Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A counter protest not in the vicinity of the actual protest is pointless.. Similar to if someone suggested having a protest against eg. A business at 1 Carstairs Plaza half a mile away.. Let the police police and if it's peaceful etc that's ok.. " Why is it pointless if it’s not aggravating those who don’t agree with you? The only advantage to close proximity is to either try to silence the initial protest or to attempt to turn a peaceful protest into a non peaceful one to try and make out the original protest wasn’t peaceful at all. Let both sides have their say without trying to aggravate the situation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's say a protest is scheduled for three hours in the centre of a city. How would you enforce a one mile radius exclusion zone for counter-protesters? That's an area of about 3.14 square miles and the perimeter would be about 6.28 miles in length." Simple, you make it illegal and enforce the law. Screaming abuse at another individual in public is a public order offence but 1000 people screaming abuse at 1000 people isn’t? Or the police only allow diametrically opposed protests to take place at different times or on different days. The police already arrest people for not giving their ID at marches and use section 50 to justify it. I see no benefit in setting up potential conflict but if someone can point out how they think conflict is good I’m more than happy to listen | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If it's a static protest, there is no legal requirement to inform the police, like there is with a protest march. How would you legislate for two opposing protesters having a peaceful, static protest at the same location? " Simple, make is a legal requirement for a gathering in excess of a certain number of people to need police permission. Purely from an availability of police that makes sense. I believe there’s already restrictions on what football stadiums can host home games on the same day. For example I don’t think B.ham City and Villa can play at home on the same day. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A counter protest not in the vicinity of the actual protest is pointless.. Similar to if someone suggested having a protest against eg. A business at 1 Carstairs Plaza half a mile away.. Let the police police and if it's peaceful etc that's ok.. Why is it pointless if it’s not aggravating those who don’t agree with you? The only advantage to close proximity is to either try to silence the initial protest or to attempt to turn a peaceful protest into a non peaceful one to try and make out the original protest wasn’t peaceful at all. Let both sides have their say without trying to aggravate the situation " It's completely pointless if the people you are counter protesting don't know you are there.. It's perfectly lawful to counter protest peacefully and yes that involves being vocal your assumption about it being to turn violent is just an opinion.. Let the police do their job plus if they've got a protest and a counter protest in the same vicinity that's far easier for them to deal with rather than two separate events.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the point protesting outside hotels housing migrants? Is it just to display hatered towards all those inside, pure racism or is it against the system that allows them to be in the hotel, in which case the people facilitating this won't be in the hotel." I’ve never been to one of the protests you referred to and never would. I can’t speak for the people that do but I think there are elements of racism and elements that just don’t want to pay for the hotels. Elements that think it’s just gone too far. So all sorts of reasons. I think to claim every is there just out of racial hatred would be a bit of a stretch to say the least. But do think being against mass uncontrolled immigration is racist? But I think the one that’s kinda triggered the others, Epping, was directed at certain individuals living in the hotel they were protesting outside. It was alleged that an individual living there had sexually assaulted a child. If I thought someone had sexually assaulted my granddaughter, I wouldn’t want them to be enjoying the privileges that those claiming asylum seem to be enjoying. Is the protest tarring them all with the same brush? To some extent yes I’d agree that it is and I’d agree that that’s not right. But when it’s coming to light that the establishment covered up the r @ p e gangs and that hundreds of perps have not been brought to justice, and that the victims in many cases were silenced and even charged with sexual offences themselves, one can understand why people are angry if they think that might be happening again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A counter protest not in the vicinity of the actual protest is pointless.. Similar to if someone suggested having a protest against eg. A business at 1 Carstairs Plaza half a mile away.. Let the police police and if it's peaceful etc that's ok.. Why is it pointless if it’s not aggravating those who don’t agree with you? The only advantage to close proximity is to either try to silence the initial protest or to attempt to turn a peaceful protest into a non peaceful one to try and make out the original protest wasn’t peaceful at all. Let both sides have their say without trying to aggravate the situation It's completely pointless if the people you are counter protesting don't know you are there.. It's perfectly lawful to counter protest peacefully and yes that involves being vocal your assumption about it being to turn violent is just an opinion.. Let the police do their job plus if they've got a protest and a counter protest in the same vicinity that's far easier for them to deal with rather than two separate events.." I’d be interested to see the costs and see if your opinion is correct. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the point protesting outside hotels housing migrants? Is it just to display hatered towards all those inside, pure racism or is it against the system that allows them to be in the hotel, in which case the people facilitating this won't be in the hotel. I’ve never been to one of the protests you referred to and never would. I can’t speak for the people that do but I think there are elements of racism and elements that just don’t want to pay for the hotels. Elements that think it’s just gone too far. So all sorts of reasons. I think to claim every is there just out of racial hatred would be a bit of a stretch to say the least. But do think being against mass uncontrolled immigration is racist? But I think the one that’s kinda triggered the others, Epping, was directed at certain individuals living in the hotel they were protesting outside. It was alleged that an individual living there had sexually assaulted a child. If I thought someone had sexually assaulted my granddaughter, I wouldn’t want them to be enjoying the privileges that those claiming asylum seem to be enjoying. Is the protest tarring them all with the same brush? To some extent yes I’d agree that it is and I’d agree that that’s not right. But when it’s coming to light that the establishment covered up the r @ p e gangs and that hundreds of perps have not been brought to justice, and that the victims in many cases were silenced and even charged with sexual offences themselves, one can understand why people are angry if they think that might be happening again. " I'm in agreement that historically there have been utterly vile failures in the justice system for decades seemingly where victims have been totally let down by the system.. To be honest the fact that ex South Yorkshire police officers have been arrested for what looks to disgusting behaviour towards victims makes me angry but I'm not about to travel to Yorkshire to protect.. In fact no one has funny enough and the facts are that there have been three convictions of white only gangs and groups in the last year where there has been zero protests from anyone.. The issue for some seems to be about the colour of the alleged perpetrators skin than the core issue of a heinous crime or allegation.. The mess that is the current system and going back to when the last government also failed to address and the concerns many have (including myself) is not an issue of 'must be a racist then'.. But undoubtedly racists do hijack a local issue sometimes travelling hundreds of miles to protest about it if there's the hint of 'an immigrant' involved.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A counter protest not in the vicinity of the actual protest is pointless.. Similar to if someone suggested having a protest against eg. A business at 1 Carstairs Plaza half a mile away.. Let the police police and if it's peaceful etc that's ok.. Why is it pointless if it’s not aggravating those who don’t agree with you? The only advantage to close proximity is to either try to silence the initial protest or to attempt to turn a peaceful protest into a non peaceful one to try and make out the original protest wasn’t peaceful at all. Let both sides have their say without trying to aggravate the situation It's completely pointless if the people you are counter protesting don't know you are there.. It's perfectly lawful to counter protest peacefully and yes that involves being vocal your assumption about it being to turn violent is just an opinion.. Let the police do their job plus if they've got a protest and a counter protest in the same vicinity that's far easier for them to deal with rather than two separate events.. I’d be interested to see the costs and see if your opinion is correct. " Put in a freedom of information request perhaps..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A counter protest not in the vicinity of the actual protest is pointless.. Similar to if someone suggested having a protest against eg. A business at 1 Carstairs Plaza half a mile away.. Let the police police and if it's peaceful etc that's ok.. Why is it pointless if it’s not aggravating those who don’t agree with you? The only advantage to close proximity is to either try to silence the initial protest or to attempt to turn a peaceful protest into a non peaceful one to try and make out the original protest wasn’t peaceful at all. Let both sides have their say without trying to aggravate the situation It's completely pointless if the people you are counter protesting don't know you are there.. It's perfectly lawful to counter protest peacefully and yes that involves being vocal your assumption about it being to turn violent is just an opinion.. Let the police do their job plus if they've got a protest and a counter protest in the same vicinity that's far easier for them to deal with rather than two separate events.. I’d be interested to see the costs and see if your opinion is correct. Put in a freedom of information request perhaps.. "Not sure enough time has elapsed yet to correlate the data. But in reality it doesn’t make any difference if there’s no will to prevent them. And I don’t think there’s any political will, they want us decided and fighting each other, makes us easier to control and justify more laws for further control. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A counter protest not in the vicinity of the actual protest is pointless.. Similar to if someone suggested having a protest against eg. A business at 1 Carstairs Plaza half a mile away.. Let the police police and if it's peaceful etc that's ok.. Why is it pointless if it’s not aggravating those who don’t agree with you? The only advantage to close proximity is to either try to silence the initial protest or to attempt to turn a peaceful protest into a non peaceful one to try and make out the original protest wasn’t peaceful at all. Let both sides have their say without trying to aggravate the situation It's completely pointless if the people you are counter protesting don't know you are there.. It's perfectly lawful to counter protest peacefully and yes that involves being vocal your assumption about it being to turn violent is just an opinion.. Let the police do their job plus if they've got a protest and a counter protest in the same vicinity that's far easier for them to deal with rather than two separate events.. I’d be interested to see the costs and see if your opinion is correct. Put in a freedom of information request perhaps..
Not sure enough time has elapsed yet to correlate the data.
But in reality it doesn’t make any difference if there’s no will to prevent them. And I don’t think there’s any political will, they want us decided and fighting each other, makes us easier to control and justify more laws for further control. "I would say some want division in society but not necessarily the state do but the state will respond accordingly to whatever emerges (often not quickly enough).. Then when they do respond and legislate that's used by those who want to keep the division going.. Bad actors or whatever they are called and as we've seen in Western democracies other states have always interfered but then again we have a long history of the same.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Counter Protesting the pink ladies that do not want their children being sexually assaulted by unknown person or persons in their area is absolutely disgusting," I agree. But I wasn’t thinking or a particular topic, just the confrontations in general. But it seems I’m in the minority, people seem to prefer the conflict | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think most reasonable people would prefer there to be no conflict and no escalation to riots. If only people could actually protest peacefully, but....... " That’s kinda my point mate. Left alone without a counter protest, surely it’s more likely to stay peaceful. So being in favour of counter protest is kinda in favour of potential escalation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think most reasonable people would prefer there to be no conflict and no escalation to riots. If only people could actually protest peacefully, but....... That’s kinda my point mate. Left alone without a counter protest, surely it’s more likely to stay peaceful. So being in favour of counter protest is kinda in favour of potential escalation " It so isn't.. 
That's a leap into complete assumptions based upon your own opinions..
Be careful what you wish for if you want such things because there's some who would simply love to ban counter protests etc
And the slippery slope begins.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The right to protest is fundamental to democracy so by extension the right to counter protest enjoys the same rights. But should it? They obviously have the right to protest their cause as well, but is allowing two massive groups of people with diametrically opposed opinions in very close proximity of each other, not in either groups interest and not in the interests of the general public within that area? Should they be kept say at least a mile apart? Is allowing them to all but mee in the street just inviting public order offences? " Says the guy who shits himself at made up stories about thought crime. Then again here's the same guy saying people who he disagrees with can't disagree in front of him. So much manly, so much biglie manly! Nothing says confidence than a person too weak to hear the other side | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They're not there to protest. They are there inn an attempt to give vested interests 'proof' that more people disagree with the genuine protestors. We used to see the EDL coming into the area in droves back in the days when the BNP took a few seats. They were rightly admonished for coming in from outside the area to stir up trouble. These paid for pro refugee / Palestine / green energy arse holes might not be violent, but they're not from the areas where people are protesting. Wankers." ... because in your mind it's impossible to care enough about protecting refugees/fighting racism to get on a bus? No, these people are on a payroll. Whose, pray tell? With evidence, ideally? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They're not there to protest. They are there inn an attempt to give vested interests 'proof' that more people disagree with the genuine protestors. We used to see the EDL coming into the area in droves back in the days when the BNP took a few seats. They were rightly admonished for coming in from outside the area to stir up trouble. These paid for pro refugee / Palestine / green energy arse holes might not be violent, but they're not from the areas where people are protesting. Wankers. ... because in your mind it's impossible to care enough about protecting refugees/fighting racism to get on a bus? No, these people are on a payroll. Whose, pray tell? With evidence, ideally?" Anyone with a brain watching the vile pro-paedophile/pro-illegal immigration mob with identikit freshly minted placards knows what's going on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They're not there to protest. They are there inn an attempt to give vested interests 'proof' that more people disagree with the genuine protestors. We used to see the EDL coming into the area in droves back in the days when the BNP took a few seats. They were rightly admonished for coming in from outside the area to stir up trouble. These paid for pro refugee / Palestine / green energy arse holes might not be violent, but they're not from the areas where people are protesting. Wankers. ... because in your mind it's impossible to care enough about protecting refugees/fighting racism to get on a bus? No, these people are on a payroll. Whose, pray tell? With evidence, ideally? Anyone with a brain watching the vile pro-paedophile/pro-illegal immigration mob with identikit freshly minted placards knows what's going on. " Did you write that yourself or did you get it off a Daily Mail headline generator? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the point protesting outside hotels housing migrants? Is it just to display hatered towards all those inside, pure racism or is it against the system that allows them to be in the hotel, in which case the people facilitating this won't be in the hotel." Makes them feel big and gives them an excuse to act like thugs against the police. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They're not there to protest. They are there inn an attempt to give vested interests 'proof' that more people disagree with the genuine protestors. We used to see the EDL coming into the area in droves back in the days when the BNP took a few seats. They were rightly admonished for coming in from outside the area to stir up trouble. These paid for pro refugee / Palestine / green energy arse holes might not be violent, but they're not from the areas where people are protesting. Wankers. ... because in your mind it's impossible to care enough about protecting refugees/fighting racism to get on a bus? No, these people are on a payroll. Whose, pray tell? With evidence, ideally? Anyone with a brain watching the vile pro-paedophile/pro-illegal immigration mob with identikit freshly minted placards knows what's going on. " What's going on then .....expand on the information you have? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They're not there to protest. They are there inn an attempt to give vested interests 'proof' that more people disagree with the genuine protestors. We used to see the EDL coming into the area in droves back in the days when the BNP took a few seats. They were rightly admonished for coming in from outside the area to stir up trouble. These paid for pro refugee / Palestine / green energy arse holes might not be violent, but they're not from the areas where people are protesting. Wankers. ... because in your mind it's impossible to care enough about protecting refugees/fighting racism to get on a bus? No, these people are on a payroll. Whose, pray tell? With evidence, ideally? Anyone with a brain watching the vile pro-paedophile/pro-illegal immigration mob with identikit freshly minted placards knows what's going on. " Imagine seeing non-racists and thinking this. Some fringe element of the media has done it's job well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They're not there to protest. They are there inn an attempt to give vested interests 'proof' that more people disagree with the genuine protestors. We used to see the EDL coming into the area in droves back in the days when the BNP took a few seats. They were rightly admonished for coming in from outside the area to stir up trouble. These paid for pro refugee / Palestine / green energy arse holes might not be violent, but they're not from the areas where people are protesting. Wankers. ... because in your mind it's impossible to care enough about protecting refugees/fighting racism to get on a bus? No, these people are on a payroll. Whose, pray tell? With evidence, ideally? Anyone with a brain watching the vile pro-paedophile/pro-illegal immigration mob with identikit freshly minted placards knows what's going on. " Every accusation is an admission | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now." Emotional reasoning allows for the moral justification of the things they have become, but oppose. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now." There called dog whistles and once you can here them or see them you notice them. You can deny and gaslight people as much as you want it doesn't change the fact that the underlying issue isn't crime or women it's people who have more melanin. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now." So, like, the issue here is the difference between overt racism and dogwhistle racism. What you see most of on here is the dogwhistle variety. It's fairly transparent however, so people get called on it, and then they deny their racism and complain about people constantly accusing them of racism. People who aren't racists don't get accused of racism because they don't say racist things, dogwhistle or otherwise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now." Your in for a complete shock when the penny drops that there are equally some on the right who so bigoted that they set about rioting, commit arson and attack the police because someone in another country publishes a false 'must be a Muslim asylum seeker' name in relation to vile murders.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. Your in for a complete shock when the penny drops that there are equally some on the right who so bigoted that they set about rioting, commit arson and attack the police because someone in another country publishes a false 'must be a Muslim asylum seeker' name in relation to vile murders.. " The guy Farage called an important voice while being charged with r@pe and trafficking women. His best mate boasts of grabbing women by the pussy. He ushered a wife beater into parliament and didn't think constituents needed to know. But hey, it's his party that's defending "our women"!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. Your in for a complete shock when the penny drops that there are equally some on the right who so bigoted that they set about rioting, commit arson and attack the police because someone in another country publishes a false 'must be a Muslim asylum seeker' name in relation to vile murders.. The guy Farage called an important voice while being charged with r@pe and trafficking women. His best mate boasts of grabbing women by the pussy. He ushered a wife beater into parliament and didn't think constituents needed to know. But hey, it's his party that's defending "our women"!!!" Some of that will appeal to a percentage in society sadly going by the sickness that is domestic violence.. Not sure it's totally attributable to one group but don't know.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. Your in for a complete shock when the penny drops that there are equally some on the right who so bigoted that they set about rioting, commit arson and attack the police because someone in another country publishes a false 'must be a Muslim asylum seeker' name in relation to vile murders.. The guy Farage called an important voice while being charged with r@pe and trafficking women. His best mate boasts of grabbing women by the pussy. He ushered a wife beater into parliament and didn't think constituents needed to know. But hey, it's his party that's defending "our women"!!! Some of that will appeal to a percentage in society sadly going by the sickness that is domestic violence.. Not sure it's totally attributable to one group but don't know.." Nearly 50% of the protesters "protecting our women" had been arrested for domestic violent crimes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. Your in for a complete shock when the penny drops that there are equally some on the right who so bigoted that they set about rioting, commit arson and attack the police because someone in another country publishes a false 'must be a Muslim asylum seeker' name in relation to vile murders.. The guy Farage called an important voice while being charged with r@pe and trafficking women. His best mate boasts of grabbing women by the pussy. He ushered a wife beater into parliament and didn't think constituents needed to know. But hey, it's his party that's defending "our women"!!! Some of that will appeal to a percentage in society sadly going by the sickness that is domestic violence.. Not sure it's totally attributable to one group but don't know.. Nearly 50% of the protesters "protecting our women" had been arrested for domestic violent crimes " Source? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. Your in for a complete shock when the penny drops that there are equally some on the right who so bigoted that they set about rioting, commit arson and attack the police because someone in another country publishes a false 'must be a Muslim asylum seeker' name in relation to vile murders.. The guy Farage called an important voice while being charged with r@pe and trafficking women. His best mate boasts of grabbing women by the pussy. He ushered a wife beater into parliament and didn't think constituents needed to know. But hey, it's his party that's defending "our women"!!! Some of that will appeal to a percentage in society sadly going by the sickness that is domestic violence.. Not sure it's totally attributable to one group but don't know.. Nearly 50% of the protesters "protecting our women" had been arrested for domestic violent crimes Source?" Guardian, BBC a whole host of podcasts last one that springs to mind is Quiet Riot pretty sure James O'Brien has reported too. You have Google also | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. Your in for a complete shock when the penny drops that there are equally some on the right who so bigoted that they set about rioting, commit arson and attack the police because someone in another country publishes a false 'must be a Muslim asylum seeker' name in relation to vile murders.. The guy Farage called an important voice while being charged with r@pe and trafficking women. His best mate boasts of grabbing women by the pussy. He ushered a wife beater into parliament and didn't think constituents needed to know. But hey, it's his party that's defending "our women"!!! Some of that will appeal to a percentage in society sadly going by the sickness that is domestic violence.. Not sure it's totally attributable to one group but don't know.. Nearly 50% of the protesters "protecting our women" had been arrested for domestic violent crimes " I know there's been reports that a number have previous but not looked into specifics.. Some had several previous convictions .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. Your in for a complete shock when the penny drops that there are equally some on the right who so bigoted that they set about rioting, commit arson and attack the police because someone in another country publishes a false 'must be a Muslim asylum seeker' name in relation to vile murders.. The guy Farage called an important voice while being charged with r@pe and trafficking women. His best mate boasts of grabbing women by the pussy. He ushered a wife beater into parliament and didn't think constituents needed to know. But hey, it's his party that's defending "our women"!!! Some of that will appeal to a percentage in society sadly going by the sickness that is domestic violence.. Not sure it's totally attributable to one group but don't know.. Nearly 50% of the protesters "protecting our women" had been arrested for domestic violent crimes Source? Guardian, BBC a whole host of podcasts last one that springs to mind is Quiet Riot pretty sure James O'Brien has reported too. You have Google also " So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes " "Don't like the fact, don't like the source... Must be lies!" Your typical intellectual rigour at work there. Did you check at all, even a little bit? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. Your in for a complete shock when the penny drops that there are equally some on the right who so bigoted that they set about rioting, commit arson and attack the police because someone in another country publishes a false 'must be a Muslim asylum seeker' name in relation to vile murders.. The guy Farage called an important voice while being charged with r@pe and trafficking women. His best mate boasts of grabbing women by the pussy. He ushered a wife beater into parliament and didn't think constituents needed to know. But hey, it's his party that's defending "our women"!!! Some of that will appeal to a percentage in society sadly going by the sickness that is domestic violence.. Not sure it's totally attributable to one group but don't know.. Nearly 50% of the protesters "protecting our women" had been arrested for domestic violent crimes Source? Guardian, BBC a whole host of podcasts last one that springs to mind is Quiet Riot pretty sure James O'Brien has reported too. You have Google also So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes " Blimey, you really do have it bad! You need to go outside. Mix with people, sit under a tree. Do yoga. They reported facts on the people who attend protests and nearly 50% of the people rioting and calling for pogroms in Farage riots of 2024 had been arrested for violent domestic crime. So it seems that it's only them that are allowed to r@pe and beat our women | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes " Police data released under freedom of information (FoI) laws shows that 41% of 899 people arrested for taking part in the violent disorder last July and August had been reported for crimes associated with intimate partner violence. For those arrested by one police force, this figure was as high as 68%. Previous offences include actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, stalking, breach of restraint and non-conctact orders, controlling coercive behaviour and criminal damage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. Your in for a complete shock when the penny drops that there are equally some on the right who so bigoted that they set about rioting, commit arson and attack the police because someone in another country publishes a false 'must be a Muslim asylum seeker' name in relation to vile murders.. The guy Farage called an important voice while being charged with r@pe and trafficking women. His best mate boasts of grabbing women by the pussy. He ushered a wife beater into parliament and didn't think constituents needed to know. But hey, it's his party that's defending "our women"!!! Some of that will appeal to a percentage in society sadly going by the sickness that is domestic violence.. Not sure it's totally attributable to one group but don't know.. Nearly 50% of the protesters "protecting our women" had been arrested for domestic violent crimes Source? Guardian, BBC a whole host of podcasts last one that springs to mind is Quiet Riot pretty sure James O'Brien has reported too. You have Google also So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes " What 'left wing' media?
The majority here are far from left..
The daily mail online was one source I read, they were rightly damning of the actions of the rioters that some like yourself seem to go into maximum whataboutery mode about..
They are thugs, they were a lot of them before they chose to riot the types who are in and out of the courts pretty much most of their adult lives..
The wrong uns that every town has.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes Police data released under freedom of information (FoI) laws shows that 41% of 899 people arrested for taking part in the violent disorder last July and August had been reported for crimes associated with intimate partner violence. For those arrested by one police force, this figure was as high as 68%. Previous offences include actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, stalking, breach of restraint and non-conctact orders, controlling coercive behaviour and criminal damage." Presumably now we'll get a barrage of nonsense about how FoI data are doctored by a cabal of lefty conspiracists before they're released. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes Police data released under freedom of information (FoI) laws shows that 41% of 899 people arrested for taking part in the violent disorder last July and August had been reported for crimes associated with intimate partner violence. For those arrested by one police force, this figure was as high as 68%. Previous offences include actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, stalking, breach of restraint and non-conctact orders, controlling coercive behaviour and criminal damage." But, but surely they are English patriots..? I mean that's how some on here describe them..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes Police data released under freedom of information (FoI) laws shows that 41% of 899 people arrested for taking part in the violent disorder last July and August had been reported for crimes associated with intimate partner violence. For those arrested by one police force, this figure was as high as 68%. Previous offences include actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, stalking, breach of restraint and non-conctact orders, controlling coercive behaviour and criminal damage. But, but surely they are English patriots..? I mean that's how some on here describe them.. "Is it possible that people can support the people who protest peacefully and not support those that are there for the violence? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes Police data released under freedom of information (FoI) laws shows that 41% of 899 people arrested for taking part in the violent disorder last July and August had been reported for crimes associated with intimate partner violence. For those arrested by one police force, this figure was as high as 68%. Previous offences include actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, stalking, breach of restraint and non-conctact orders, controlling coercive behaviour and criminal damage. But, but surely they are English patriots..? I mean that's how some on here describe them..
Is it possible that people can support the people who protest peacefully and not support those that are there for the violence?
"Yes, but what exactly are you protesting? Your crying over a hotel that was hardly used to being full of immigrants? Your protesting immigration! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes Police data released under freedom of information (FoI) laws shows that 41% of 899 people arrested for taking part in the violent disorder last July and August had been reported for crimes associated with intimate partner violence. For those arrested by one police force, this figure was as high as 68%. Previous offences include actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, stalking, breach of restraint and non-conctact orders, controlling coercive behaviour and criminal damage. But, but surely they are English patriots..? I mean that's how some on here describe them..
Is it possible that people can support the people who protest peacefully and not support those that are there for the violence?
"If that was the point made or what is being discussed then yes.. If the protest has any basis at all in its origins .. If the protest has set clearly defined aims.. The problem is that the peaceful protesters (and there are definitely issues with some who have abused the position they adopted) don't distance themselves from the thugs who only see an excuse to kick off.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes Police data released under freedom of information (FoI) laws shows that 41% of 899 people arrested for taking part in the violent disorder last July and August had been reported for crimes associated with intimate partner violence. For those arrested by one police force, this figure was as high as 68%. Previous offences include actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, stalking, breach of restraint and non-conctact orders, controlling coercive behaviour and criminal damage. But, but surely they are English patriots..? I mean that's how some on here describe them..
Is it possible that people can support the people who protest peacefully and not support those that are there for the violence?
If that was the point made or what is being discussed then yes..
If the protest has any basis at all in its origins ..
If the protest has set clearly defined aims..
The problem is that the peaceful protesters (and there are definitely issues with some who have abused the position they adopted) don't distance themselves from the thugs who only see an excuse to kick off..
"I'm not following you. There are thugs clearly on both sides of the protests, who are there as you say to kick off. Are you saying the protestors on the ground are not distancing themselves from these people, or people discussing the protestors online (here) aren't distancing themselves from the thugs? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes Police data released under freedom of information (FoI) laws shows that 41% of 899 people arrested for taking part in the violent disorder last July and August had been reported for crimes associated with intimate partner violence. For those arrested by one police force, this figure was as high as 68%. Previous offences include actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, stalking, breach of restraint and non-conctact orders, controlling coercive behaviour and criminal damage. But, but surely they are English patriots..? I mean that's how some on here describe them..
Is it possible that people can support the people who protest peacefully and not support those that are there for the violence?
If that was the point made or what is being discussed then yes..
If the protest has any basis at all in its origins ..
If the protest has set clearly defined aims..
The problem is that the peaceful protesters (and there are definitely issues with some who have abused the position they adopted) don't distance themselves from the thugs who only see an excuse to kick off..
I'm not following you. There are thugs clearly on both sides of the protests, who are there as you say to kick off.
Are you saying the protestors on the ground are not distancing themselves from these people, or people discussing the protestors online (here) aren't distancing themselves from the thugs? "Yes, there's about 5 people crying about the hotel they got married in and wasn't used anymore hence why the state took it over. Then you have a right wing mob full of wife beaters and r@pists. Then a left wing standing up for humane needs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is it possible that people can support the people who protest peacefully and not support those that are there for the violence? " I mean, yeah of course, but I'm not sure why anyone would support people who were there to intimidate overwhelmingly innocent, vulnerable people who have no agency to change the situation. No matter how "peaceful" they were being. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. Your in for a complete shock when the penny drops that there are equally some on the right who so bigoted that they set about rioting, commit arson and attack the police because someone in another country publishes a false 'must be a Muslim asylum seeker' name in relation to vile murders.. The guy Farage called an important voice while being charged with r@pe and trafficking women. His best mate boasts of grabbing women by the pussy. He ushered a wife beater into parliament and didn't think constituents needed to know. But hey, it's his party that's defending "our women"!!! Some of that will appeal to a percentage in society sadly going by the sickness that is domestic violence.. Not sure it's totally attributable to one group but don't know.. Nearly 50% of the protesters "protecting our women" had been arrested for domestic violent crimes Source? Guardian, BBC a whole host of podcasts last one that springs to mind is Quiet Riot pretty sure James O'Brien has reported too. You have Google also So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes " Google this to try to find out where you're getting your misinformation from, but couldn't find anything. Another Facebook special? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes Police data released under freedom of information (FoI) laws shows that 41% of 899 people arrested for taking part in the violent disorder last July and August had been reported for crimes associated with intimate partner violence. For those arrested by one police force, this figure was as high as 68%. Previous offences include actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, stalking, breach of restraint and non-conctact orders, controlling coercive behaviour and criminal damage. But, but surely they are English patriots..? I mean that's how some on here describe them..
Is it possible that people can support the people who protest peacefully and not support those that are there for the violence?
If that was the point made or what is being discussed then yes..
If the protest has any basis at all in its origins ..
If the protest has set clearly defined aims..
The problem is that the peaceful protesters (and there are definitely issues with some who have abused the position they adopted) don't distance themselves from the thugs who only see an excuse to kick off..
I'm not following you. There are thugs clearly on both sides of the protests, who are there as you say to kick off.
Are you saying the protestors on the ground are not distancing themselves from these people, or people discussing the protestors online (here) aren't distancing themselves from the thugs? "The protests (and there's a debate to be had whether it's right to be at the hostels etc given there are children inside) get hijacked by the far right or they are organised by the far right .. They regularly attack the police who rightly try to prevent them attacking the premises.. If you are a peaceful protester then when it kicks off you run the risk off being caught up in it, walk away .. Theres been in my years in here some calling for machine gunning asylum seekers as they cross the channel, for them to be left to drown if the boat capsizes, all asylum seekers are kiddy fiddlers etc.. And yes there's been some opposing views saying the far right and the fascists should be smashed physically which lets be honest we went to war to rightly do.. People generally get called out whenever they cross a line it has to be said by those across the political spectrum.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes "Don't like the fact, don't like the source... Must be lies!" Your typical intellectual rigour at work there. Did you check at all, even a little bit?" Why would I need to check? There’s thousands of people at some of these protests. Dozens of protests and not the same people attending. So that’s tens of thousands of people. So how does the BBC and the Guardian get access to police records? Specific records of unidentified people. Or are the left wing police handing over confidential data and saying “these individuals were at such and such a march last week?” How are the two being tied together? The police say facial recognition is only being used to track those with a criminal record. So are they lying and it’s being compared to driver license and passport records? And they are doing this for tens of thousands of people almost overnight and then handing the results to the left wing media? Pretty sure that would violate data protection laws By your own standards…. “Like the source, like the stats, must be true.” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes "Don't like the fact, don't like the source... Must be lies!" Your typical intellectual rigour at work there. Did you check at all, even a little bit? Why would I need to check? There’s thousands of people at some of these protests. Dozens of protests and not the same people attending. So that’s tens of thousands of people. So how does the BBC and the Guardian get access to police records? Specific records of unidentified people. Or are the left wing police handing over confidential data and saying “these individuals were at such and such a march last week?” How are the two being tied together? The police say facial recognition is only being used to track those with a criminal record. So are they lying and it’s being compared to driver license and passport records? And they are doing this for tens of thousands of people almost overnight and then handing the results to the left wing media? Pretty sure that would violate data protection laws By your own standards…. “Like the source, like the stats, must be true.”" Lol, there's maximum hundreds at some Epping being one this year all the others fail to register above 50!! In Total the protests of 2025 fail to reach 2000 people. We don't have this years figures ( as far as I'm aware) for the criminal records of the people attended. Its about the people who attended protests in 2024 and so it's fair to extrapolate the same type of people would attend. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why would I need to check? There’s thousands of people at some of these protests. Dozens of protests and not the same people attending. So that’s tens of thousands of people. So how does the BBC and the Guardian get access to police records? Specific records of unidentified people. Or are the left wing police handing over confidential data and saying “these individuals were at such and such a march last week?” How are the two being tied together? The police say facial recognition is only being used to track those with a criminal record. So are they lying and it’s being compared to driver license and passport records? And they are doing this for tens of thousands of people almost overnight and then handing the results to the left wing media? Pretty sure that would violate data protection laws By your own standards…. “Like the source, like the stats, must be true.”" So, like, every time you post you're just pointing out that you don't know the facts and you actively avoid looking for them. You're entitled to have and express your opinion of course, but I do wonder what the point of it is when it's based entirely on your feelings about things you don't really know about and accordingly don't understand. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes Police data released under freedom of information (FoI) laws shows that 41% of 899 people arrested for taking part in the violent disorder last July and August had been reported for crimes associated with intimate partner violence. For those arrested by one police force, this figure was as high as 68%. Previous offences include actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, stalking, breach of restraint and non-conctact orders, controlling coercive behaviour and criminal damage." You said 41 percent of the 899 people arrested. The claim was 50% of all protestors. So I’d now like to see proof that close to 100% of those protesting were arrested, otherwise the original claim is by your own statistics, a lie. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes Police data released under freedom of information (FoI) laws shows that 41% of 899 people arrested for taking part in the violent disorder last July and August had been reported for crimes associated with intimate partner violence. For those arrested by one police force, this figure was as high as 68%. Previous offences include actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, stalking, breach of restraint and non-conctact orders, controlling coercive behaviour and criminal damage. You said 41 percent of the 899 people arrested. The claim was 50% of all protestors. So I’d now like to see proof that close to 100% of those protesting were arrested, otherwise the original claim is by your own statistics, a lie. " I can't speak for the other poster. However, the data categorically states that 41% of the people arrested at the riots last summer had previous convictions for domestic abuse. You don't see the statistical significance of that, in isolation from the other person's post? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes Police data released under freedom of information (FoI) laws shows that 41% of 899 people arrested for taking part in the violent disorder last July and August had been reported for crimes associated with intimate partner violence. For those arrested by one police force, this figure was as high as 68%. Previous offences include actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, stalking, breach of restraint and non-conctact orders, controlling coercive behaviour and criminal damage. You said 41 percent of the 899 people arrested. The claim was 50% of all protestors. So I’d now like to see proof that close to 100% of those protesting were arrested, otherwise the original claim is by your own statistics, a lie. " The claim was nearly 50% of....which 41% on average is and 68% in one are is over so nearly 50% of protesters at the Farage riots of 2024 had criminal convictions for beating women | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now." "There called dog whistles and once you can here them or see them you notice them." That exactly my point. Once you develop racial tinnitus you hear dog whistles everywhere, whether they're sounding or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. There called dog whistles and once you can here them or see them you notice them. That exactly my point. Once you develop racial tinnitus you hear dog whistles everywhere, whether they're sounding or not." Or, racism is ubiquitous and increasingly prevalent, emboldened by the success of politicians and other public figures with xenophobic positions, and people are well-attuned to even its more subtle expressions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now." "There called dog whistles and once you can here them or see them you notice them." "That exactly my point. Once you develop racial tinnitus you hear dog whistles everywhere, whether they're sounding or not." "Or, racism is ubiquitous and increasingly prevalent, emboldened by the success of politicians and other public figures with xenophobic positions, and people are well-attuned to even its more subtle expressions." That is a valid hypothesis. But I'm sure you've heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where those people of low ability are more likely to consider themselves good at a task. You clearly believe that you're good at detecting hidden racism. What evidence do you have that you are correct, and not just mistaken? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes Police data released under freedom of information (FoI) laws shows that 41% of 899 people arrested for taking part in the violent disorder last July and August had been reported for crimes associated with intimate partner violence. For those arrested by one police force, this figure was as high as 68%. Previous offences include actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, stalking, breach of restraint and non-conctact orders, controlling coercive behaviour and criminal damage. You said 41 percent of the 899 people arrested. The claim was 50% of all protestors. So I’d now like to see proof that close to 100% of those protesting were arrested, otherwise the original claim is by your own statistics, a lie. I can't speak for the other poster. However, the data categorically states that 41% of the people arrested at the riots last summer had previous convictions for domestic abuse. You don't see the statistical significance of that, in isolation from the other person's post? " It wouldn’t surprise me that people who engage in violent behaviour have engaged in previous violent behaviour. I would say a good proportion of the violent people on both sides of the situation have been violent previously in all sorts of situations. You’ve pointed out a statistic that fits your narrative. Nothing wrong with that, it’s perfectly reasonable to do so. But taken in isolation that statistic can be used to paint a picture that might not get painted if other statistic are also called upon. Here’s a statistic for you. A good proportion of those in this forum who are against uncontrolled mass immigration, will sometimes include in their posts that those opposing their views have a valued point on a particular aspect of the debate. But those in favour of uncontrolled mass immigration never do the same. They just ignore the point. Quick example…. The Epping protest at The Bell Hotel started as just local people, many of them women, because of a resident of that hotel sexually assaulting a child. Within no time a counter protest was organised by far left activists and people from all over the country, the man agitators paid its claimed, came with identical preprinted placards. Many were transported by the police and that has not been denied by the police. When asked by the media if that was his decision or a decision made in the field, the chief constable of Essex refused to comment and said no investigation would be taking place as that’s not his job, despite that actually being in his job description. The protest was entirely peaceful from what I saw, until they showed up. Then people from outside of Epping who are against uncontrolled mass immigration also turned up. And the rest is history I’ve not seen one single comment from the people on your side of the debate admitting any wrongdoing by the antifa mob. And not one single sentence expressing any concern that different groups of people might be being treated differently. All you all want to do is shout liar liar pants on fire and bury your head in the sand. Why is that? The response from me to a group of people demonstrating against sexual attacks on children isn’t to say “well not everyone is a child sex offender so you need to be silenced or shouted down. My response is fuck me, how can we support your community and the families involved. What can be done to try and keep children safe. What I won’t be doing is throwing bottles at either the protestors, the hotel or its occupants. But I will publicly concede that “the far right” as they are called (not a description I think is accurate, they are just racists) infiltrated the protest and from that point is wasn’t exactly peaceful. And yes the police need to arrest those people for inciting violence. But they should have arrested the antifa protesters who did the same, who threw bottle and fireworks and kids in pushchairs. Wanna concede anything? Or prove me right on this single point? The left seem to think they are on some moral high ground on this topic. But what are the chants against them in the streets? What names are they being called? What answer will there be? Everyone is brainwashed by the right wing media? Then everyone must be brainwashed by the left wing media. Any video showing two tier justice is fake because it doesn’t fit your narrative?Then any information you want to share must be fake because it doesn’t fit mine. This forum is just a forum in name. Theres very little debate, just mud slinging (that’s a metaphor for anyone who wishes to be pedantic) avoiding answering questions, accusations of lies, calling anything fake if you don’t like it (both sides guilty of that) etc. its like PM questions. It’s either patting on the back or character assassination. One final point. You said you can’t speak for the other person yet you went searching for data to support what they said. Try this….. “well what they said was not entirely accurate, the figures were for those arrested, not everyone protesting.” Is that so hard? Truth or narrative? Your figure proves their figures can not possibly be true. Not asking you to speak for them, but why can’t you say they were wrong in what they claimed? Is it because they are part of your team? Here’s a statistic for you. The left wing Mayer of London thinks knife crime is good for the people of London. Mr Kahn says London is safer with more knife crime. Not just a little more, 60% more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They're not there to protest. They are there inn an attempt to give vested interests 'proof' that more people disagree with the genuine protestors. We used to see the EDL coming into the area in droves back in the days when the BNP took a few seats. They were rightly admonished for coming in from outside the area to stir up trouble. These paid for pro refugee / Palestine / green energy arse holes might not be violent, but they're not from the areas where people are protesting. Wankers. ... because in your mind it's impossible to care enough about protecting refugees/fighting racism to get on a bus? No, these people are on a payroll. Whose, pray tell? With evidence, ideally? Anyone with a brain watching the vile pro-paedophile/pro-illegal immigration mob with identikit freshly minted placards knows what's going on. Did you write that yourself or did you get it off a Daily Mail headline generator?" You can lead the brain dead to water but you can't make them drink. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You can lead the brain dead to water but you can't make them drink." I have been thinking similar about a few posters in this thread and others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes Police data released under freedom of information (FoI) laws shows that 41% of 899 people arrested for taking part in the violent disorder last July and August had been reported for crimes associated with intimate partner violence. For those arrested by one police force, this figure was as high as 68%. Previous offences include actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, stalking, breach of restraint and non-conctact orders, controlling coercive behaviour and criminal damage. You said 41 percent of the 899 people arrested. The claim was 50% of all protestors. So I’d now like to see proof that close to 100% of those protesting were arrested, otherwise the original claim is by your own statistics, a lie. The claim was nearly 50% of....which 41% on average is and 68% in one are is over so nearly 50% of protesters at the Farage riots of 2024 had criminal convictions for beating women " The statistic is apparently 41% of those arrested. You said 50% of all protesters. The question now is did you deliberately lie? Or were you mistake or read it wrong and now wish to correct your original comment? I’m still waiting to hear what percentage of protesters were arrested so we can establish just how big your lie was. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The statistic is apparently 41% of those arrested. You said 50% of all protesters. The question now is did you deliberately lie? Or were you mistake or read it wrong and now wish to correct your original comment? I’m still waiting to hear what percentage of protesters were arrested so we can establish just how big your lie was. " I'm still waiting for your evidence of two tier policing and justice over the Labour Councillor. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. There called dog whistles and once you can here them or see them you notice them. That exactly my point. Once you develop racial tinnitus you hear dog whistles everywhere, whether they're sounding or not. Or, racism is ubiquitous and increasingly prevalent, emboldened by the success of politicians and other public figures with xenophobic positions, and people are well-attuned to even its more subtle expressions. That is a valid hypothesis. But I'm sure you've heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where those people of low ability are more likely to consider themselves good at a task. You clearly believe that you're good at detecting hidden racism. What evidence do you have that you are correct, and not just mistaken?" That the people I think are racists always turn out to be racists. I realise people love to tie themselves in knots trying to come up with reasons why what is probably racism is not in fact racism, and some even like to play the "is racism even real" game. Fact is there are racists everywhere. Some of them are really racist, some of them are only a bit racist. Some of them are obviously racist, some of them are subtly racist. And some of them are racist in ways that if you give them the maximum latitude and every single benefit of every single doubt you could argue that they're not in fact being racist. But here's the kicker: people who aren't racists don't say things that could be construed as racist. That's how you tell the difference. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. There called dog whistles and once you can here them or see them you notice them. That exactly my point. Once you develop racial tinnitus you hear dog whistles everywhere, whether they're sounding or not. Or, racism is ubiquitous and increasingly prevalent, emboldened by the success of politicians and other public figures with xenophobic positions, and people are well-attuned to even its more subtle expressions. That is a valid hypothesis. But I'm sure you've heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where those people of low ability are more likely to consider themselves good at a task. You clearly believe that you're good at detecting hidden racism. What evidence do you have that you are correct, and not just mistaken? That the people I think are racists always turn out to be racists. I realise people love to tie themselves in knots trying to come up with reasons why what is probably racism is not in fact racism, and some even like to play the "is racism even real" game. Fact is there are racists everywhere. Some of them are really racist, some of them are only a bit racist. Some of them are obviously racist, some of them are subtly racist. And some of them are racist in ways that if you give them the maximum latitude and every single benefit of every single doubt you could argue that they're not in fact being racist. But here's the kicker: people who aren't racists don't say things that could be construed as racist. That's how you tell the difference." Isn’t it you who spends all your time talking about race? You are one of several Leftists in this forum who talk about little else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. There called dog whistles and once you can here them or see them you notice them. That exactly my point. Once you develop racial tinnitus you hear dog whistles everywhere, whether they're sounding or not. Or, racism is ubiquitous and increasingly prevalent, emboldened by the success of politicians and other public figures with xenophobic positions, and people are well-attuned to even its more subtle expressions. That is a valid hypothesis. But I'm sure you've heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where those people of low ability are more likely to consider themselves good at a task. You clearly believe that you're good at detecting hidden racism. What evidence do you have that you are correct, and not just mistaken? That the people I think are racists always turn out to be racists. I realise people love to tie themselves in knots trying to come up with reasons why what is probably racism is not in fact racism, and some even like to play the "is racism even real" game. Fact is there are racists everywhere. Some of them are really racist, some of them are only a bit racist. Some of them are obviously racist, some of them are subtly racist. And some of them are racist in ways that if you give them the maximum latitude and every single benefit of every single doubt you could argue that they're not in fact being racist. But here's the kicker: people who aren't racists don't say things that could be construed as racist. That's how you tell the difference. Isn’t it you who spends all your time talking about race? You are one of several Leftists in this forum who talk about little else." Even were that true, I don't see you making a point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. There called dog whistles and once you can here them or see them you notice them. That exactly my point. Once you develop racial tinnitus you hear dog whistles everywhere, whether they're sounding or not. Or, racism is ubiquitous and increasingly prevalent, emboldened by the success of politicians and other public figures with xenophobic positions, and people are well-attuned to even its more subtle expressions. That is a valid hypothesis. But I'm sure you've heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where those people of low ability are more likely to consider themselves good at a task. You clearly believe that you're good at detecting hidden racism. What evidence do you have that you are correct, and not just mistaken? That the people I think are racists always turn out to be racists. I realise people love to tie themselves in knots trying to come up with reasons why what is probably racism is not in fact racism, and some even like to play the "is racism even real" game. Fact is there are racists everywhere. Some of them are really racist, some of them are only a bit racist. Some of them are obviously racist, some of them are subtly racist. And some of them are racist in ways that if you give them the maximum latitude and every single benefit of every single doubt you could argue that they're not in fact being racist. But here's the kicker: people who aren't racists don't say things that could be construed as racist. That's how you tell the difference. Isn’t it you who spends all your time talking about race? You are one of several Leftists in this forum who talk about little else. Even were that true, I don't see you making a point." My point is as above pal. You complain that everyone else is racist but you are the one who spends all his time talking about race. This thread is about the freedom to protest. I imagine if anyone could be bothered to analyse your posts we would find you talking about race in every thread about any topic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. There called dog whistles and once you can here them or see them you notice them. That exactly my point. Once you develop racial tinnitus you hear dog whistles everywhere, whether they're sounding or not. Or, racism is ubiquitous and increasingly prevalent, emboldened by the success of politicians and other public figures with xenophobic positions, and people are well-attuned to even its more subtle expressions. That is a valid hypothesis. But I'm sure you've heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where those people of low ability are more likely to consider themselves good at a task. You clearly believe that you're good at detecting hidden racism. What evidence do you have that you are correct, and not just mistaken? That the people I think are racists always turn out to be racists. I realise people love to tie themselves in knots trying to come up with reasons why what is probably racism is not in fact racism, and some even like to play the "is racism even real" game. Fact is there are racists everywhere. Some of them are really racist, some of them are only a bit racist. Some of them are obviously racist, some of them are subtly racist. And some of them are racist in ways that if you give them the maximum latitude and every single benefit of every single doubt you could argue that they're not in fact being racist. But here's the kicker: people who aren't racists don't say things that could be construed as racist. That's how you tell the difference. Isn’t it you who spends all your time talking about race? You are one of several Leftists in this forum who talk about little else." And yet you were the one trying to bring asylum seekers into a thread that was not about asylum seekers. 🤷 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The statistic is apparently 41% of those arrested. You said 50% of all protesters. The question now is did you deliberately lie? Or were you mistake or read it wrong and now wish to correct your original comment? I’m still waiting to hear what percentage of protesters were arrested so we can establish just how big your lie was. I'm still waiting for your evidence of two tier policing and justice over the Labour Councillor. " Evidence already presented of the former. But as you’ve just agreed and had already been established, you’ll decide for yourself based on your narrative how true something might be, not based on how true it actually is. Or to put it another way. Theres none so blind as those who don’t want to see. Impossible to produce evidence of the latter as nobody knows other than the jury why they decided in the way they did. Not sure but I think trying to find out from them might actually be a criminal offence. I’m sure you didn’t mean it when you said it, because the left don’t actually like other people having opinions different to theirs, but I think it was you who said I was entitled to my opinion? To clarify, it’s different to the Lucy Connolly case as she got what many lawyers have since said was “bad advice” and she pled guilty. Both did the same thing, said words that “could” and that’s the important factor, could be deemed to trigger violence. By admitting the tweet she, perhaps inadvertently, admitted that her intent was to provoke violence. Deleting it in my opinion and the opinion of a few barristers who have spoken about it, deleting it would have given enough reasonable doubt to say that wasn’t her intention. From watching the cheering crowd after his words and his reaction to the cheering crowd, I think he’d be hard pressed to establish reasonable doubt as to how genuine his words and intentions were. Oh yeah, he could lie, never thought of that, he could say whatever to cover his own arse. If I were to call for any form of violence against you or any other individual on here, I’d get a lifetime forum ban. And rightly so. So perhaps you could tell me how anyone on national television can call for the murder of millions of people and not be breaking the law? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. There called dog whistles and once you can here them or see them you notice them. That exactly my point. Once you develop racial tinnitus you hear dog whistles everywhere, whether they're sounding or not. Or, racism is ubiquitous and increasingly prevalent, emboldened by the success of politicians and other public figures with xenophobic positions, and people are well-attuned to even its more subtle expressions. That is a valid hypothesis. But I'm sure you've heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where those people of low ability are more likely to consider themselves good at a task. You clearly believe that you're good at detecting hidden racism. What evidence do you have that you are correct, and not just mistaken? That the people I think are racists always turn out to be racists. I realise people love to tie themselves in knots trying to come up with reasons why what is probably racism is not in fact racism, and some even like to play the "is racism even real" game. Fact is there are racists everywhere. Some of them are really racist, some of them are only a bit racist. Some of them are obviously racist, some of them are subtly racist. And some of them are racist in ways that if you give them the maximum latitude and every single benefit of every single doubt you could argue that they're not in fact being racist. But here's the kicker: people who aren't racists don't say things that could be construed as racist. That's how you tell the difference. Isn’t it you who spends all your time talking about race? You are one of several Leftists in this forum who talk about little else. Even were that true, I don't see you making a point. My point is as above pal. You complain that everyone else is racist but you are the one who spends all his time talking about race. This thread is about the freedom to protest. I imagine if anyone could be bothered to analyse your posts we would find you talking about race in every thread about any topic." Again, even if it were true that I talk about race a lot... So what? Is that a problem for you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes Police data released under freedom of information (FoI) laws shows that 41% of 899 people arrested for taking part in the violent disorder last July and August had been reported for crimes associated with intimate partner violence. For those arrested by one police force, this figure was as high as 68%. Previous offences include actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, stalking, breach of restraint and non-conctact orders, controlling coercive behaviour and criminal damage. You said 41 percent of the 899 people arrested. The claim was 50% of all protestors. So I’d now like to see proof that close to 100% of those protesting were arrested, otherwise the original claim is by your own statistics, a lie. The claim was nearly 50% of....which 41% on average is and 68% in one are is over so nearly 50% of protesters at the Farage riots of 2024 had criminal convictions for beating women The statistic is apparently 41% of those arrested. You said 50% of all protesters. The question now is did you deliberately lie? Or were you mistake or read it wrong and now wish to correct your original comment? I’m still waiting to hear what percentage of protesters were arrested so we can establish just how big your lie was. " No it was nearly 50% which 41 is | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now." "There called dog whistles and once you can here them or see them you notice them." "That exactly my point. Once you develop racial tinnitus you hear dog whistles everywhere, whether they're sounding or not." "Or, racism is ubiquitous and increasingly prevalent, emboldened by the success of politicians and other public figures with xenophobic positions, and people are well-attuned to even its more subtle expressions." "That is a valid hypothesis. But I'm sure you've heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where those people of low ability are more likely to consider themselves good at a task. You clearly believe that you're good at detecting hidden racism. What evidence do you have that you are correct, and not just mistaken?" "That the people I think are racists always turn out to be racists. I realise people love to tie themselves in knots trying to come up with reasons why what is probably racism is not in fact racism, and some even like to play the "is racism even real" game. Fact is there are racists everywhere. Some of them are really racist, some of them are only a bit racist. Some of them are obviously racist, some of them are subtly racist. And some of them are racist in ways that if you give them the maximum latitude and every single benefit of every single doubt you could argue that they're not in fact being racist. But here's the kicker: people who aren't racists don't say things that could be construed as racist. That's how you tell the difference." I see you're firmly convinced of your ability to read other people's minds from a distance. Let's hope you never accidentally say anything that could be construed as racist, and condemn yourself out of your own mouth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. There called dog whistles and once you can here them or see them you notice them. That exactly my point. Once you develop racial tinnitus you hear dog whistles everywhere, whether they're sounding or not. Or, racism is ubiquitous and increasingly prevalent, emboldened by the success of politicians and other public figures with xenophobic positions, and people are well-attuned to even its more subtle expressions. That is a valid hypothesis. But I'm sure you've heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where those people of low ability are more likely to consider themselves good at a task. You clearly believe that you're good at detecting hidden racism. What evidence do you have that you are correct, and not just mistaken? That the people I think are racists always turn out to be racists. I realise people love to tie themselves in knots trying to come up with reasons why what is probably racism is not in fact racism, and some even like to play the "is racism even real" game. Fact is there are racists everywhere. Some of them are really racist, some of them are only a bit racist. Some of them are obviously racist, some of them are subtly racist. And some of them are racist in ways that if you give them the maximum latitude and every single benefit of every single doubt you could argue that they're not in fact being racist. But here's the kicker: people who aren't racists don't say things that could be construed as racist. That's how you tell the difference. Isn’t it you who spends all your time talking about race? You are one of several Leftists in this forum who talk about little else. Even were that true, I don't see you making a point. My point is as above pal. You complain that everyone else is racist but you are the one who spends all his time talking about race. This thread is about the freedom to protest. I imagine if anyone could be bothered to analyse your posts we would find you talking about race in every thread about any topic. Again, even if it were true that I talk about race a lot... So what? Is that a problem for you?" You seem very aggressive. Are you okay? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. There called dog whistles and once you can here them or see them you notice them. That exactly my point. Once you develop racial tinnitus you hear dog whistles everywhere, whether they're sounding or not. Or, racism is ubiquitous and increasingly prevalent, emboldened by the success of politicians and other public figures with xenophobic positions, and people are well-attuned to even its more subtle expressions. That is a valid hypothesis. But I'm sure you've heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where those people of low ability are more likely to consider themselves good at a task. You clearly believe that you're good at detecting hidden racism. What evidence do you have that you are correct, and not just mistaken? That the people I think are racists always turn out to be racists. I realise people love to tie themselves in knots trying to come up with reasons why what is probably racism is not in fact racism, and some even like to play the "is racism even real" game. Fact is there are racists everywhere. Some of them are really racist, some of them are only a bit racist. Some of them are obviously racist, some of them are subtly racist. And some of them are racist in ways that if you give them the maximum latitude and every single benefit of every single doubt you could argue that they're not in fact being racist. But here's the kicker: people who aren't racists don't say things that could be construed as racist. That's how you tell the difference. I see you're firmly convinced of your ability to read other people's minds from a distance. Let's hope you never accidentally say anything that could be construed as racist, and condemn yourself out of your own mouth." No because like he said racist people don't say racist things!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. There called dog whistles and once you can here them or see them you notice them. That exactly my point. Once you develop racial tinnitus you hear dog whistles everywhere, whether they're sounding or not. Or, racism is ubiquitous and increasingly prevalent, emboldened by the success of politicians and other public figures with xenophobic positions, and people are well-attuned to even its more subtle expressions. That is a valid hypothesis. But I'm sure you've heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where those people of low ability are more likely to consider themselves good at a task. You clearly believe that you're good at detecting hidden racism. What evidence do you have that you are correct, and not just mistaken? That the people I think are racists always turn out to be racists. I realise people love to tie themselves in knots trying to come up with reasons why what is probably racism is not in fact racism, and some even like to play the "is racism even real" game. Fact is there are racists everywhere. Some of them are really racist, some of them are only a bit racist. Some of them are obviously racist, some of them are subtly racist. And some of them are racist in ways that if you give them the maximum latitude and every single benefit of every single doubt you could argue that they're not in fact being racist. But here's the kicker: people who aren't racists don't say things that could be construed as racist. That's how you tell the difference. Isn’t it you who spends all your time talking about race? You are one of several Leftists in this forum who talk about little else. Even were that true, I don't see you making a point. My point is as above pal. You complain that everyone else is racist but you are the one who spends all his time talking about race. This thread is about the freedom to protest. I imagine if anyone could be bothered to analyse your posts we would find you talking about race in every thread about any topic. Again, even if it were true that I talk about race a lot... So what? Is that a problem for you? You seem very aggressive. Are you okay?" Lol that your favourite shut down word? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. There called dog whistles and once you can here them or see them you notice them. That exactly my point. Once you develop racial tinnitus you hear dog whistles everywhere, whether they're sounding or not. Or, racism is ubiquitous and increasingly prevalent, emboldened by the success of politicians and other public figures with xenophobic positions, and people are well-attuned to even its more subtle expressions. That is a valid hypothesis. But I'm sure you've heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where those people of low ability are more likely to consider themselves good at a task. You clearly believe that you're good at detecting hidden racism. What evidence do you have that you are correct, and not just mistaken? That the people I think are racists always turn out to be racists. I realise people love to tie themselves in knots trying to come up with reasons why what is probably racism is not in fact racism, and some even like to play the "is racism even real" game. Fact is there are racists everywhere. Some of them are really racist, some of them are only a bit racist. Some of them are obviously racist, some of them are subtly racist. And some of them are racist in ways that if you give them the maximum latitude and every single benefit of every single doubt you could argue that they're not in fact being racist. But here's the kicker: people who aren't racists don't say things that could be construed as racist. That's how you tell the difference. I see you're firmly convinced of your ability to read other people's minds from a distance. Let's hope you never accidentally say anything that could be construed as racist, and condemn yourself out of your own mouth." You do know people are writing stuff down on here, right? No need to read minds, from a distance or otherwise. But don't worry, it's easy to not say anything racist when you're not a racist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it genuinely surprising that there are a number of people here that are open about their attitude of "I don't care what you say, I'm going to interpret it as racism". They seem to be proud of their bigoted view of those they don't agree with. I wonder how we got to the point where so many people have such tightly closed minds. Perhaps it's always been like this, and I'm only seeing it now. There called dog whistles and once you can here them or see them you notice them. That exactly my point. Once you develop racial tinnitus you hear dog whistles everywhere, whether they're sounding or not. Or, racism is ubiquitous and increasingly prevalent, emboldened by the success of politicians and other public figures with xenophobic positions, and people are well-attuned to even its more subtle expressions. That is a valid hypothesis. But I'm sure you've heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where those people of low ability are more likely to consider themselves good at a task. You clearly believe that you're good at detecting hidden racism. What evidence do you have that you are correct, and not just mistaken? That the people I think are racists always turn out to be racists. I realise people love to tie themselves in knots trying to come up with reasons why what is probably racism is not in fact racism, and some even like to play the "is racism even real" game. Fact is there are racists everywhere. Some of them are really racist, some of them are only a bit racist. Some of them are obviously racist, some of them are subtly racist. And some of them are racist in ways that if you give them the maximum latitude and every single benefit of every single doubt you could argue that they're not in fact being racist. But here's the kicker: people who aren't racists don't say things that could be construed as racist. That's how you tell the difference. Isn’t it you who spends all your time talking about race? You are one of several Leftists in this forum who talk about little else. Even were that true, I don't see you making a point. My point is as above pal. You complain that everyone else is racist but you are the one who spends all his time talking about race. This thread is about the freedom to protest. I imagine if anyone could be bothered to analyse your posts we would find you talking about race in every thread about any topic. Again, even if it were true that I talk about race a lot... So what? Is that a problem for you? You seem very aggressive. Are you okay?" Fine, yeah. If you're not comfortable arguing with people who have strong, clear opinions and know how to present them, I won't mind if you take a break. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the left wing media made up figures rather than any actual facts or government statistics. In that case…. It seems nearly 75% of antifa protesters are actually racist and have been arrested for racially motivated hate crimes Police data released under freedom of information (FoI) laws shows that 41% of 899 people arrested for taking part in the violent disorder last July and August had been reported for crimes associated with intimate partner violence. For those arrested by one police force, this figure was as high as 68%. Previous offences include actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, stalking, breach of restraint and non-conctact orders, controlling coercive behaviour and criminal damage. You said 41 percent of the 899 people arrested. The claim was 50% of all protestors. So I’d now like to see proof that close to 100% of those protesting were arrested, otherwise the original claim is by your own statistics, a lie. The claim was nearly 50% of....which 41% on average is and 68% in one are is over so nearly 50% of protesters at the Farage riots of 2024 had criminal convictions for beating women The statistic is apparently 41% of those arrested. You said 50% of all protesters. The question now is did you deliberately lie? Or were you mistake or read it wrong and now wish to correct your original comment? I’m still waiting to hear what percentage of protesters were arrested so we can establish just how big your lie was. No it was nearly 50% which 41 is" Nearly 50% “of those arrested” which is a tiny percentage of the total number of protesters. So it’s not “nearly 50%” of the total number of protestors. You lied. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nearly half prefer that? Seeing as it was was only 2000 in total. About 800 are wrong uns!! How is nearly 50 lying when the numbers vary from 41% to 68% it's just an average " If you can’t understand basic maths I’m not sure how I can help you. Lots of teachers use a metaphor for explaining so I’ll give that a go. Although why I need to explain to you what you said is beyond me There’s an unknown number of apples in a barrel. But definitely thousands. A delivery driver comes along and selects 889 bruised apples and takes them to a greengrocer shop that buys bruised apples but only if they have less than 2 bruises. But upon inspection of the bruised apples, the shopkeeper see that nearly half of them have more than one bruise. All this data tells you is how many of the apples taken to the greengrocers on this one trip have more than one bruise and how many have only one. What you can’t extrapolate from this data is how many apples left in the barrel have 1 bruise, more than one, or none, or how many apples in other barrels are bruised or not. The stats, which I’ve not checked by the way, I just took the other guys word for it, but the stats only refer to the apples delivered to the shop, you claimed they referred to every apple in the barrel and inferred it was relative of all apples the world over. Now either you’re deliberately pretending to not understand basic maths because you can now see you lied and aren’t man enough to admit when you’re wrong. Or you dont understand basic maths, or…… yeah, I’ll leave the other option open to readers opinions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nearly half prefer that? Seeing as it was was only 2000 in total. About 800 are wrong uns!! How is nearly 50 lying when the numbers vary from 41% to 68% it's just an average If you can’t understand basic maths I’m not sure how I can help you. Lots of teachers use a metaphor for explaining so I’ll give that a go. Although why I need to explain to you what you said is beyond me There’s an unknown number of apples in a barrel. But definitely thousands. A delivery driver comes along and selects 889 bruised apples and takes them to a greengrocer shop that buys bruised apples but only if they have less than 2 bruises. But upon inspection of the bruised apples, the shopkeeper see that nearly half of them have more than one bruise. All this data tells you is how many of the apples taken to the greengrocers on this one trip have more than one bruise and how many have only one. What you can’t extrapolate from this data is how many apples left in the barrel have 1 bruise, more than one, or none, or how many apples in other barrels are bruised or not. The stats, which I’ve not checked by the way, I just took the other guys word for it, but the stats only refer to the apples delivered to the shop, you claimed they referred to every apple in the barrel and inferred it was relative of all apples the world over. Now either you’re deliberately pretending to not understand basic maths because you can now see you lied and aren’t man enough to admit when you’re wrong. Or you dont understand basic maths, or…… yeah, I’ll leave the other option open to readers opinions. " I know this stuff has been doing the rounds for a little while now, curious to know if the question has come up on "reported" or "convicted". I think the latter would be a more meaningful measure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the point protesting outside hotels housing migrants? Is it just to display hatered towards all those inside, pure racism or is it against the system that allows them to be in the hotel, in which case the people facilitating this won't be in the hotel." Not racist if against illegal immigrants - people band that word around in wrong context including you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nearly half prefer that? Seeing as it was was only 2000 in total. About 800 are wrong uns!! How is nearly 50 lying when the numbers vary from 41% to 68% it's just an average If you can’t understand basic maths I’m not sure how I can help you. Lots of teachers use a metaphor for explaining so I’ll give that a go. Although why I need to explain to you what you said is beyond me There’s an unknown number of apples in a barrel. But definitely thousands. A delivery driver comes along and selects 889 bruised apples and takes them to a greengrocer shop that buys bruised apples but only if they have less than 2 bruises. But upon inspection of the bruised apples, the shopkeeper see that nearly half of them have more than one bruise. All this data tells you is how many of the apples taken to the greengrocers on this one trip have more than one bruise and how many have only one. What you can’t extrapolate from this data is how many apples left in the barrel have 1 bruise, more than one, or none, or how many apples in other barrels are bruised or not. The stats, which I’ve not checked by the way, I just took the other guys word for it, but the stats only refer to the apples delivered to the shop, you claimed they referred to every apple in the barrel and inferred it was relative of all apples the world over. Now either you’re deliberately pretending to not understand basic maths because you can now see you lied and aren’t man enough to admit when you’re wrong. Or you dont understand basic maths, or…… yeah, I’ll leave the other option open to readers opinions. I know this stuff has been doing the rounds for a little while now, curious to know if the question has come up on "reported" or "convicted". I think the latter would be a more meaningful measure." Reported for DA. The FOI was sent to the 27 forces where the riots took place. So yes, gaps in the data, and of course, we don't know how many of those not arrested had prior DA reports or not. An area for further research. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the point protesting outside hotels housing migrants? Is it just to display hatered towards all those inside, pure racism or is it against the system that allows them to be in the hotel, in which case the people facilitating this won't be in the hotel. Not racist if against illegal immigrants - people band that word around in wrong context including you " That's the rule, is it? Automatic pass if the victim doesn't have any papers? Bunch of militant neofascists intimidating a load of brown people, but - what's this? - the brown people were smuggled in on boats? Oh, well then, it's definitely not racism. Can't be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nearly half prefer that? Seeing as it was was only 2000 in total. About 800 are wrong uns!! How is nearly 50 lying when the numbers vary from 41% to 68% it's just an average If you can’t understand basic maths I’m not sure how I can help you. Lots of teachers use a metaphor for explaining so I’ll give that a go. Although why I need to explain to you what you said is beyond me There’s an unknown number of apples in a barrel. But definitely thousands. A delivery driver comes along and selects 889 bruised apples and takes them to a greengrocer shop that buys bruised apples but only if they have less than 2 bruises. But upon inspection of the bruised apples, the shopkeeper see that nearly half of them have more than one bruise. All this data tells you is how many of the apples taken to the greengrocers on this one trip have more than one bruise and how many have only one. What you can’t extrapolate from this data is how many apples left in the barrel have 1 bruise, more than one, or none, or how many apples in other barrels are bruised or not. The stats, which I’ve not checked by the way, I just took the other guys word for it, but the stats only refer to the apples delivered to the shop, you claimed they referred to every apple in the barrel and inferred it was relative of all apples the world over. Now either you’re deliberately pretending to not understand basic maths because you can now see you lied and aren’t man enough to admit when you’re wrong. Or you dont understand basic maths, or…… yeah, I’ll leave the other option open to readers opinions. I know this stuff has been doing the rounds for a little while now, curious to know if the question has come up on "reported" or "convicted". I think the latter would be a more meaningful measure. Reported for DA. The FOI was sent to the 27 forces where the riots took place. So yes, gaps in the data, and of course, we don't know how many of those not arrested had prior DA reports or not. An area for further research. " What riots? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The trouble is, when one group can throw bottles and fireworks at children in pushchairs in front of the police and not only not get arrest, they get a free lift back to the train station. " It's true. I saw an antifa guy actually glass an infant, and the cops applauded, then put him on their shoulders, sang "for he's a jolly good fellow" and drove him home in a state-funded limousine. 🤡 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's true. " I know | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nearly half prefer that? Seeing as it was was only 2000 in total. About 800 are wrong uns!! How is nearly 50 lying when the numbers vary from 41% to 68% it's just an average If you can’t understand basic maths I’m not sure how I can help you. Lots of teachers use a metaphor for explaining so I’ll give that a go. Although why I need to explain to you what you said is beyond me There’s an unknown number of apples in a barrel. But definitely thousands. A delivery driver comes along and selects 889 bruised apples and takes them to a greengrocer shop that buys bruised apples but only if they have less than 2 bruises. But upon inspection of the bruised apples, the shopkeeper see that nearly half of them have more than one bruise. All this data tells you is how many of the apples taken to the greengrocers on this one trip have more than one bruise and how many have only one. What you can’t extrapolate from this data is how many apples left in the barrel have 1 bruise, more than one, or none, or how many apples in other barrels are bruised or not. The stats, which I’ve not checked by the way, I just took the other guys word for it, but the stats only refer to the apples delivered to the shop, you claimed they referred to every apple in the barrel and inferred it was relative of all apples the world over. Now either you’re deliberately pretending to not understand basic maths because you can now see you lied and aren’t man enough to admit when you’re wrong. Or you dont understand basic maths, or…… yeah, I’ll leave the other option open to readers opinions. I know this stuff has been doing the rounds for a little while now, curious to know if the question has come up on "reported" or "convicted". I think the latter would be a more meaningful measure. Reported for DA. The FOI was sent to the 27 forces where the riots took place. So yes, gaps in the data, and of course, we don't know how many of those not arrested had prior DA reports or not. An area for further research. What riots?" The summer of 2024. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's true. I know" Literally every word you've said is more evidence you really, really don't. Why do you persist? Are you doing some kind of performance art about the tenuous relationship the right have with truth and reality? Oh, and you still haven't explained what you do for a living that had sone sort of relevance to the fact you don't understand how video can be misleading. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nearly half prefer that? Seeing as it was was only 2000 in total. About 800 are wrong uns!! How is nearly 50 lying when the numbers vary from 41% to 68% it's just an average If you can’t understand basic maths I’m not sure how I can help you. Lots of teachers use a metaphor for explaining so I’ll give that a go. Although why I need to explain to you what you said is beyond me There’s an unknown number of apples in a barrel. But definitely thousands. A delivery driver comes along and selects 889 bruised apples and takes them to a greengrocer shop that buys bruised apples but only if they have less than 2 bruises. But upon inspection of the bruised apples, the shopkeeper see that nearly half of them have more than one bruise. All this data tells you is how many of the apples taken to the greengrocers on this one trip have more than one bruise and how many have only one. What you can’t extrapolate from this data is how many apples left in the barrel have 1 bruise, more than one, or none, or how many apples in other barrels are bruised or not. The stats, which I’ve not checked by the way, I just took the other guys word for it, but the stats only refer to the apples delivered to the shop, you claimed they referred to every apple in the barrel and inferred it was relative of all apples the world over. Now either you’re deliberately pretending to not understand basic maths because you can now see you lied and aren’t man enough to admit when you’re wrong. Or you dont understand basic maths, or…… yeah, I’ll leave the other option open to readers opinions. I know this stuff has been doing the rounds for a little while now, curious to know if the question has come up on "reported" or "convicted". I think the latter would be a more meaningful measure. Reported for DA. The FOI was sent to the 27 forces where the riots took place. So yes, gaps in the data, and of course, we don't know how many of those not arrested had prior DA reports or not. An area for further research. What riots? The summer of 2024. " Ah, well that’s different. The thread is about this years protests and counter protests. Last years protests were completely different and suffered from a lot more “infiltration” by activists Your figures aren’t relevant for the protests since Epping | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nearly half prefer that? Seeing as it was was only 2000 in total. About 800 are wrong uns!! How is nearly 50 lying when the numbers vary from 41% to 68% it's just an average If you can’t understand basic maths I’m not sure how I can help you. Lots of teachers use a metaphor for explaining so I’ll give that a go. Although why I need to explain to you what you said is beyond me There’s an unknown number of apples in a barrel. But definitely thousands. A delivery driver comes along and selects 889 bruised apples and takes them to a greengrocer shop that buys bruised apples but only if they have less than 2 bruises. But upon inspection of the bruised apples, the shopkeeper see that nearly half of them have more than one bruise. All this data tells you is how many of the apples taken to the greengrocers on this one trip have more than one bruise and how many have only one. What you can’t extrapolate from this data is how many apples left in the barrel have 1 bruise, more than one, or none, or how many apples in other barrels are bruised or not. The stats, which I’ve not checked by the way, I just took the other guys word for it, but the stats only refer to the apples delivered to the shop, you claimed they referred to every apple in the barrel and inferred it was relative of all apples the world over. Now either you’re deliberately pretending to not understand basic maths because you can now see you lied and aren’t man enough to admit when you’re wrong. Or you dont understand basic maths, or…… yeah, I’ll leave the other option open to readers opinions. I know this stuff has been doing the rounds for a little while now, curious to know if the question has come up on "reported" or "convicted". I think the latter would be a more meaningful measure. Reported for DA. The FOI was sent to the 27 forces where the riots took place. So yes, gaps in the data, and of course, we don't know how many of those not arrested had prior DA reports or not. An area for further research. What riots? The summer of 2024. Ah, well that’s different. The thread is about this years protests and counter protests. Last years protests were completely different and suffered from a lot more “infiltration” by activists Your figures aren’t relevant for the protests since Epping " "I agree. But I wasn’t thinking or a topic, just the confrontations in general." Your words. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nearly half prefer that? Seeing as it was was only 2000 in total. About 800 are wrong uns!! How is nearly 50 lying when the numbers vary from 41% to 68% it's just an average If you can’t understand basic maths I’m not sure how I can help you. Lots of teachers use a metaphor for explaining so I’ll give that a go. Although why I need to explain to you what you said is beyond me There’s an unknown number of apples in a barrel. But definitely thousands. A delivery driver comes along and selects 889 bruised apples and takes them to a greengrocer shop that buys bruised apples but only if they have less than 2 bruises. But upon inspection of the bruised apples, the shopkeeper see that nearly half of them have more than one bruise. All this data tells you is how many of the apples taken to the greengrocers on this one trip have more than one bruise and how many have only one. What you can’t extrapolate from this data is how many apples left in the barrel have 1 bruise, more than one, or none, or how many apples in other barrels are bruised or not. The stats, which I’ve not checked by the way, I just took the other guys word for it, but the stats only refer to the apples delivered to the shop, you claimed they referred to every apple in the barrel and inferred it was relative of all apples the world over. Now either you’re deliberately pretending to not understand basic maths because you can now see you lied and aren’t man enough to admit when you’re wrong. Or you dont understand basic maths, or…… yeah, I’ll leave the other option open to readers opinions. I know this stuff has been doing the rounds for a little while now, curious to know if the question has come up on "reported" or "convicted". I think the latter would be a more meaningful measure. Reported for DA. The FOI was sent to the 27 forces where the riots took place. So yes, gaps in the data, and of course, we don't know how many of those not arrested had prior DA reports or not. An area for further research. What riots? The summer of 2024. Ah, well that’s different. The thread is about this years protests and counter protests. Last years protests were completely different and suffered from a lot more “infiltration” by activists Your figures aren’t relevant for the protests since Epping "I agree. But I wasn’t thinking or a topic, just the confrontations in general." Your words. " So therefore it would be reasonable to quote data from 1843? 1924? 1642? 1975? Any year you like if it suits your narrative basically? Whilst not “wrong” per se, you’ve used quite a bit of poetic licence to say the last. Why not use current data? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nearly half prefer that? Seeing as it was was only 2000 in total. About 800 are wrong uns!! How is nearly 50 lying when the numbers vary from 41% to 68% it's just an average If you can’t understand basic maths I’m not sure how I can help you. Lots of teachers use a metaphor for explaining so I’ll give that a go. Although why I need to explain to you what you said is beyond me There’s an unknown number of apples in a barrel. But definitely thousands. A delivery driver comes along and selects 889 bruised apples and takes them to a greengrocer shop that buys bruised apples but only if they have less than 2 bruises. But upon inspection of the bruised apples, the shopkeeper see that nearly half of them have more than one bruise. All this data tells you is how many of the apples taken to the greengrocers on this one trip have more than one bruise and how many have only one. What you can’t extrapolate from this data is how many apples left in the barrel have 1 bruise, more than one, or none, or how many apples in other barrels are bruised or not. The stats, which I’ve not checked by the way, I just took the other guys word for it, but the stats only refer to the apples delivered to the shop, you claimed they referred to every apple in the barrel and inferred it was relative of all apples the world over. Now either you’re deliberately pretending to not understand basic maths because you can now see you lied and aren’t man enough to admit when you’re wrong. Or you dont understand basic maths, or…… yeah, I’ll leave the other option open to readers opinions. I know this stuff has been doing the rounds for a little while now, curious to know if the question has come up on "reported" or "convicted". I think the latter would be a more meaningful measure. Reported for DA. The FOI was sent to the 27 forces where the riots took place. So yes, gaps in the data, and of course, we don't know how many of those not arrested had prior DA reports or not. An area for further research. What riots? The summer of 2024. Ah, well that’s different. The thread is about this years protests and counter protests. Last years protests were completely different and suffered from a lot more “infiltration” by activists Your figures aren’t relevant for the protests since Epping "I agree. But I wasn’t thinking or a topic, just the confrontations in general." Your words. So therefore it would be reasonable to quote data from 1843? 1924? 1642? 1975? Any year you like if it suits your narrative basically? Whilst not “wrong” per se, you’ve used quite a bit of poetic licence to say the last. Why not use current data? " Perhaps because arrests are still ongoing and the data isn't available yet - something you have also alluded to somewhere. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nearly half prefer that? Seeing as it was was only 2000 in total. About 800 are wrong uns!! How is nearly 50 lying when the numbers vary from 41% to 68% it's just an average If you can’t understand basic maths I’m not sure how I can help you. Lots of teachers use a metaphor for explaining so I’ll give that a go. Although why I need to explain to you what you said is beyond me There’s an unknown number of apples in a barrel. But definitely thousands. A delivery driver comes along and selects 889 bruised apples and takes them to a greengrocer shop that buys bruised apples but only if they have less than 2 bruises. But upon inspection of the bruised apples, the shopkeeper see that nearly half of them have more than one bruise. All this data tells you is how many of the apples taken to the greengrocers on this one trip have more than one bruise and how many have only one. What you can’t extrapolate from this data is how many apples left in the barrel have 1 bruise, more than one, or none, or how many apples in other barrels are bruised or not. The stats, which I’ve not checked by the way, I just took the other guys word for it, but the stats only refer to the apples delivered to the shop, you claimed they referred to every apple in the barrel and inferred it was relative of all apples the world over. Now either you’re deliberately pretending to not understand basic maths because you can now see you lied and aren’t man enough to admit when you’re wrong. Or you dont understand basic maths, or…… yeah, I’ll leave the other option open to readers opinions. I know this stuff has been doing the rounds for a little while now, curious to know if the question has come up on "reported" or "convicted". I think the latter would be a more meaningful measure. Reported for DA. The FOI was sent to the 27 forces where the riots took place. So yes, gaps in the data, and of course, we don't know how many of those not arrested had prior DA reports or not. An area for further research. What riots? The summer of 2024. Ah, well that’s different. The thread is about this years protests and counter protests. Last years protests were completely different and suffered from a lot more “infiltration” by activists Your figures aren’t relevant for the protests since Epping "I agree. But I wasn’t thinking or a topic, just the confrontations in general." Your words. So therefore it would be reasonable to quote data from 1843? 1924? 1642? 1975? Any year you like if it suits your narrative basically? Whilst not “wrong” per se, you’ve used quite a bit of poetic licence to say the last. Why not use current data? Perhaps because arrests are still ongoing and the data isn't available yet - something you have also alluded to somewhere. " I guess that’s what I get for trusting a lefties figures. Not a mistake I’ll make again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nearly half prefer that? Seeing as it was was only 2000 in total. About 800 are wrong uns!! How is nearly 50 lying when the numbers vary from 41% to 68% it's just an average If you can’t understand basic maths I’m not sure how I can help you. Lots of teachers use a metaphor for explaining so I’ll give that a go. Although why I need to explain to you what you said is beyond me There’s an unknown number of apples in a barrel. But definitely thousands. A delivery driver comes along and selects 889 bruised apples and takes them to a greengrocer shop that buys bruised apples but only if they have less than 2 bruises. But upon inspection of the bruised apples, the shopkeeper see that nearly half of them have more than one bruise. All this data tells you is how many of the apples taken to the greengrocers on this one trip have more than one bruise and how many have only one. What you can’t extrapolate from this data is how many apples left in the barrel have 1 bruise, more than one, or none, or how many apples in other barrels are bruised or not. The stats, which I’ve not checked by the way, I just took the other guys word for it, but the stats only refer to the apples delivered to the shop, you claimed they referred to every apple in the barrel and inferred it was relative of all apples the world over. Now either you’re deliberately pretending to not understand basic maths because you can now see you lied and aren’t man enough to admit when you’re wrong. Or you dont understand basic maths, or…… yeah, I’ll leave the other option open to readers opinions. I know this stuff has been doing the rounds for a little while now, curious to know if the question has come up on "reported" or "convicted". I think the latter would be a more meaningful measure. Reported for DA. The FOI was sent to the 27 forces where the riots took place. So yes, gaps in the data, and of course, we don't know how many of those not arrested had prior DA reports or not. An area for further research. What riots? The summer of 2024. Ah, well that’s different. The thread is about this years protests and counter protests. Last years protests were completely different and suffered from a lot more “infiltration” by activists Your figures aren’t relevant for the protests since Epping "I agree. But I wasn’t thinking or a topic, just the confrontations in general." Your words. So therefore it would be reasonable to quote data from 1843? 1924? 1642? 1975? Any year you like if it suits your narrative basically? Whilst not “wrong” per se, you’ve used quite a bit of poetic licence to say the last. Why not use current data? Perhaps because arrests are still ongoing and the data isn't available yet - something you have also alluded to somewhere. I guess that’s what I get for trusting a lefties figures. Not a mistake I’ll make again. " Who is the lefty who's figures you trusted? Also, why should it only be data since Epping? The anti immigration feeling has been building for a while and the counter protests as a response to those opposing migrants. Why is the data from last summer invalid in your opinion? What are your views on "smart immigration"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nearly half prefer that? Seeing as it was was only 2000 in total. About 800 are wrong uns!! How is nearly 50 lying when the numbers vary from 41% to 68% it's just an average If you can’t understand basic maths I’m not sure how I can help you. Lots of teachers use a metaphor for explaining so I’ll give that a go. Although why I need to explain to you what you said is beyond me There’s an unknown number of apples in a barrel. But definitely thousands. A delivery driver comes along and selects 889 bruised apples and takes them to a greengrocer shop that buys bruised apples but only if they have less than 2 bruises. But upon inspection of the bruised apples, the shopkeeper see that nearly half of them have more than one bruise. All this data tells you is how many of the apples taken to the greengrocers on this one trip have more than one bruise and how many have only one. What you can’t extrapolate from this data is how many apples left in the barrel have 1 bruise, more than one, or none, or how many apples in other barrels are bruised or not. The stats, which I’ve not checked by the way, I just took the other guys word for it, but the stats only refer to the apples delivered to the shop, you claimed they referred to every apple in the barrel and inferred it was relative of all apples the world over. Now either you’re deliberately pretending to not understand basic maths because you can now see you lied and aren’t man enough to admit when you’re wrong. Or you dont understand basic maths, or…… yeah, I’ll leave the other option open to readers opinions. I know this stuff has been doing the rounds for a little while now, curious to know if the question has come up on "reported" or "convicted". I think the latter would be a more meaningful measure. Reported for DA. The FOI was sent to the 27 forces where the riots took place. So yes, gaps in the data, and of course, we don't know how many of those not arrested had prior DA reports or not. An area for further research. What riots? The summer of 2024. Ah, well that’s different. The thread is about this years protests and counter protests. Last years protests were completely different and suffered from a lot more “infiltration” by activists Your figures aren’t relevant for the protests since Epping "I agree. But I wasn’t thinking or a topic, just the confrontations in general." Your words. So therefore it would be reasonable to quote data from 1843? 1924? 1642? 1975? Any year you like if it suits your narrative basically? Whilst not “wrong” per se, you’ve used quite a bit of poetic licence to say the last. Why not use current data? Perhaps because arrests are still ongoing and the data isn't available yet - something you have also alluded to somewhere. I guess that’s what I get for trusting a lefties figures. Not a mistake I’ll make again. Who is the lefty who's figures you trusted? Also, why should it only be data since Epping? The anti immigration feeling has been building for a while and the counter protests as a response to those opposing migrants. Why is the data from last summer invalid in your opinion? What are your views on "smart immigration"? " A thread is about a topic, the topic in this case being the counter protests by organised gangs to try and disrupt the original protest or trigger violence that wouldn’t have happened had the counter protesters not arrived and if that should be allowed. So bringing in data from a different time period just to make your argument look more convincing, was a little naughty to say the least. But as I said my fault for being too trusting. Whilst we may not agree very often, that doesn’t mean I don’t respect your integrity when defending your point of view. But going forward?….. If you wish to discuss a completely different topic, start a new thread. I believe that’s the forum rules. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nearly half prefer that? Seeing as it was was only 2000 in total. About 800 are wrong uns!! How is nearly 50 lying when the numbers vary from 41% to 68% it's just an average If you can’t understand basic maths I’m not sure how I can help you. Lots of teachers use a metaphor for explaining so I’ll give that a go. Although why I need to explain to you what you said is beyond me There’s an unknown number of apples in a barrel. But definitely thousands. A delivery driver comes along and selects 889 bruised apples and takes them to a greengrocer shop that buys bruised apples but only if they have less than 2 bruises. But upon inspection of the bruised apples, the shopkeeper see that nearly half of them have more than one bruise. All this data tells you is how many of the apples taken to the greengrocers on this one trip have more than one bruise and how many have only one. What you can’t extrapolate from this data is how many apples left in the barrel have 1 bruise, more than one, or none, or how many apples in other barrels are bruised or not. The stats, which I’ve not checked by the way, I just took the other guys word for it, but the stats only refer to the apples delivered to the shop, you claimed they referred to every apple in the barrel and inferred it was relative of all apples the world over. Now either you’re deliberately pretending to not understand basic maths because you can now see you lied and aren’t man enough to admit when you’re wrong. Or you dont understand basic maths, or…… yeah, I’ll leave the other option open to readers opinions. I know this stuff has been doing the rounds for a little while now, curious to know if the question has come up on "reported" or "convicted". I think the latter would be a more meaningful measure. Reported for DA. The FOI was sent to the 27 forces where the riots took place. So yes, gaps in the data, and of course, we don't know how many of those not arrested had prior DA reports or not. An area for further research. What riots? The summer of 2024. Ah, well that’s different. The thread is about this years protests and counter protests. Last years protests were completely different and suffered from a lot more “infiltration” by activists Your figures aren’t relevant for the protests since Epping "I agree. But I wasn’t thinking or a topic, just the confrontations in general." Your words. So therefore it would be reasonable to quote data from 1843? 1924? 1642? 1975? Any year you like if it suits your narrative basically? Whilst not “wrong” per se, you’ve used quite a bit of poetic licence to say the last. Why not use current data? Perhaps because arrests are still ongoing and the data isn't available yet - something you have also alluded to somewhere. I guess that’s what I get for trusting a lefties figures. Not a mistake I’ll make again. Who is the lefty who's figures you trusted? Also, why should it only be data since Epping? The anti immigration feeling has been building for a while and the counter protests as a response to those opposing migrants. Why is the data from last summer invalid in your opinion? What are your views on "smart immigration"? A thread is about a topic, the topic in this case being the counter protests by organised gangs to try and disrupt the original protest or trigger violence that wouldn’t have happened had the counter protesters not arrived and if that should be allowed. So bringing in data from a different time period just to make your argument look more convincing, was a little naughty to say the least. But as I said my fault for being too trusting. Whilst we may not agree very often, that doesn’t mean I don’t respect your integrity when defending your point of view. But going forward?….. If you wish to discuss a completely different topic, start a new thread. I believe that’s the forum rules. " And a discussion or conversation takes many twists and turns, such as in this thread and plenty of others. Last summers riots are relevant, because it sets the scene for where we are now. Deflection tactics. Not one of my questions has been addressed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nearly half prefer that? Seeing as it was was only 2000 in total. About 800 are wrong uns!! How is nearly 50 lying when the numbers vary from 41% to 68% it's just an average If you can’t understand basic maths I’m not sure how I can help you. Lots of teachers use a metaphor for explaining so I’ll give that a go. Although why I need to explain to you what you said is beyond me There’s an unknown number of apples in a barrel. But definitely thousands. A delivery driver comes along and selects 889 bruised apples and takes them to a greengrocer shop that buys bruised apples but only if they have less than 2 bruises. But upon inspection of the bruised apples, the shopkeeper see that nearly half of them have more than one bruise. All this data tells you is how many of the apples taken to the greengrocers on this one trip have more than one bruise and how many have only one. What you can’t extrapolate from this data is how many apples left in the barrel have 1 bruise, more than one, or none, or how many apples in other barrels are bruised or not. The stats, which I’ve not checked by the way, I just took the other guys word for it, but the stats only refer to the apples delivered to the shop, you claimed they referred to every apple in the barrel and inferred it was relative of all apples the world over. Now either you’re deliberately pretending to not understand basic maths because you can now see you lied and aren’t man enough to admit when you’re wrong. Or you dont understand basic maths, or…… yeah, I’ll leave the other option open to readers opinions. I know this stuff has been doing the rounds for a little while now, curious to know if the question has come up on "reported" or "convicted". I think the latter would be a more meaningful measure. Reported for DA. The FOI was sent to the 27 forces where the riots took place. So yes, gaps in the data, and of course, we don't know how many of those not arrested had prior DA reports or not. An area for further research. What riots? The summer of 2024. Ah, well that’s different. The thread is about this years protests and counter protests. Last years protests were completely different and suffered from a lot more “infiltration” by activists Your figures aren’t relevant for the protests since Epping "I agree. But I wasn’t thinking or a topic, just the confrontations in general." Your words. So therefore it would be reasonable to quote data from 1843? 1924? 1642? 1975? Any year you like if it suits your narrative basically? Whilst not “wrong” per se, you’ve used quite a bit of poetic licence to say the last. Why not use current data? Perhaps because arrests are still ongoing and the data isn't available yet - something you have also alluded to somewhere. I guess that’s what I get for trusting a lefties figures. Not a mistake I’ll make again. Who is the lefty who's figures you trusted? Also, why should it only be data since Epping? The anti immigration feeling has been building for a while and the counter protests as a response to those opposing migrants. Why is the data from last summer invalid in your opinion? What are your views on "smart immigration"? A thread is about a topic, the topic in this case being the counter protests by organised gangs to try and disrupt the original protest or trigger violence that wouldn’t have happened had the counter protesters not arrived and if that should be allowed. So bringing in data from a different time period just to make your argument look more convincing, was a little naughty to say the least. But as I said my fault for being too trusting. Whilst we may not agree very often, that doesn’t mean I don’t respect your integrity when defending your point of view. But going forward?….. If you wish to discuss a completely different topic, start a new thread. I believe that’s the forum rules. And a discussion or conversation takes many twists and turns, such as in this thread and plenty of others. Last summers riots are relevant, because it sets the scene for where we are now. Deflection tactics. Not one of my questions has been addressed. " not seen the new thread so can’t comment on it. They are not relevant because there was no counter protests which is the whole point of the OP | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nearly half prefer that? Seeing as it was was only 2000 in total. About 800 are wrong uns!! How is nearly 50 lying when the numbers vary from 41% to 68% it's just an average If you can’t understand basic maths I’m not sure how I can help you. Lots of teachers use a metaphor for explaining so I’ll give that a go. Although why I need to explain to you what you said is beyond me There’s an unknown number of apples in a barrel. But definitely thousands. A delivery driver comes along and selects 889 bruised apples and takes them to a greengrocer shop that buys bruised apples but only if they have less than 2 bruises. But upon inspection of the bruised apples, the shopkeeper see that nearly half of them have more than one bruise. All this data tells you is how many of the apples taken to the greengrocers on this one trip have more than one bruise and how many have only one. What you can’t extrapolate from this data is how many apples left in the barrel have 1 bruise, more than one, or none, or how many apples in other barrels are bruised or not. The stats, which I’ve not checked by the way, I just took the other guys word for it, but the stats only refer to the apples delivered to the shop, you claimed they referred to every apple in the barrel and inferred it was relative of all apples the world over. Now either you’re deliberately pretending to not understand basic maths because you can now see you lied and aren’t man enough to admit when you’re wrong. Or you dont understand basic maths, or…… yeah, I’ll leave the other option open to readers opinions. I know this stuff has been doing the rounds for a little while now, curious to know if the question has come up on "reported" or "convicted". I think the latter would be a more meaningful measure. Reported for DA. The FOI was sent to the 27 forces where the riots took place. So yes, gaps in the data, and of course, we don't know how many of those not arrested had prior DA reports or not. An area for further research. What riots? The summer of 2024. Ah, well that’s different. The thread is about this years protests and counter protests. Last years protests were completely different and suffered from a lot more “infiltration” by activists Your figures aren’t relevant for the protests since Epping "I agree. But I wasn’t thinking or a topic, just the confrontations in general." Your words. So therefore it would be reasonable to quote data from 1843? 1924? 1642? 1975? Any year you like if it suits your narrative basically? Whilst not “wrong” per se, you’ve used quite a bit of poetic licence to say the last. Why not use current data? Perhaps because arrests are still ongoing and the data isn't available yet - something you have also alluded to somewhere. I guess that’s what I get for trusting a lefties figures. Not a mistake I’ll make again. Who is the lefty who's figures you trusted? Also, why should it only be data since Epping? The anti immigration feeling has been building for a while and the counter protests as a response to those opposing migrants. Why is the data from last summer invalid in your opinion? What are your views on "smart immigration"? A thread is about a topic, the topic in this case being the counter protests by organised gangs to try and disrupt the original protest or trigger violence that wouldn’t have happened had the counter protesters not arrived and if that should be allowed. So bringing in data from a different time period just to make your argument look more convincing, was a little naughty to say the least. But as I said my fault for being too trusting. Whilst we may not agree very often, that doesn’t mean I don’t respect your integrity when defending your point of view. But going forward?….. If you wish to discuss a completely different topic, start a new thread. I believe that’s the forum rules. And a discussion or conversation takes many twists and turns, such as in this thread and plenty of others. Last summers riots are relevant, because it sets the scene for where we are now. Deflection tactics. Not one of my questions has been addressed. not seen the new thread so can’t comment on it. They are not relevant because there was no counter protests which is the whole point of the OP " I have stated why they are relevant, and you are still deflecting. Why the reluctance to respond? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nearly half prefer that? Seeing as it was was only 2000 in total. About 800 are wrong uns!! How is nearly 50 lying when the numbers vary from 41% to 68% it's just an average If you can’t understand basic maths I’m not sure how I can help you. Lots of teachers use a metaphor for explaining so I’ll give that a go. Although why I need to explain to you what you said is beyond me There’s an unknown number of apples in a barrel. But definitely thousands. A delivery driver comes along and selects 889 bruised apples and takes them to a greengrocer shop that buys bruised apples but only if they have less than 2 bruises. But upon inspection of the bruised apples, the shopkeeper see that nearly half of them have more than one bruise. All this data tells you is how many of the apples taken to the greengrocers on this one trip have more than one bruise and how many have only one. What you can’t extrapolate from this data is how many apples left in the barrel have 1 bruise, more than one, or none, or how many apples in other barrels are bruised or not. The stats, which I’ve not checked by the way, I just took the other guys word for it, but the stats only refer to the apples delivered to the shop, you claimed they referred to every apple in the barrel and inferred it was relative of all apples the world over. Now either you’re deliberately pretending to not understand basic maths because you can now see you lied and aren’t man enough to admit when you’re wrong. Or you dont understand basic maths, or…… yeah, I’ll leave the other option open to readers opinions. I know this stuff has been doing the rounds for a little while now, curious to know if the question has come up on "reported" or "convicted". I think the latter would be a more meaningful measure. Reported for DA. The FOI was sent to the 27 forces where the riots took place. So yes, gaps in the data, and of course, we don't know how many of those not arrested had prior DA reports or not. An area for further research. What riots?" Far right Farage riots 2024 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
