Rioting in UK capital

[Chris]

Are you genuinely suggesting that Turks and Indians have the same colour skin as a pale Englishman?

??????

Englishmen (and women) have all sorts of skin colours. Haven't you noticed?

[Fleetwood Mac]

??????

Englishmen (and women) have all sorts of skin colours. Haven't you noticed?

Not the Englishmen to which I'm referring.

Don't you get bored of all this bollocks? Probably not as it suits your purposes to turn a discussion that started out concerned with out and out criminality among Britain's youth, largely black British youth, into one of 'racism'.

Well done mate, you've succeeded in derailing the original chat. Now do bore off eh.

[Robert]

Hi Errata

Well, suppose someone turned a man down for a job because he thought he was a Martian. Could he be charged with discrimination against Martians?

Strictly speaking, of course, the Native Americans are what they have always been - whatever that is.

[Chris]

Don't you get bored of all this bollocks? Probably not as it suits your purposes to turn a discussion that started out concerned with out and out criminality among Britain's youth, largely black British youth, into one of 'racism'.

How absolutely bizarre.

You post endlessly on this thread about race and "skin colour." And then you accuse other people of trying to divert the discussion on to the subject of race!

In answer to your question - yes, I get extremely bored with all this bollocks.

[jason_c]

How is that relevant to the post you were replying to? What Fleetwood Mac claimed was that BBC journalists "pontificat[ed] about how it's not their fault."

Did you hear any BBC journalists saying that it wasn't their fault? Did anyone hear any BBC journalists saying that it wasn't their fault?

I was replying to the exact same frickin post that you were replying to.

And its relevant as it shows an attempt by many in the media(not just the BBC) to rationalize and understand these "protests".

[Celesta]

Pakistanis are Moslems but are not white. They are, however, Caucasian, as are Indians.

What is a race? Are the Celts a race? And if so, is it racial discrimination for a Welsh employer to turn down an Irish job applicant in favour of a Welsh one? One would think it impossible. Similarly, if Anglo-Saxons are a race then a British Anglo-Saxon cannot racially discriminate against a German in favour of a British A-S - it isn't logically possible.

On the other hand, if you only have Causasians, Negroes and Mongoloids, then a white British employer cannot racially discriminate against an Indian in favour of a white Briton, because it isn't logically possible.

"Race" is a more or less useless word.

True, Robert. Race has nothing to do with color and those people that you listed, Pakistanis and Indians are considered to be 'Causcasian'. Race and ethnicity are different. So called racial characteristics are generalized, but "racial" physical characteristics generally reflect environmental adaptations and regional trends and even these are superficial genetically.

[Chris]

I was replying to the exact same frickin post that you were replying to.

Well, perhaps you got a bit confused when you were replying, because what you posted appeared as a reply to my post, not to that preceding post, which was why it was difficult to see its relevance.

And just for the record, what I had asked Fleetwood Mac to provide evidence for was the claim that BBC journalists had said that it wasn't the rioters' fault. Nothing to do with describing the riots as "protests." That was just another thing Fleetwood Mac substituted for his original claim, in order to make it sound less unreasonable. (Just like the substitution of "this isn't about race" for the wish that "the black sections of this country" would "*** off back to Africa or Jamaica.")

As for the BBC describing what happened in Tottenham on Saturday as a "protest," that's not surprising, because there was a protest in Tottenham on Saturday, about the shooting of Mark Duggan by the police. That's where the trouble started.

[Robert]

Hi Celesta

Well, as you go south in Europe people become more olive-skinned (some of them anyway). In Africa, the Kenyans etc on the east side aren't as black as the folk on the west side. In England, there are certain kinds of face which crop up in certain areas, though all the people are English. It's a very confused picture. The words "race," "racial" and "racist" are blunderbuss words and I wish all people, Left and Right, would stop using them except where definite genetic beliefs are concerned.

[Celesta]

Hi Celesta

Well, as you go south in Europe people become more olive-skinned (some of them anyway). In Africa, the Kenyans etc on the east side aren't as black as the folk on the west side. In England, there are certain kinds of face which crop up in certain areas, though all the people are English. It's a very confused picture. The words "race," "racial" and "racist" are blunderbuss words and I wish all people, Left and Right, would stop using them except where definite genetic beliefs are concerned.

Hi Robert. Yes, I think you're right.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Well, perhaps you got a bit confused when you were replying, because what you posted appeared as a reply to my post, not to that preceding post, which was why it was difficult to see its relevance.

And just for the record, what I had asked Fleetwood Mac to provide evidence for was the claim that BBC journalists had said that it wasn't the rioters' fault. Nothing to do with describing the riots as "protests." That was just another thing Fleetwood Mac substituted for his original claim, in order to make it sound less unreasonable. (Just like the substitution of "this isn't about race" for the wish that "the black sections of this country" would "*** off back to Africa or Jamaica.")

As for the BBC describing what happened in Tottenham on Saturday as a "protest," that's not surprising, because there was a protest in Tottenham on Saturday, about the shooting of Mark Duggan by the police. That's where the trouble started.

Except they were describing these out-and-out criminals as 'protestors' 2 days after the shooting.

Do you think looting and burning people's property is 'protest'?

And of course 'protest' suggests cause and effect.

[Chris]

Except they were describing these out-and-out criminals as 'protestors' 2 days after the shooting.

The shooting was on Thursday. The protest in Tottenham was on Saturday. Your calculation of two days is correct.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The shooting was on Thursday. The protest in Tottenham was on Saturday. Your calculation of two days is correct.

The BBC were calling them 'protestors' 2 days after the initial 'protest'. Do you agree with the BBC's use of the word 'protestors' two days after the initial 'protest'?

[Chris]

The BBC were calling them 'protestors' 2 days after the initial 'protest'. Do you agree with the BBC's use of the word 'protestors' two days after the initial 'protest'?

It's extremely difficult to make sense of what you're saying.

You complained above that the BBC was "describing these out-and-out criminals as 'protestors' 2 days after the shooting."

That would be Saturday. Obviously on Saturday there was a protest against the shooting.

If you're referring to another day than Saturday, say so, and quote what you're claiming that the BBC said, preferably with a link.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It's extremely difficult to make sense of what you're saying.

You complained above that the BBC was "describing these out-and-out criminals as 'protestors' 2 days after the shooting."

That would be Saturday. Obviously on Saturday there was a protest against the shooting.

If you're referring to another day than Saturday, say so, and quote what you're claiming that the BBC said, preferably with a link.

Seems you're oblivious to the public outcry against the BBC on the back of the BBC continuing to call them protestors 2 days after the initial 'march' to the police station, as well as senior BBC officials having to do an about turn in public; which, I suppose, means I'm wasting my time talking to someone who's getting involved in a subject on which he knows little.

If you don't know then don't blather - that's the common approach. But, out of curiosity, do you always need a link to contribute to a conversation? Quick google and you'll find it, but it seems you're too lazy to do that.

Over and out.

[Chris]

Fleetwood Mac

Unless you're willing to explain what exactly you're alleging, and to provide evidence for your allegations, then it really is a waste of time trying to discuss anything with you.

Can you really not even tell us what day you are talking about? The Saturday, or another day?

And is it really unreasonable to ask you to provide us with some evidence for your assertions? I repeat, anyone can make up any lie, and then when challenged fall back on "find out for yourself using Google." What on earth is the point of trying to discuss anything on that basis?