over the
> top when making the statment about Arab culture, but the fact is you
> could see what poiint he was trying to make. The only point he was
> wrong about was when he mentioned the majority of them are terrorists
> when it's actually the minority. At the time he said the statement,
> look at the world situation then, it was true the majority of
> terrorist's at that time were in fact from a Arab nation. It's
> impossible to say that fact without sounding racist.You wan't a
> racist persons views just listen to the man with a hook on his arm,
> maybee, just maybee you'll see the diference.
Heh; I'll post the same rant now as I did back then;
You may have seen over the weekend that Robert Kilroy-Silk has quit his job as the Most Annoying Little Smear of Dogturd on British Television, saying, "the time is right for me to go" (though personally I felt that 1976 was the right time for him to go, preferably into an oversized mincing machine). I'm sure that the fact that the BBC scored an extra million viewers in the slot where his program was before it was suspended did nothing at all to convince the arrogant dollop of rectal bacteria that maybe the public DIDN'T share his belief that he could walk on water, and maybe cure lepers of their ailment. And I'm especially sure that the uproar over his column in the Sunday Express branding all Arab people as barbaric, suicide bombing, women abusing limb amputators had no bearing at all on his long overdue decision.
Anyway, I've just about stopped laughing at the downfall of this abhorrent little man now, so I now find myself looking back over the couple of weeks since his initial racist faux pas. There are two things about it that really interest me. One is the response of Kilroy to the swathes of people who were offended by what he wrote. The other is the somewhat surprising defence used by his apologists; that he was simply exercising freedom of speech.
So then; what did the silver haired simpleton say in his defence? Well, firstly he said that he couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. To a certain extent, he actually has a point; the column was a reprint that had been published earlier in 2003 with not a squeak of protest being raised. He then went on to apologise for causing offence whilst, at the same time, standing by what he'd said. This is a quite stultifying piece of arrogance on his part; he seemed to be implying that, as what he said is sparkling with universal truth, it must therefore be the fault of those oversensitive suicide bombers that they got offended. As he was magnanimous enough to forgive them for that and say sorry, he assumed it would sooth their angry, tea towel encased heads.
Even the fact that he stood by what he said should indicate that Kilroy thought he was hosting an edition of his program. Only this time, he was unable to shout down or ignore guests who disagreed with his ill-informed bigotry. He couldn't fake the face of a sensitive listener before closing the program with a semi-retarded stream of clichés that belittled whichever poor sod he'd just been patronising, whilst trying to bolster his own hype of a straight talking man of the people. No, this time he found that he was on the defensive. And faced with the task of justifying how "Arabs have never contributed anything to civilisation" is a valid statement (all the science, mathematics, medicine, and astronomy that we got from Arabic and Persian worlds mustn't count in his world; I'll make the differentiated between Arabs and Persians, even if Kilroy didn't know or care about it), he decided to tuck his tail between his legs and resign. Though he didn't actually withdraw his remarks. He didn't even spend much time trying to qualify them; had he been pointing the finger at one or two Middle Eastern governments, I daresay that he wouldn't have come in for so much, or any, flak. So, not only has the BBC lost a bullying, arrogant egotist, but a cowardly and stupid one to boot.
And it would have ended there, were it not for the multitude of people who were willing to defend Kilroy for braying this jingoistic headspew. When I read about the BBC's decision to suspend him from his job because of the comments made I, perhaps naively, expected the reaction of the overwhelming majority to be the same as mine; hate-filled, mocking laughter. Instead, there was a chorus of cries that Kilroy was being picked on for his "courageous stance on free speech" and that his suspension was "political correctness gone mad".
This was a reaction that took me entirely by surprise; Kilroy had made some pretty hateful comments; had he replaced the word 'Arab' with the word 'Jew' or 'Black', then there would have been a race to Kilroy's house, with the lucky winner getting to change him from an annoying minor celebrity into about 200 pounds of rapidly cooling meat. Should we really be talking about protecting bigotry under the heading of free speech? Does that mean I can start ranting about wogs, spiks, kikes, poofs, sl@gsragheads, and so on and so forth, and claim the same justification? Of course it doesn't.
So what about the charge that the BBC are pandering to the politically correct by suspending him? Well, there is a certain amount of logic to that argument; why the hell wasn't he suspended when the article was first published? But beyond that, there is no real case for the BBC to answer. There are laws against inciting racial hatred in this country, and Kilroy has fallen foul of them by pretty much anybody's definition. His employer has every right to suspend him for his public declaration of racism. Would you expect to still have a job if you marched into work offering a cheery "Sieg Heil" to all of your colleagues? If you wrote a newspaper article stating that all Black people are worthless as a race, would you really be surprised to find a P45 waiting for you in your day job? Personally, I find it far more offensive that he got away with these remarks earlier. If I were to complain about anything in this incident, it would be that the media are only against racism when it's newsworthy.
Finally, as we reached the last desperate dregs of humanity who attempted to stand up on behalf of Kilroy, we had that old favourite; "There wouldn't have been as much fuss if it had been a non-white making these comments". I always enjoy seeing racists whining that they're not allowed to be as bigoted as those goddamn pesky coons. Well, much though I hate to sprinkle foul-smelling urine on their parade, they're talking complete and utter asshat. If this is a case of de poor ol' white man getting victimised, how come he had to publish the bilious cack twice before anyone raised an objection? And if non-whites do get away with more bigotry than whites, how come Abu Hamza (the London based Moslem cleric/James Bond villain wannabe with the hook for a hand) was barred from preaching at his Finsbury Park Mosque for his racist, anti-Semitic nonsense?
All in all, I find myself wondering whether these apologists have been quite as vehement in defending an Arab making negative comments about English culture? If it's all about free speech, then those same people are presumably equally irate at Hamza being silenced. Except that they're not. The majority of these people are arguing for the same right that Kilroy seems to have dedicated his life and career too; the right to remain ignorant racists. If stopping someone in the public eye from encouraging hatred of another person based on nothing more than race is "Political Correctness gone mad", then pass me the straitjacket.
Oh, and if anyone reading this actually sympathised with Kilroy and gets offended at being called racist, relax; it's just me exercising my right of free speech.
kevstar wrote:
> This system would only apply to the immigrants. In the case of
> refugees, which i've had arguments about this subject before but here
> it goes. No request for the asylum will be entertained from the
> refugees for whom the UK is not the first safe port of call. That
> sounds good to me, why should we allow refugees in the UK when you
> get a lot of theese people crossing other safe ports first? Here's
> the rest of things they would do....
Well, because, like the UK, many countries refuse to take asylum seekers... If you were fleeing from imprisonment / death and the first country you arrived at refused to take you, you're hardly just going to say 'ah well, did my best, looks like I'll head home to face the music now', you're going to try and get another country to take you.
> No request for the asylum will be entertained from citizens of other
> multiparty democracies, since these will be deemed, like the UK, to
> be politically tolerant of varying points of view.
> No request for asylum will be considered from the citizens of
> countries currently hosting international peacekeepers from the UN,
> the UK, or the other countries. Part of the job of such forces is to
> protect people from persecution in their own countries.
I'm sure there are plenty of multi-party 'democracies' in which oppression and intimidation still occurs. It all hinges on you definition of democracy really. If a country has elections, and multiple parties, but opposition parties have their members thrown in jail, and people are scared into voting for the party in power, is that a democracy? And further more, if there are peacekeepers that means the country is obviously in trouble to have them there. Just because we have peacekeepers in a region doesn't mean it will be free from killings, persecution, etc. (just look at Iraq...)
> No more 'economic' immigration will be entertained except in very
> exceptional circumstances.
See my previous post on 'economic migrants'...
> (+ all the other stuff written)
Yeah, it's all well and good that UKIP have a policy on immigration and asylum. The problem I have with it is that they seem to be an inherently racist party. Okay, not in the same league as the BNP and their ilk, but they just seem to reek of thinly vieled racism. And even if on paper the policies may look somewhat rational and sensible, if a party gets into power and there are racist undertones there, then that is going to come out in the details of how exactly they assess whether someone is able to claim asylum here or come here as a migrant.
> This system would only apply to the immigrants. In the case of
> refugees, which i've had arguments about this subject before but here
> it goes. No request for the asylum will be entertained from the
> refugees for whom the UK is not the first safe port of call. That
> sounds good to me, why should we allow refugees in the UK when you
> get a lot of theese people crossing other safe ports first? Here's
> the rest of things they would do....
Well, because, like the UK, many countries refuse to take asylum seekers... If you were fleeing from imprisonment / death and the first country you arrived at refused to take you, you're hardly just going to say 'ah well, did my best, looks like I'll head home to face the music now', you're going to try and get another country to take you.
> No request for the asylum will be entertained from citizens of other
> multiparty democracies, since these will be deemed, like the UK, to
> be politically tolerant of varying points of view.
> No request for asylum will be considered from the citizens of
> countries currently hosting international peacekeepers from the UN,
> the UK, or the other countries. Part of the job of such forces is to
> protect people from persecution in their own countries.
I'm sure there are plenty of multi-party 'democracies' in which oppression and intimidation still occurs. It all hinges on you definition of democracy really. If a country has elections, and multiple parties, but opposition parties have their members thrown in jail, and people are scared into voting for the party in power, is that a democracy? And further more, if there are peacekeepers that means the country is obviously in trouble to have them there. Just because we have peacekeepers in a region doesn't mean it will be free from killings, persecution, etc. (just look at Iraq...)
> No more 'economic' immigration will be entertained except in very
> exceptional circumstances.
See my previous post on 'economic migrants'...
> (+ all the other stuff written)
Yeah, it's all well and good that UKIP have a policy on immigration and asylum. The problem I have with it is that they seem to be an inherently racist party. Okay, not in the same league as the BNP and their ilk, but they just seem to reek of thinly vieled racism. And even if on paper the policies may look somewhat rational and sensible, if a party gets into power and there are racist undertones there, then that is going to come out in the details of how exactly they assess whether someone is able to claim asylum here or come here as a migrant.
Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> This system would only apply to the immigrants. In the case of
> refugees, which i've had arguments about this subject before but
> here
> it goes. No request for the asylum will be entertained from the
> refugees for whom the UK is not the first safe port of call. That
> sounds good to me, why should we allow refugees in the UK when you
> get a lot of theese people crossing other safe ports first? Here's
> the rest of things they would do....
>
> Umm...because they want to be British, want to contribute to our
> society, and at the same time want to do well for themselves? Christ,
> if someone has managed to get from Afghanistan to the UK then that is
> an ingenius person who will add a lot to society. OR an
> extraordinarily devious criminal. The point is, it's not possible to
> simply decide in that way. And how do you prove that this is their
> first port of call? What, do we criticise them for not fleeing a
> barbarous regime by means of a flight closer to their home?
>
> Ohh, so we let everyone in just because they want to be British? Your talking about refugees here light, people who have fled from conflict not because they wan't to be British but because they are in fear of there lives. If they are crossing over other ports of call before they enter the country then they should be stopped. Remember the refugee camp near the channel tunnel?
>
> No request for the asylum will be entertained from citizens of other
> multiparty democracies, since these will be deemed, like the UK, to
> be politically tolerant of varying points of view.
>
> Mwahahahahahaa! Indonesia will, I'm sure, be delighted by your vote
> of confidence. Hey, just ask the people of East Timor.
>
>
> No request for asylum will be considered from the citizens of
> countries currently hosting international peacekeepers from the UN,
> the UK, or the other countries. Part of the job of such forces is to
> protect people from persecution in their own countries.
>
> What, like they did in Sarajevo? When the UN is properly funded then
> I'll agree with you. Until then...
>
>
> No more 'economic' immigration will be entertained except in very
> exceptional circumstances.
>
> So in other words, you're going back on what you said earlier about
> allowing economic migrants. Did you read anything about our gradually
> collapsing economy?
>
Would that not be classed as an exceptional circumstance?
>
> At the border
> A UKIP government would give UK port, airport, and other authorities
> whatever resources it takes to check everyone at the point of entry
> into the country. Immigrants claiming asylum at point of entry will
> be held in humane but secure accommodation, and their cases
> processed
> within a fortnight. No asylum claims will be countenanced if submitted later, or away from the point of entry.
> At the end of the two week period successful asylum seekers will be released into the community and given whatever help is deemed appropriate.
> Unsuccessful applicants will be returned to their countries of origin.
>
> Heh. Way to go; so in other words, once people are already in, they
> then have no incentive whatsoever to apply for asylum or immigrant
> status?
>Once there applications are processed and if succesfull they would be able to apply for refugee status as they will be classed as refugees.
> Again this is the only party who are willing to do anything and for
> them recognising that fact I will stand by there ways.
>
> Yeah, they and the BNP are the only 2 parties willing to be firm on
> immigrants...
>
>
> And to light who mentioned RKS's contempt for Arabs and Arab
> culture,
> i've seen him stick up for plenty of arabs and other races when
> talking about racism on his talk shows. And yeah he did go over the
> top when making the statment about Arab culture, but the fact is you
> could see what poiint he was trying to make. The only point he was
> wrong about was when he mentioned the majority of them are
> terrorists
> when it's actually the minority. At the time he said the statement,
> look at the world situation then, it was true the majority of
> terrorist's at that time were in fact from a Arab nation. It's
> impossible to say that fact without sounding racist.You wan't a
> racist persons views just listen to the man with a hook on his arm,
> maybee, just maybee you'll see the diference.
>
> Heh; I'll post the same rant now as I did back then;
>
>
> You may have seen over the weekend that Robert Kilroy-Silk has quit
> his job as the Most Annoying Little Smear of Dogturd on British
> Television, saying, "the time is right for me to go"
> (though personally I felt that 1976 was the right time for him to go,
> preferably into an oversized mincing machine). I'm sure that the fact
> that the BBC scored an extra million viewers in the slot where his
> program was before it was suspended did nothing at all to convince
> the arrogant dollop of rectal bacteria that maybe the public DIDN'T
> share his belief that he could walk on water, and maybe cure lepers
> of their ailment. And I'm especially sure that the uproar over his
> column in the Sunday Express branding all Arab people as barbaric,
> suicide bombing, women abusing limb amputators had no bearing at all
> on his long overdue decision.
>
> Anyway, I've just about stopped laughing at the downfall of this
> abhorrent little man now, so I now find myself looking back over the
> couple of weeks since his initial racist faux pas. There are two
> things about it that really interest me. One is the response of
> Kilroy to the swathes of people who were offended by what he wrote.
> The other is the somewhat surprising defence used by his apologists;
> that he was simply exercising freedom of speech.
>
> So then; what did the silver haired simpleton say in his defence?
> Well, firstly he said that he couldn't understand what all the fuss
> was about. To a certain extent, he actually has a point; the column
> was a reprint that had been published earlier in 2003 with not a
> squeak of protest being raised. He then went on to apologise for
> causing offence whilst, at the same time, standing by what he'd said.
> This is a quite stultifying piece of arrogance on his part; he seemed
> to be implying that, as what he said is sparkling with universal
> truth, it must therefore be the fault of those oversensitive suicide
> bombers that they got offended. As he was magnanimous enough to
> forgive them for that and say sorry, he assumed it would sooth their
> angry, tea towel encased heads.
>
> Even the fact that he stood by what he said should indicate that
> Kilroy thought he was hosting an edition of his program. Only this
> time, he was unable to shout down or ignore guests who disagreed with
> his ill-informed bigotry. He couldn't fake the face of a sensitive
> listener before closing the program with a semi-retarded stream of
> clichés that belittled whichever poor sod he'd just been
> patronising, whilst trying to bolster his own hype of a straight
> talking man of the people. No, this time he found that he was on the
> defensive. And faced with the task of justifying how "Arabs have
> never contributed anything to civilisation" is a valid statement
> (all the science, mathematics, medicine, and astronomy that we got
> from Arabic and Persian worlds mustn't count in his world; I'll make
> the differentiated between Arabs and Persians, even if Kilroy didn't
> know or care about it), he decided to tuck his tail between his legs
> and resign. Though he didn't actually withdraw his remarks. He didn't
> even spend much time trying to qualify them; had he been pointing the
> finger at one or two Middle Eastern governments, I daresay that he
> wouldn't have come in for so much, or any, flak. So, not only has
> the BBC lost a bullying, arrogant egotist, but a cowardly and stupid
> one to boot.
>
> And it would have ended there, were it not for the multitude of
> people who were willing to defend Kilroy for braying this jingoistic
> headspew. When I read about the BBC's decision to suspend him from
> his job because of the comments made I, perhaps naively, expected the
> reaction of the overwhelming majority to be the same as mine;
> hate-filled, mocking laughter. Instead, there was a chorus of cries
> that Kilroy was being picked on for his "courageous stance on
> free speech" and that his suspension was "political
> correctness gone mad".
>
> This was a reaction that took me entirely by surprise; Kilroy had
> made some pretty hateful comments; had he replaced the word 'Arab'
> with the word 'Jew' or 'Black', then there would have been a race to
> Kilroy's house, with the lucky winner getting to change him from an
> annoying minor celebrity into about 200 pounds of rapidly cooling
> meat. Should we really be talking about protecting bigotry under the
> heading of free speech? Does that mean I can start ranting about
> wogs, spiks, kikes, poofs, sl@gsragheads, and so on and so forth, and
> claim the same justification? Of course it doesn't.
>
> So what about the charge that the BBC are pandering to the
> politically correct by suspending him? Well, there is a certain
> amount of logic to that argument; why the hell wasn't he suspended
> when the article was first published? But beyond that, there is no
> real case for the BBC to answer. There are laws against inciting
> racial hatred in this country, and Kilroy has fallen foul of them by
> pretty much anybody's definition. His employer has every right to
> suspend him for his public declaration of racism. Would you expect to
> still have a job if you marched into work offering a cheery
> "Sieg Heil" to all of your colleagues? If you wrote a
> newspaper article stating that all Black people are worthless as a
> race, would you really be surprised to find a P45 waiting for you in
> your day job? Personally, I find it far more offensive that he got
> away with these remarks earlier. If I were to complain about anything
> in this incident, it would be that the media are only against racism
> when it's newsworthy.
>
> Finally, as we reached the last desperate dregs of humanity who
> attempted to stand up on behalf of Kilroy, we had that old favourite;
> "There wouldn't have been as much fuss if it had been a
> non-white making these comments". I always enjoy seeing racists
> whining that they're not allowed to be as bigoted as those goddamn
> pesky coons. Well, much though I hate to sprinkle foul-smelling urine
> on their parade, they're talking complete and utter asshat. If this
> is a case of de poor ol' white man getting victimised, how come he
> had to publish the bilious cack twice before anyone raised an
> objection? And if non-whites do get away with more bigotry than
> whites, how come Abu Hamza (the London based Moslem cleric/James Bond
> villain wannabe with the hook for a hand) was barred from preaching
> at his Finsbury Park Mosque for his racist, anti-Semitic nonsense?
>
> All in all, I find myself wondering whether these apologists have
> been quite as vehement in defending an Arab making negative comments
> about English culture? If it's all about free speech, then those same
> people are presumably equally irate at Hamza being silenced. Except
> that they're not. The majority of these people are arguing for the
> same right that Kilroy seems to have dedicated his life and career
> too; the right to remain ignorant racists. If stopping someone in the
> public eye from encouraging hatred of another person based on nothing
> more than race is "Political Correctness gone mad", then
> pass me the straitjacket.
>
> Oh, and if anyone reading this actually sympathised with Kilroy and
> gets offended at being called racist, relax; it's just me exercising
> my right of free speech.
One thing I would say about you light is that you know how to argue your pointabout RKS, not that I agree with you though.
> kevstar wrote:
> This system would only apply to the immigrants. In the case of
> refugees, which i've had arguments about this subject before but
> here
> it goes. No request for the asylum will be entertained from the
> refugees for whom the UK is not the first safe port of call. That
> sounds good to me, why should we allow refugees in the UK when you
> get a lot of theese people crossing other safe ports first? Here's
> the rest of things they would do....
>
> Umm...because they want to be British, want to contribute to our
> society, and at the same time want to do well for themselves? Christ,
> if someone has managed to get from Afghanistan to the UK then that is
> an ingenius person who will add a lot to society. OR an
> extraordinarily devious criminal. The point is, it's not possible to
> simply decide in that way. And how do you prove that this is their
> first port of call? What, do we criticise them for not fleeing a
> barbarous regime by means of a flight closer to their home?
>
> Ohh, so we let everyone in just because they want to be British? Your talking about refugees here light, people who have fled from conflict not because they wan't to be British but because they are in fear of there lives. If they are crossing over other ports of call before they enter the country then they should be stopped. Remember the refugee camp near the channel tunnel?
>
> No request for the asylum will be entertained from citizens of other
> multiparty democracies, since these will be deemed, like the UK, to
> be politically tolerant of varying points of view.
>
> Mwahahahahahaa! Indonesia will, I'm sure, be delighted by your vote
> of confidence. Hey, just ask the people of East Timor.
>
>
> No request for asylum will be considered from the citizens of
> countries currently hosting international peacekeepers from the UN,
> the UK, or the other countries. Part of the job of such forces is to
> protect people from persecution in their own countries.
>
> What, like they did in Sarajevo? When the UN is properly funded then
> I'll agree with you. Until then...
>
>
> No more 'economic' immigration will be entertained except in very
> exceptional circumstances.
>
> So in other words, you're going back on what you said earlier about
> allowing economic migrants. Did you read anything about our gradually
> collapsing economy?
>
Would that not be classed as an exceptional circumstance?
>
> At the border
> A UKIP government would give UK port, airport, and other authorities
> whatever resources it takes to check everyone at the point of entry
> into the country. Immigrants claiming asylum at point of entry will
> be held in humane but secure accommodation, and their cases
> processed
> within a fortnight. No asylum claims will be countenanced if submitted later, or away from the point of entry.
> At the end of the two week period successful asylum seekers will be released into the community and given whatever help is deemed appropriate.
> Unsuccessful applicants will be returned to their countries of origin.
>
> Heh. Way to go; so in other words, once people are already in, they
> then have no incentive whatsoever to apply for asylum or immigrant
> status?
>Once there applications are processed and if succesfull they would be able to apply for refugee status as they will be classed as refugees.
> Again this is the only party who are willing to do anything and for
> them recognising that fact I will stand by there ways.
>
> Yeah, they and the BNP are the only 2 parties willing to be firm on
> immigrants...
>
>
> And to light who mentioned RKS's contempt for Arabs and Arab
> culture,
> i've seen him stick up for plenty of arabs and other races when
> talking about racism on his talk shows. And yeah he did go over the
> top when making the statment about Arab culture, but the fact is you
> could see what poiint he was trying to make. The only point he was
> wrong about was when he mentioned the majority of them are
> terrorists
> when it's actually the minority. At the time he said the statement,
> look at the world situation then, it was true the majority of
> terrorist's at that time were in fact from a Arab nation. It's
> impossible to say that fact without sounding racist.You wan't a
> racist persons views just listen to the man with a hook on his arm,
> maybee, just maybee you'll see the diference.
>
> Heh; I'll post the same rant now as I did back then;
>
>
> You may have seen over the weekend that Robert Kilroy-Silk has quit
> his job as the Most Annoying Little Smear of Dogturd on British
> Television, saying, "the time is right for me to go"
> (though personally I felt that 1976 was the right time for him to go,
> preferably into an oversized mincing machine). I'm sure that the fact
> that the BBC scored an extra million viewers in the slot where his
> program was before it was suspended did nothing at all to convince
> the arrogant dollop of rectal bacteria that maybe the public DIDN'T
> share his belief that he could walk on water, and maybe cure lepers
> of their ailment. And I'm especially sure that the uproar over his
> column in the Sunday Express branding all Arab people as barbaric,
> suicide bombing, women abusing limb amputators had no bearing at all
> on his long overdue decision.
>
> Anyway, I've just about stopped laughing at the downfall of this
> abhorrent little man now, so I now find myself looking back over the
> couple of weeks since his initial racist faux pas. There are two
> things about it that really interest me. One is the response of
> Kilroy to the swathes of people who were offended by what he wrote.
> The other is the somewhat surprising defence used by his apologists;
> that he was simply exercising freedom of speech.
>
> So then; what did the silver haired simpleton say in his defence?
> Well, firstly he said that he couldn't understand what all the fuss
> was about. To a certain extent, he actually has a point; the column
> was a reprint that had been published earlier in 2003 with not a
> squeak of protest being raised. He then went on to apologise for
> causing offence whilst, at the same time, standing by what he'd said.
> This is a quite stultifying piece of arrogance on his part; he seemed
> to be implying that, as what he said is sparkling with universal
> truth, it must therefore be the fault of those oversensitive suicide
> bombers that they got offended. As he was magnanimous enough to
> forgive them for that and say sorry, he assumed it would sooth their
> angry, tea towel encased heads.
>
> Even the fact that he stood by what he said should indicate that
> Kilroy thought he was hosting an edition of his program. Only this
> time, he was unable to shout down or ignore guests who disagreed with
> his ill-informed bigotry. He couldn't fake the face of a sensitive
> listener before closing the program with a semi-retarded stream of
> clichés that belittled whichever poor sod he'd just been
> patronising, whilst trying to bolster his own hype of a straight
> talking man of the people. No, this time he found that he was on the
> defensive. And faced with the task of justifying how "Arabs have
> never contributed anything to civilisation" is a valid statement
> (all the science, mathematics, medicine, and astronomy that we got
> from Arabic and Persian worlds mustn't count in his world; I'll make
> the differentiated between Arabs and Persians, even if Kilroy didn't
> know or care about it), he decided to tuck his tail between his legs
> and resign. Though he didn't actually withdraw his remarks. He didn't
> even spend much time trying to qualify them; had he been pointing the
> finger at one or two Middle Eastern governments, I daresay that he
> wouldn't have come in for so much, or any, flak. So, not only has
> the BBC lost a bullying, arrogant egotist, but a cowardly and stupid
> one to boot.
>
> And it would have ended there, were it not for the multitude of
> people who were willing to defend Kilroy for braying this jingoistic
> headspew. When I read about the BBC's decision to suspend him from
> his job because of the comments made I, perhaps naively, expected the
> reaction of the overwhelming majority to be the same as mine;
> hate-filled, mocking laughter. Instead, there was a chorus of cries
> that Kilroy was being picked on for his "courageous stance on
> free speech" and that his suspension was "political
> correctness gone mad".
>
> This was a reaction that took me entirely by surprise; Kilroy had
> made some pretty hateful comments; had he replaced the word 'Arab'
> with the word 'Jew' or 'Black', then there would have been a race to
> Kilroy's house, with the lucky winner getting to change him from an
> annoying minor celebrity into about 200 pounds of rapidly cooling
> meat. Should we really be talking about protecting bigotry under the
> heading of free speech? Does that mean I can start ranting about
> wogs, spiks, kikes, poofs, sl@gsragheads, and so on and so forth, and
> claim the same justification? Of course it doesn't.
>
> So what about the charge that the BBC are pandering to the
> politically correct by suspending him? Well, there is a certain
> amount of logic to that argument; why the hell wasn't he suspended
> when the article was first published? But beyond that, there is no
> real case for the BBC to answer. There are laws against inciting
> racial hatred in this country, and Kilroy has fallen foul of them by
> pretty much anybody's definition. His employer has every right to
> suspend him for his public declaration of racism. Would you expect to
> still have a job if you marched into work offering a cheery
> "Sieg Heil" to all of your colleagues? If you wrote a
> newspaper article stating that all Black people are worthless as a
> race, would you really be surprised to find a P45 waiting for you in
> your day job? Personally, I find it far more offensive that he got
> away with these remarks earlier. If I were to complain about anything
> in this incident, it would be that the media are only against racism
> when it's newsworthy.
>
> Finally, as we reached the last desperate dregs of humanity who
> attempted to stand up on behalf of Kilroy, we had that old favourite;
> "There wouldn't have been as much fuss if it had been a
> non-white making these comments". I always enjoy seeing racists
> whining that they're not allowed to be as bigoted as those goddamn
> pesky coons. Well, much though I hate to sprinkle foul-smelling urine
> on their parade, they're talking complete and utter asshat. If this
> is a case of de poor ol' white man getting victimised, how come he
> had to publish the bilious cack twice before anyone raised an
> objection? And if non-whites do get away with more bigotry than
> whites, how come Abu Hamza (the London based Moslem cleric/James Bond
> villain wannabe with the hook for a hand) was barred from preaching
> at his Finsbury Park Mosque for his racist, anti-Semitic nonsense?
>
> All in all, I find myself wondering whether these apologists have
> been quite as vehement in defending an Arab making negative comments
> about English culture? If it's all about free speech, then those same
> people are presumably equally irate at Hamza being silenced. Except
> that they're not. The majority of these people are arguing for the
> same right that Kilroy seems to have dedicated his life and career
> too; the right to remain ignorant racists. If stopping someone in the
> public eye from encouraging hatred of another person based on nothing
> more than race is "Political Correctness gone mad", then
> pass me the straitjacket.
>
> Oh, and if anyone reading this actually sympathised with Kilroy and
> gets offended at being called racist, relax; it's just me exercising
> my right of free speech.
One thing I would say about you light is that you know how to argue your pointabout RKS, not that I agree with you though.
kevstar wrote:
>
> Ohh, so we let everyone in just because they want to be British? Your
> talking about refugees here light, people who have fled from conflict
> not because they wan't to be British but because they are in fear of
> there lives. If they are crossing over other ports of call before
> they enter the country then they should be stopped. Remember the
> refugee camp near the channel tunnel?
So...on the one hand, you think that anyone fleeing for their life should be sent back to face death eh? Surely the whole basis of the UKIP immigration policy is that not everyone is in genuine fear of their life, but have to use that as an excuse? And finally; just how does one proves they're crossing other ports of call? Surely the fact that they're missing other ports means (according to your logic) that they're not fleeing for their lives, but they want to get to the UK? Which, in turn, backs up my earlier point, no?
> So in other words, you're going back on what you said earlier about
> allowing economic migrants. Did you read anything about our
> gradually
> collapsing economy?
>
> Would that not be classed as an exceptional circumstance?
Well no, not really; our economy has been in this state for years. It's the normal state of affairs, not exceptional. Tell me; do you realise that in the 50's, we had an even worse economy and so encouraged mass immigration to combat it? It worked then; why won't it work now?
Incidentally, have you anything to say about the "democracies" and "UN controlled area's are safe" points I've commented on?
>
> Heh. Way to go; so in other words, once people are already in, they
> then have no incentive whatsoever to apply for asylum or immigrant
> status?
>
> >Once there applications are processed and if succesfull they
> would be able to apply for refugee status as they will be classed as
> refugees.
Not answering the question; I asked about people who are already in and who bypassed the system. Lots of them currently apply for asylum or immigrant status once in. You're saying that they should be deported the instant they do so. So what about them please?
> One thing I would say about you light is that you know how to argue
> your pointabout RKS, not that I agree with you though.
Well, why do you disagree? What evidence have you to offer that he's not an opportunistic, egomaniacal, mammon-whoring, bigoted, self-obsessed bucket of vaginal slugs?
>
> Ohh, so we let everyone in just because they want to be British? Your
> talking about refugees here light, people who have fled from conflict
> not because they wan't to be British but because they are in fear of
> there lives. If they are crossing over other ports of call before
> they enter the country then they should be stopped. Remember the
> refugee camp near the channel tunnel?
So...on the one hand, you think that anyone fleeing for their life should be sent back to face death eh? Surely the whole basis of the UKIP immigration policy is that not everyone is in genuine fear of their life, but have to use that as an excuse? And finally; just how does one proves they're crossing other ports of call? Surely the fact that they're missing other ports means (according to your logic) that they're not fleeing for their lives, but they want to get to the UK? Which, in turn, backs up my earlier point, no?
> So in other words, you're going back on what you said earlier about
> allowing economic migrants. Did you read anything about our
> gradually
> collapsing economy?
>
> Would that not be classed as an exceptional circumstance?
Well no, not really; our economy has been in this state for years. It's the normal state of affairs, not exceptional. Tell me; do you realise that in the 50's, we had an even worse economy and so encouraged mass immigration to combat it? It worked then; why won't it work now?
Incidentally, have you anything to say about the "democracies" and "UN controlled area's are safe" points I've commented on?
>
> Heh. Way to go; so in other words, once people are already in, they
> then have no incentive whatsoever to apply for asylum or immigrant
> status?
>
> >Once there applications are processed and if succesfull they
> would be able to apply for refugee status as they will be classed as
> refugees.
Not answering the question; I asked about people who are already in and who bypassed the system. Lots of them currently apply for asylum or immigrant status once in. You're saying that they should be deported the instant they do so. So what about them please?
> One thing I would say about you light is that you know how to argue
> your pointabout RKS, not that I agree with you though.
Well, why do you disagree? What evidence have you to offer that he's not an opportunistic, egomaniacal, mammon-whoring, bigoted, self-obsessed bucket of vaginal slugs?
I blame the bummers.
And the darkies.
And don't even get me started on single-mum lesbian darky bummers - buncha scraaaangers that lot.
And pedlos.
And the darkies.
And don't even get me started on single-mum lesbian darky bummers - buncha scraaaangers that lot.
And pedlos.
MOBOs - Music of Black ORIGIN. Doesn't say anywhere 'on the tin' that white people can't play it, does it!?!?
Also, where were all the black bands during the rock and metal periods of the 60's, 70's and 80's - are you going to accuse the British music scene of being racist back then? Because as you ignorantly point out, it works both ways.
Also, where were all the black bands during the rock and metal periods of the 60's, 70's and 80's - are you going to accuse the British music scene of being racist back then? Because as you ignorantly point out, it works both ways.
I haven't read this thread because, I fear, I will incensed by the utter nonthink stupidity of several comments.
As for the MOBO/Miss Black America chesnut of "Why can't we have a Music of White Origin/Miss White Wheverer, that's racist!!!!!"?
Why do blacks choose to celebrate? Possibly because for hundreds of years they were repressed/beaten/lynched/murdered for expressing anything other than "Yes Massir".
If you actually have asked that "Why not a White (insert here)", then you really have mised the point and need to study up on something called "Slavery" and "Culture Repression".
Moronic argument from people that shouldn't really be thinking about anything other than what colour crayon to write fan letters to Kilroy-Silk in.
As for the MOBO/Miss Black America chesnut of "Why can't we have a Music of White Origin/Miss White Wheverer, that's racist!!!!!"?
Why do blacks choose to celebrate? Possibly because for hundreds of years they were repressed/beaten/lynched/murdered for expressing anything other than "Yes Massir".
If you actually have asked that "Why not a White (insert here)", then you really have mised the point and need to study up on something called "Slavery" and "Culture Repression".
Moronic argument from people that shouldn't really be thinking about anything other than what colour crayon to write fan letters to Kilroy-Silk in.
Mr Lover Man wrote:
> Anyone watched the MOBOs in recent years? Well the MOBO’s does
> exactly what it says on the tin, its an award ceremony to celebrate
> Music Of Black Origin. Anybody ever heard of the MOWOs (Music Of
> White Origin)…Nope?…That’s because it doesn’t exist. I personally
> think there isn’t one, because rather than white people not being
> proud of the roots of their music, there would be a huge problem from
> the black community that it shuns them etc.
-----
Yep, there it is.
Muuuuuuuuuuuuuh
For hundreds of years, Blacks weren't allowed to play/celebrate/mention/enjoy their "own" music (despite pretty much creating it in the first place).
So now they can mostly enjoy their culture and heritage without being hung from a tree, they do.
And white folk still don't get it.
Put down the Daily Mail and step away from the Ballot Box - you are redundant in decision making. Go back to Soap Operas and replicating more small thick people.
Thank you, drive through
> Anyone watched the MOBOs in recent years? Well the MOBO’s does
> exactly what it says on the tin, its an award ceremony to celebrate
> Music Of Black Origin. Anybody ever heard of the MOWOs (Music Of
> White Origin)…Nope?…That’s because it doesn’t exist. I personally
> think there isn’t one, because rather than white people not being
> proud of the roots of their music, there would be a huge problem from
> the black community that it shuns them etc.
-----
Yep, there it is.
Muuuuuuuuuuuuuh
For hundreds of years, Blacks weren't allowed to play/celebrate/mention/enjoy their "own" music (despite pretty much creating it in the first place).
So now they can mostly enjoy their culture and heritage without being hung from a tree, they do.
And white folk still don't get it.
Put down the Daily Mail and step away from the Ballot Box - you are redundant in decision making. Go back to Soap Operas and replicating more small thick people.
Thank you, drive through
Page: