Shock: Mail hack doesn't like you and your kind

blackpanther

mercsport wrote:

[ As for: "admittedly I am complete 'guardian reader' who is very liberal minded, quite pro-immigration, gay rights and so forth with an education in sociology and politics." There, you've admitted it; you've been brainwashed!
However, more seriously, how can you declare yourself to be liberal minded when your posts are so ruddy splenetic? They remind me very much of the crazed rants by the members of the Anti Nazi League, or whatever they're called, and similar so-called free speech, democracy, et al, mobs that abound nowadays, and work only to an end that is wholly opposite to what they frenziedly screech about. To my way of thinking your lot are clowns and have well and truly buggered up Britain, if you did but know it.

The pity of it, of course, is that you don't.

+1

Word

simonaspinall

simonaspinall wrote:

However, more seriously, how can you declare yourself to be liberal minded when your posts are so ruddy splenetic? They remind me very much of the crazed rants by the members of the Anti Nazi League, or whatever they're called, and similar so-called free speech, democracy, et al, mobs that abound nowadays, and work only to an end that is wholly opposite to what they frenziedly screech about. To my way of thinking your lot are clowns and have well and truly buggered up Britain, if you did but know it.

The pity of it, of course, is that you don't.

I'm liberal in that I believe people are entitlted to freedom - Whatever persuasion of sexuality, ethnicity, religion or gender.

The negative side of the DM has already been extensively discussed in this forum so will not go back in to that.

Who do you define as 'my lot' and how has Britain been buggered up by 'my lot'?

Come to think of it...was it even that great a country in the first place? Is this the DM rose-tinted nostalgia coming in?

Porgy

simonaspinall wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

However, more seriously, how can you declare yourself to be liberal minded when your posts are so ruddy splenetic? They remind me very much of the crazed rants by the members of the Anti Nazi League, or whatever they're called, and similar so-called free speech, democracy, et al, mobs that abound nowadays, and work only to an end that is wholly opposite to what they frenziedly screech about. To my way of thinking your lot are clowns and have well and truly buggered up Britain, if you did but know it.

The pity of it, of course, is that you don't.

I'm liberal in that I believe people are entitlted to freedom - Whatever persuasion of sexuality, ethnicity, religion or gender.

The negative side of the DM has already been extensively discussed in this forum so will not go back in to that.

Who do you define as 'my lot' and how has Britain been buggered up by 'my lot'?

Come to think of it...was it even that great a country in the first place? Is this the DM rose-tinted nostalgia coming in?

It was great when the Romans ruled.

simonaspinall

Porgy wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

However, more seriously, how can you declare yourself to be liberal minded when your posts are so ruddy splenetic? They remind me very much of the crazed rants by the members of the Anti Nazi League, or whatever they're called, and similar so-called free speech, democracy, et al, mobs that abound nowadays, and work only to an end that is wholly opposite to what they frenziedly screech about. To my way of thinking your lot are clowns and have well and truly buggered up Britain, if you did but know it.

The pity of it, of course, is that you don't.

I'm liberal in that I believe people are entitlted to freedom - Whatever persuasion of sexuality, ethnicity, religion or gender.

The negative side of the DM has already been extensively discussed in this forum so will not go back in to that.

Who do you define as 'my lot' and how has Britain been buggered up by 'my lot'?

Come to think of it...was it even that great a country in the first place? Is this the DM rose-tinted nostalgia coming in?

It was great when the Romans ruled.

*Refers to his Guardian Wall Chart of Roman Britain*

Oooo they built roads....albeit ones that would only be suitable for Paris-Roubaix, but roads nonetheless.

Apparently they were immigrants to a lot of countries. The local W.I. at the time probably tutted a lot.

Porgy

simonaspinall wrote:

Apparently they were immigrants to a lot of countries. The local W.I. at the time probably tutted a lot.

My colleague at work recently showed me evidence that a number of high up Romans in occupied Britain were black. So, as far as the average DM reader is concerned Britain had already gone to the dogs 2000 years ago.

that and the number of long haired hippy druids about then would have sent them into foaming at the mouth overdrive.

fast as fupp

mercsport wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

But you have to say - When a 'journalist' writes such a tawdry article about wanting to remove bikes from the road it's difficult not to take the bait.

Well, mouth agape, you were well and truly hooked.

You probably didn't see the print copy of the 'Mail on Sunday' (different editorial team appparently) wherein the offending article was printed, but if one bothers to be selective and read beneath the exclamatory headlines, there are always some thoughtful essays to digest. On the opposite page to Petronella's mild rant was - for balance- William Rees Mogg's weekly column. I mention him as he's one of Fleet St's finest. A long time editor of the Times for example. A few pages further on another great writer: Craig Brown, has his literary piece. David Mellor is always a good read on classical music. And so on.

Within the main body of the paper, Peter Hitchens fulminates weekly. And, on most points, it's difficult not to agree with him. Here, methinks, he'd eat you alive : "admittedly I am complete 'guardian reader' who is very liberal minded, quite pro-immigration, gay rights and so forth with an education in sociology and politics." If you want to exercise your values on a head to head with Hitchens you might enter into an email correspondence with him on his blog. He's quite active, and if you prick him he'd respond I'm sure.

As for: "admittedly I am complete 'guardian reader' who is very liberal minded, quite pro-immigration, gay rights and so forth with an education in sociology and politics." There, you've admitted it; you've been brainwashed!
However, more seriously, how can you declare yourself to be liberal minded when your posts are so ruddy splenetic? They remind me very much of the crazed rants by the members of the Anti Nazi League, or whatever they're called, and similar so-called free speech, democracy, et al, mobs that abound nowadays, and work only to an end that is wholly opposite to what they frenziedly screech about. To my way of thinking your lot are clowns and have well and truly buggered up Britain, if you did but know it.

The pity of it, of course, is that you don't.

*STANDS TO ATTENTION*


*salutes*

ITS THEM DO GOODERS THAT RUINED THIS SCEPTRED ISLE!!!

what a crock of crap

blackpanther

the people that bring up the black and immigrant thing the most are those previously described in this thread as "do gooders" I sometimes wish that everyone could get on with life and not constantly be reminded of race. Were all different, celebrating difference, and diversity would be a far more positive activity than preaching.

Church

Porgy

blackpanther wrote:

the people that bring up the black and immigrant thing the most are those previously described in this thread as "do gooders"

define term "do gooder"

I sometimes wish that everyone could get on with life and not constantly be reminded of race. Were all different, celebrating difference, and diversity would be a far more positive activity than preaching.

stop preaching then - do gooder!

blackpanther

"do gooder" in this use, i mean it as a nice way of saying pious liberal spouting Britain haters. Easily identified by hand wringing and bullying using words like Racist or homophobe or sexist as a means of shouting down those that dont see things the same way as they do.

The effect of this shouting and cause hijaking is usually to increase or create tension and division and directly cause or inflame the problems they (supposedly ) seek to right.

Do gooders have populated government and undermined and damaged this country ireprably over the last 30 years with breathtaking cynism. EG Labour government policy to allow unfettered immigration to effect social change and underpin the Labour partys plans for cultural and political change at the expense of the established population. i.e. make the tories unelectable. Self serving in the extreme and supported by all the weak minded "do gooders" using accusations of racism or discrimination to bully.

i wont go on, (hooray you say) I'm listening to the meters.

mercsport

blackpanther wrote:

mercsport wrote:

[ As for: "admittedly I am complete 'guardian reader' who is very liberal minded, quite pro-immigration, gay rights and so forth with an education in sociology and politics." There, you've admitted it; you've been brainwashed!
However, more seriously, how can you declare yourself to be liberal minded when your posts are so ruddy splenetic? They remind me very much of the crazed rants by the members of the Anti Nazi League, or whatever they're called, and similar so-called free speech, democracy, et al, mobs that abound nowadays, and work only to an end that is wholly opposite to what they frenziedly screech about. To my way of thinking your lot are clowns and have well and truly buggered up Britain, if you did but know it.

The pity of it, of course, is that you don't.

+1
Word

Thanks chum.

Fight the good fight, or 'keep on, keepin'on'. 8)

blackpanther

mercsport wrote:

blackpanther wrote:

mercsport wrote:

[ As for: "admittedly I am complete 'guardian reader' who is very liberal minded, quite pro-immigration, gay rights and so forth with an education in sociology and politics." There, you've admitted it; you've been brainwashed!
However, more seriously, how can you declare yourself to be liberal minded when your posts are so ruddy splenetic? They remind me very much of the crazed rants by the members of the Anti Nazi League, or whatever they're called, and similar so-called free speech, democracy, et al, mobs that abound nowadays, and work only to an end that is wholly opposite to what they frenziedly screech about. To my way of thinking your lot are clowns and have well and truly buggered up Britain, if you did but know it.

The pity of it, of course, is that you don't.

+1
Word

Thanks chum.

Fight the good fight, or 'keep on, keepin'on'. 8)

EZ white boy.

Church

passout

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Porgy wrote:

passout wrote:

The press don't cause Brits to dislike cyclists - they simply reflect it. It makes you appreciate the French doesn't it?

Bit of both I think. Once an irrational view is reflected in print it becomes legitimised.

If there was suddenly an openly racist paper in the newsagents then you would see a rise in the fortunes of the BNP.

Don't underestimate the power of a newspaper - why do you think Murdoch is so powerful - it's not the money - it's the influence that owning media can swing.

+1, not least because it becomes part of the cycle cliché checklist, but it appears to convince the gormless, otherwise incapable of thinking of it, that cyclists are worthy scapegoats.

There may be some truth in what you guys say but I really don't think that the DM sways opinion too much. These papers are important for advertising & PR (including for political parties) but I think that modern day tabloid journalism panders to their market - or at least who they think their market is. I actually think that they underestimate their readers quite often. Once it is cliche though then I guess you have a point - such reporting could confirm it - but isn't it too late then anyway? Still it's lazy journalism whatever...

Porgy

blackpanther wrote:

"do gooder" in this use, i mean it as a nice way of saying pious liberal spouting Britain haters. Easily identified by hand wringing and bullying using words like Racist or homophobe or sexist as a means of shouting down those that dont see things the same way as they do.

The effect of this shouting and cause hijaking is usually to increase or create tension and division and directly cause or inflame the problems they (supposedly ) seek to right.

Do gooders have populated government and undermined and damaged this country ireprably over the last 30 years with breathtaking cynism. EG Labour government policy to allow unfettered immigration to effect social change and underpin the Labour partys plans for cultural and political change at the expense of the established population. i.e. make the tories unelectable. Self serving in the extreme and supported by all the weak minded "do gooders" using accusations of racism or discrimination to bully..

well, it's a point of view.

I assume from this that you don't believe that actual racism does really exist.

Coming from the west country where my grandad and my cousin (and many others) used to regularly rant about the "coons", "wogs" or "niggers" - my grandad literally believed that black people had just come down from the trees - I can tell you that if so you are sadly deluded, or maybe just very sheltered from life's realities. If so good luck to you and try not to burst a blood vessel, eh?

blackpanther

Im not saying it doesnt exist, im saying its not as bad (generally) as some would have us believe. And im saying that the Antis stir up a lot of anger and at times create or inflame a problem that doesnt manifest itself in any negative way.

And what if youre grandfather "actually" believed blacks had come down from the trees? initself does that make him racist? ill educated is an entirely different thing.

Porgy

blackpanther wrote:

And what if youre grandfather "actually" believed blacks had come down from the trees? initself does that make him racist? ill educated is an entirely different thing.

hmmmmm


no comment.

Porgy

blackpanther wrote:

Im not saying it doesnt exist, im saying its not as bad (generally) as some would have us believe. And im saying that the Antis stir up a lot of anger and at times create or inflame a problem that doesnt manifest itself in any negative way..

I live in an area where the BNP/ National Front have a long history of stirring up racial hatred and intimidating people so please excuse me if I can't accept a word of what you say.

blackpanther

Im talking about generally not locally. Are you talking about parts of the NorthWest? that part of the country has seen a huge shift in make up over the last 20 years, whenever theres big change like that coupled with other difficulties such as the ecconomy there will always be resentment for people like the BNP to take advantage of. In Many ways the BNP is the other side of the liberal antiracism pendulum, and to a certain extent had pro immigration britain hating liberalism been more robustly questioned many of the problems we face as a country today would be less (locally) acute.

BTW the commision for equality acknowledges that things have come a long way and more subtle approaches are needed. Its no longer acceptable or constructive to bang the antiracism drum and we only need look at the met to see how much abuse and misery that particular self serving tune can cause.

passout

I'm from the North West and I don't think that racism here is any worse than the rest of the country (I moved around quite a bit). However some towns here are segregated, there is no denying that. I'm not saying that racism here isn't a problem, my point is that it's a problem in any multi-racial part of the UK especially if you factor in levels of poverty.

Blackpanther - I disagree with the 'do-gooders' as 'Britain haters' rant. It sounds like an over-elaborate way of saying that you disagree with Labours immigration policy. The Labour movement is not anti-Britain, it just has left wing routes. Also I suspect that these powerful Dan Brownesque 'Do Gooders' don't exist! You'll find many real Do-Gooders running community projects, youth clubs and spending their time trying to make a difference (excuse the cliche). If they want to protest in an anti-racism rally, that's their right, just as it is the BNPs right hold their rallies.

blackpanther

The first from the telegraph highlighting the plan to make GB multicultural through mass immigration, the second from the guardian (not a right wing paper so presumably beyond reproach) with the same guy saying it had been twisted by a right wing paper and that the “Main” purpose of policy was to meet a skills gap. Presumably a secondary goal was mass cultural change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/26/labour-immigration-plot-andrew-neather[url][/url]

Westerberg

Now i like mark walker, bit i also like blackpanther. But who is best??????

softlad

passout wrote:

You'll find many real Do-Gooders running community projects, youth clubs and spending their time trying to make a difference (excuse the cliche). If they want to protest in an anti-racism rally, that's their right, just as it is the BNPs right hold their rallies.

good point, well made. It's a shame that the phrase 'do gooder' has been hijacked to imply something completely the opposite....

blackpanther

blackpanther wrote:

The first from the telegraph highlighting the plan to make GB multicultural through mass immigration, the second from the guardian (not a right wing paper so presumably beyond reproach) with the same guy saying it had been twisted by a right wing paper and that the “Main” purpose of policy was to meet a skills gap. Presumably a secondary goal was mass cultural change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/26/labour-immigration-plot-andrew-neather[url][/url]

Of course the origin of this was Andrew neathers own article in the evening standard

"Mass migration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural," he wrote in in the London Evening Standard.

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if it wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."

passout

If the above is correct, then they certainly weren't 'do-gooders' and liberalism has little to do with it. Its more cynical party politics. Interesting as it is, I hope its wrong.

blackpanther

Sadly its not wrong. its very cynical and has temporarily stunned the lefties into silence on this thread.

Which is nice.

It is using race issues to enforce liberalism. Create issues then shout about them. most disgraceful.

Church

simonaspinall

All this still means the daily mail is woeful.

Porgy

blackpanther wrote:

Im talking about generally not locally. Are you talking about parts of the NorthWest?

Nope - south east London - specifically Welling, Plumstead. A little island of hardline racism and homophobia.

BTW the commision for equality acknowledges that things have come a long way and more subtle approaches are needed. Its no longer acceptable or constructive to bang the antiracism drum and we only need look at the met to see how much abuse and misery that particular self serving tune can cause.

I don't recognise the stereotype your painting here to be honest - maybe 30 years ago - but i haven;t seen this sort of anti-racist activism around here for a long time.

Also - would like to declare myself as not a lefty and not a supporter of any political party, so i'm not going to get involved in any sort of party political based discussion here.

Race is a very tricky issue - soemthing i'd rather discuss face to face than on an internet forum tbh.

I'm not sure that the UK's immigration policy is rooted in political ideology or multiculturalism, and no party is being honest on the subject.

the reason we allow the level of immigration is a simple business imperative. after years of failing to invest in skills for the future and providing decent salaries for the people who are most important for creating a modern economy (not bankers!) we have a severe skills shortage coupled with the fact that English people seem to have developed an unwillingness to take on low paid physically demanding short term seasonal unskilled work. I can't think why :roll:

blackpanther

Porgy said the reason we allow the level of immigration is a simple business imperative. after years of failing to invest in skills for the future and providing decent salaries for the people who are most important for creating a modern economy (not bankers!) we have a severe skills shortage coupled with the fact that English people seem to have developed an unwillingness to take on low paid physically demanding short term seasonal unskilled work. I can't think why
Not strictly true though is it? You are right about one thing though internet forums are not conducive to sensible discussions of this type.

what are your thoughts on the Andrew Neathers admissions?

Porgy

blackpanther wrote:

what are your thoughts on the Andrew Neathers admissions?

I'll have to let you know later as today is turning out to be quite a busy one at work. Liberties eh? :roll


EDIT - had a quick scan through articles - the needs for skills was certainly still a factor even in Neather's take - I actually find it hard to believe that blair's lot would have any sort of ideological drive tbh - especially Jack straw. I think it may have been a smokescreen to make the policy acceptable to the parliamentary party/ party members.

passout

blackpanther wrote:

Porgy said the reason we allow the level of immigration is a simple business imperative. after years of failing to invest in skills for the future and providing decent salaries for the people who are most important for creating a modern economy (not bankers!) we have a severe skills shortage coupled with the fact that English people seem to have developed an unwillingness to take on low paid physically demanding short term seasonal unskilled work. I can't think why
Not strictly true though is it? You are right about one thing though internet forums are not conducive to sensible discussions of this type.

what are your thoughts on the Andrew Neathers admissions?

I agree that there is a skills gap in some areas but the bigger point here is our lousy benefits system which discourages our underclass to bite the bullet and get a job. However i am in danger of sounding like a DM reader on this issue - I'm off...

Porgy

passout wrote:

blackpanther wrote:

Porgy said the reason we allow the level of immigration is a simple business imperative. after years of failing to invest in skills for the future and providing decent salaries for the people who are most important for creating a modern economy (not bankers!) we have a severe skills shortage coupled with the fact that English people seem to have developed an unwillingness to take on low paid physically demanding short term seasonal unskilled work. I can't think why
Not strictly true though is it? You are right about one thing though internet forums are not conducive to sensible discussions of this type.

what are your thoughts on the Andrew Neathers admissions?

I agree that there is a skills gap in some areas but the bigger point here is our lousy benefits system which discourages our underclass to bite the bullet and get a job. However i am in danger of sounding like a DM reader on this issue - I'm off...

I agree lousy benefits system which penalises people for getting a job. Nothing daily Mail about that unless you blame the claimants and not a succession of governments