Sunday Express Skeleton 29Th December...
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Is this the reason?
66 Answers
http://www.dailymail....ang-rape-emotive.html
So the Metropolitan Police say that "Gang Rape" should now be called 'multi-perpetrator rape' because some community activists had previously suggested the phrase 'gang rape' had racist connotations.
Could this be the reason perhaps, why in the past when I have referred to the perpetrators of "Gang Rape" as "SAVAGES" I have also been called "racist"?
So the Metropolitan Police say that "Gang Rape" should now be called 'multi-perpetrator rape' because some community activists had previously suggested the phrase 'gang rape' had racist connotations.
Could this be the reason perhaps, why in the past when I have referred to the perpetrators of "Gang Rape" as "SAVAGES" I have also been called "racist"?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The police don't say that the reason is that some community groups in the past have said 'gang' has racist connotations. The officer mentions .' Groups known to each other, criminal networks and peer groups' Nothing about race and nothing suggested .That bit of irrelevant information is supplied by the Daily Mail. I wonder why?
It's just the police obsession with jargon. . Never use one familar word when several multisyllabic ones will do. Then you have a new expression which you can reduce to initials , which initials outsiders won't understand. Success ! This one will be an MPR. Guess what that is?.
It's just the police obsession with jargon. . Never use one familar word when several multisyllabic ones will do. Then you have a new expression which you can reduce to initials , which initials outsiders won't understand. Success ! This one will be an MPR. Guess what that is?.
sp1814
You can try and insult me all you like, but you will not stop me from criticising blacks, Asians, Muslims or even my own race if I feel criticism is needed.
You are the biggest racist on this site, but because you are black you expect everyone to ignore the fact.. I get fed up with being told that it is racist to call a gang of black rapists savages.
In the last three cases it was a gang of black youths, that on all three occasions used horrific torture on the girls before and after raping them, one poor girl was backward, if that isn't being savage I don't know what is.
This is still a free country, and I am perfectly in my right to criticise who I like, so if the need arises I will continue to criticise blacks, whites, Benefit scroungers, Moslem's and even gays if I want, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, because I am not breaking any laws, and it is this that makes you so mad..
You still keep bring it up regarding the Sikh pallbearer for not removing his turban. Well I still stand by my criticism, just as I criticise them for not having to obey the crash helmet law, or the carrying of weapons, this is my prerogative, and in no way makes me a racist.
Incidentally at the end of the Festival of Remembrance, the parade officer gave the order to remove all head gear in a salute to the Queen, I wonder if a Sikh had been present, would he have disobeyed this order?
You can try and insult me all you like, but you will not stop me from criticising blacks, Asians, Muslims or even my own race if I feel criticism is needed.
You are the biggest racist on this site, but because you are black you expect everyone to ignore the fact.. I get fed up with being told that it is racist to call a gang of black rapists savages.
In the last three cases it was a gang of black youths, that on all three occasions used horrific torture on the girls before and after raping them, one poor girl was backward, if that isn't being savage I don't know what is.
This is still a free country, and I am perfectly in my right to criticise who I like, so if the need arises I will continue to criticise blacks, whites, Benefit scroungers, Moslem's and even gays if I want, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, because I am not breaking any laws, and it is this that makes you so mad..
You still keep bring it up regarding the Sikh pallbearer for not removing his turban. Well I still stand by my criticism, just as I criticise them for not having to obey the crash helmet law, or the carrying of weapons, this is my prerogative, and in no way makes me a racist.
Incidentally at the end of the Festival of Remembrance, the parade officer gave the order to remove all head gear in a salute to the Queen, I wonder if a Sikh had been present, would he have disobeyed this order?
AOG do you expect a Sikh soldier to unwind his turban on the order to remove headgear? Why? Do you think The Queen , on whose behalf the order is given, and in whose name the soldier serves, would wish him to?. Or do you think she accepts his cheers as sincere and does not expect him to follow a Western practice, devised for a non-Sikh population for whom following it is impractical ?
AOG
Don't be silly. You are the biggest, most offensive and muddle-minded racist on this site.
The reason this has been thrown at you (not only by me), is because you show yourself up so frequently. You may try to call me a racist, but that makes you sound like an utter buffoon.
I challenge you to prove my racism.
Such a very foolish course of action on your part. I have zero respect for your stance.
Grow up.
Don't be silly. You are the biggest, most offensive and muddle-minded racist on this site.
The reason this has been thrown at you (not only by me), is because you show yourself up so frequently. You may try to call me a racist, but that makes you sound like an utter buffoon.
I challenge you to prove my racism.
Such a very foolish course of action on your part. I have zero respect for your stance.
Grow up.
By the way, no-one is saying you SOULDN'T be able to criticise blacks, Asian etc. The problem arises when you imply behavioural characteristics based purely on race.
And when you hunt out story after story to prove you suspiciously eugenics/based claptrap, you will have robust arguments thrown back at you.
If you don't like the hear, get out of the debating chamber.
And when you hunt out story after story to prove you suspiciously eugenics/based claptrap, you will have robust arguments thrown back at you.
If you don't like the hear, get out of the debating chamber.
"In the last three cases it was a gang of black youths, that on all three occasions used horrific torture on the girls before and after raping them, one poor girl was backward, if that isn't being savage I don't know what is. "
You sure it was three different cases?
I could only find one story. You sure you're not multiplying the story because you're so racist?
You sure it was three different cases?
I could only find one story. You sure you're not multiplying the story because you're so racist?
sp1814
/// I could only find one story. You sure you're not multiplying the story because you're so racist?///
I think the report below, written in the Independent (not the Daily Mail) by a Black man, is pretty conclusive evidence, or does that make him a racist also?
http://www.independen...ce-issue-1711381.html
/// One fact stood out. Of those convicted, 66 were black or mixed race, 13 were white and the remainder were from other countries including Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.///
/// you imply behavioural characteristics based purely on race///
I have no need to imply, the "FACTS" speak for themselves, whether you like it or not..
Still not convinced read some of the horrific savage cases. (some reports may be of the same case)
"Point, Set and Match", I believe?
Cont.
/// I could only find one story. You sure you're not multiplying the story because you're so racist?///
I think the report below, written in the Independent (not the Daily Mail) by a Black man, is pretty conclusive evidence, or does that make him a racist also?
http://www.independen...ce-issue-1711381.html
/// One fact stood out. Of those convicted, 66 were black or mixed race, 13 were white and the remainder were from other countries including Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.///
/// you imply behavioural characteristics based purely on race///
I have no need to imply, the "FACTS" speak for themselves, whether you like it or not..
Still not convinced read some of the horrific savage cases. (some reports may be of the same case)
"Point, Set and Match", I believe?
Cont.
http://www.dailymail....acks-London-year.html
http://www.dailymail....brutal-gang-rape.html
http://www.dailymail....gang-rape-attack.html
http://www.dailymail....gang-rape-ordeal.html
http://www.dailymail....-jailed-23-years.html
http://www.telegraph....ting-gang-leader.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk...nd/london/8345673.stm
http://www.dailymail....brutal-gang-rape.html
http://www.dailymail....gang-rape-attack.html
http://www.dailymail....gang-rape-ordeal.html
http://www.dailymail....-jailed-23-years.html
http://www.telegraph....ting-gang-leader.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk...nd/london/8345673.stm
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
sp1814
You constantly call me a racist, the following is a passage you submitted in one of your past postings:
These are your very words:
/// Racial prejudice is just assuming something based on their racial background. However, when you start acting on those prejudices in a way as to abuse, bully, withhold services or employment/housing etc - that's when it becomes racism...in my view.///
Now could you please prove that I have ever abused, bullied, or withheld any services,employment or housing etc.
If not then in your own words, I have shown no signs of racism, and I am willing to accept your apologies.
You constantly call me a racist, the following is a passage you submitted in one of your past postings:
These are your very words:
/// Racial prejudice is just assuming something based on their racial background. However, when you start acting on those prejudices in a way as to abuse, bully, withhold services or employment/housing etc - that's when it becomes racism...in my view.///
Now could you please prove that I have ever abused, bullied, or withheld any services,employment or housing etc.
If not then in your own words, I have shown no signs of racism, and I am willing to accept your apologies.
NOW we're getting somewhere.
/// you imply behavioural characteristics based purely on race///
I have no need to imply, the "FACTS" speak for themselves, whether you like it or not.. ///
So you do believe that blacks are inferior to whites? Why do you p*ssyfoot around that so much and shirk away from the R word? It's like when you'd pretended not to be a BNP supporter for all those months. You don't seem to have much strength of character. Do the PC brigade scare you that much?
/// you imply behavioural characteristics based purely on race///
I have no need to imply, the "FACTS" speak for themselves, whether you like it or not.. ///
So you do believe that blacks are inferior to whites? Why do you p*ssyfoot around that so much and shirk away from the R word? It's like when you'd pretended not to be a BNP supporter for all those months. You don't seem to have much strength of character. Do the PC brigade scare you that much?
Zeuhl
Once again your type of person is always ready to be offensive to persons, by calling them "narrow-minded buffoons" etc. Whereas I was only criticising (without offensive words) someone of a different religion for not respecting our customs of respect.
The following passage from your post highlights my argument to ther full:
/// Those that died were taken by the army onto the south downs and in accordance with their cultural beliefs cremated in the open air - which actually broke british laws.///
Yes we the tolerent British are always ready to even break our laws to support the cultural beliefs of those from other faiths.
But are others prepared to support our cutrual beliefs by breaking their laws? Somehow I think not.
If you disagree try entering any of their Temples or Mosques without observing THEIR laws.
Does that make me racist or even a bigot?.
No! It makes me one of the small minority, that are prepared to openly discuss such unbalance.
Once again your type of person is always ready to be offensive to persons, by calling them "narrow-minded buffoons" etc. Whereas I was only criticising (without offensive words) someone of a different religion for not respecting our customs of respect.
The following passage from your post highlights my argument to ther full:
/// Those that died were taken by the army onto the south downs and in accordance with their cultural beliefs cremated in the open air - which actually broke british laws.///
Yes we the tolerent British are always ready to even break our laws to support the cultural beliefs of those from other faiths.
But are others prepared to support our cutrual beliefs by breaking their laws? Somehow I think not.
If you disagree try entering any of their Temples or Mosques without observing THEIR laws.
Does that make me racist or even a bigot?.
No! It makes me one of the small minority, that are prepared to openly discuss such unbalance.
-- answer removed --
AOG
That was MY definition of racism.
However, a much better definition can be found on Wikipedia:
"Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
Your posts on race overwhelming support that idea.
You posted several links to black crimes, right?
Would you like me to trawl the net looking for stories relating to White paedophiles? Do you think I'll find any? Do you think that will prove the 'facr' that white chaps are predisposed to being kiddy fiddlers?
No it won't. You see what a specious and ridiculous argument that would be?
So why is it that black crime is the result of race and nothing else? Why is it that when white gangs terrorise a community, their race isn't called into question?
Do you really not see how your argument is beyond ridiculous? It holds no water.
But if you DO think that race is a determing factor in crime, please explain the paedophilia thing.
My guess is that you won't be able to as it rips a giant hole in you belief system.
...but I'm willing to hear you points on this.
That was MY definition of racism.
However, a much better definition can be found on Wikipedia:
"Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
Your posts on race overwhelming support that idea.
You posted several links to black crimes, right?
Would you like me to trawl the net looking for stories relating to White paedophiles? Do you think I'll find any? Do you think that will prove the 'facr' that white chaps are predisposed to being kiddy fiddlers?
No it won't. You see what a specious and ridiculous argument that would be?
So why is it that black crime is the result of race and nothing else? Why is it that when white gangs terrorise a community, their race isn't called into question?
Do you really not see how your argument is beyond ridiculous? It holds no water.
But if you DO think that race is a determing factor in crime, please explain the paedophilia thing.
My guess is that you won't be able to as it rips a giant hole in you belief system.
...but I'm willing to hear you points on this.
-- answer removed --
"Gang rape, while constituting only a tiny percentage of all rapes in the UK, is a horrible reality in this country. The nature of the crime is so appalling that much more research needs to be carried out into its causes. But what seems evident from my investigation is that the key to preventing it will be changing the way young men view women and the kind of group sexual activity they are engaging in at such a young age."
That's from the Independent article.
Damn right these offences are disgusting, and damn right that young men have to be re-educated. However, the conclusion the writer reaches ain't the same are yours. Not by a mile. This is what defines you as racist, and this is why your posts are viewed 'with a pinch of salt', because we can all seethe subtext to your questions.
Actually, it's not a subtext. Technically, it's a pretext.
That's from the Independent article.
Damn right these offences are disgusting, and damn right that young men have to be re-educated. However, the conclusion the writer reaches ain't the same are yours. Not by a mile. This is what defines you as racist, and this is why your posts are viewed 'with a pinch of salt', because we can all seethe subtext to your questions.
Actually, it's not a subtext. Technically, it's a pretext.
