pk

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I dont know what you're talking about. if you promise to listen, i'll explain when i've got time but, in short, i think you're too happy to talk about things that you really don't understand - like the undesirable elements that are very vocally present amongst football fans (and have been for decades before BLM) and critical race theory, and to make sweeping inaccurate generalisations about those that you don't agree with by totally misrepresenting what the majority believe > > There's an actual civil discussion going on on > this thread (note sephiroth and I obviously > disagree on this issue, but can manage to discuss > it civilly) - feel free to join in, if you like. > > But, if you just want to come on here to troll and > abuse me, probably best if you just f#ck off > instead. great way to be civil, i must learn to tell you to f off more (to be civil, obvs)

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So you think it?s different people booing > > different things for different reasons? And > that > > those booing moments later are shrewd and > informed > > political intellects rather than xenophobic or > > racist dickheads? > > > > How do you work that out? > > > This isnt a black and white issue (no pun > intended). You're trying to pigeonhole my broad > comments on booing in general to suggest im > specifically talking about one set of individuals > at one football match. Sure...some of the people > who have booed at one or many of the football > matches where booing took place probably have > racist views....but there are a great many people > out there who I would guess that wouldnt be > considered as racist who dont like taking the > knee. How do you explain the Millwall fans > 'turnaround' as discussed above....were the > racists just all busy with something else at the > time of the second match? > > Seph, I think this whole phrasing of the 'marxist' > nature of BLM having driven the booing is a bit of > a strawman made to mock non-political people who > dont like BLM. Lets be real for a second...of > course most people out there dont consider the > 'marxist' nature of BLM and object to them on a > academic/political science level....but I expect > most people hear terms like 'defund the police' > etc and decide they dont like the sound of this > mob. Its not a wildly unreasonable thing to think, > even if you personally dont agree with it. > > Take for example the phrasing that PK has use > above as an exmaple of this strawman as I see > it....so people are either 'shrewd political > intellects' or 'racist d!ckheads'?....that's just > unnecessarily binary...the overwhelming majority > of people will be neither of those two things. > > I think for many progressive types, its worth > asking yourself 'why' people dont like BLM, rather > than simply insisting they must like it, and > concluding that if they dont then they must just > be racist. That's just far too easy. what a hypocrite you are

So you think it?s different people booing different things for different reasons? And that those booing moments later are shrewd and informed political intellects rather than xenophobic or racist dickheads? How do you work that out?

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > I genuinely dont understand the need for the > inverted commas Mal...and more broadly, I > genuinely dont understand the unwillingness of > many 'progressives' (see what I did there:))....to > accept on face value that most people booing > probably arent trying hide their closet racism, > but actually do have a problem with BLM (the > organisation) and view the taking the knee as > tacit support for that specific organisation.... > as self appointed defender of the boo boys, perhaps you can explain why the Croatian national anthem was booed yesterday?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree that?s the EU?s spin on it. > > Problem is it?s jeopardising the GFA but the EU > can?t seem to see that. So you don?t think that we should comply with an agreement that we signed? The problem is surely that we shouldn?t have signed it if it jeopardises the GFA and that people shouldn?t have said it was brilliant when they knew it wasn?t

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think we all know that the constant threats > coming from our ?friends? are about more than > petty officialdom and whether our sausages contain > horse meat or not. Agree, it?s about them expecting us to abide by the terms of a deal that we signed and said was brilliant

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I read a great piece on the booing of kneeling > > > > > https://www.football365.com/news/marxism-booing-kn > > > ee-england-racism-john-nicholson > > Me too.... > > https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/my-advice-to-g > areth-southgate It?d be better if you posted a link people didn?t have to pay to follow

I read a great piece on the booing of kneeling https://www.football365.com/news/marxism-booing-knee-england-racism-john-nicholson

What I find ridiculous is the relentless pretending people have said things that they haven?t, or have said somewhere other than on here that no one is allowed to see

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blimey. You are a petty little man aren't you. > > But you continue to project your bile about me > (little hint...talking about me AGAIN, is really > NOT the 'topic at hand') and celebrate your > ignorance, but banging on with such conviction > about a document that you haven't even read. > > Please take a lesson from EDguy89 about how to > discuss a topic. There was a risk at one point hat > an actual interesting discussion might break out. > Until sephiroth and PK chimed in, with the focus > of their comments on attacking me for daring to > discuss the topic,rather than actually making any > attempt at good faith discussion on the report. What a hypocritical snowflake

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seph and PK...If both of you can get past your > prejudicial dislike of me and my posts and > actually re-read my first two posts on this issue, > you'll see that nowhere have I said I endorse the > report and all its findings. In fact I've actually > specifically said at one stage that I don't agree > with parts of it. And yes, I have also said that > parts of it seem reasonable and sensible, adding a > bit of nuance to some aspects of the discussion, > in my view. > > The focus of my posts is very, very clearly asking > that people who wish to criticise and discuss the > report to please bother reading it, to promote a > discussion based on more than just what you've > read second or third-hand. > > I don't think that's an unreasonable ask. > > But since neither of you can even actually be > bothered reading my posts (which are significantly > shorter than the report) without bile, loathing > and personal insults dripping from your > pores....then perhaps it is unreasonable to ask > people like the both of you....who seemingly base > all your thoughts on what others think, rather > than dare to engage your brain for yourselves. > > Perhaps one of you wants to start a 'We hate > TheCat' thread, so you both don't keep hijacking > other topics constantly. What an egomaniac

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Still nothing to say of any substance then > > > > > Brilliant. You are beyond parody PK. Never change. Still parading your ignorance and question dodging, please change

Still nothing to say of any substance then What?s the point of coming on here to moan about what goes on on your friends FB but not letting anyone see what you?re talking about?

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's fascinating to me that many of the people who > often protest loudly about the need to 'educate > yourself' about racism are the same people who are > dismissing the Sewell report without even > bothering reading it, on the basis on cherry > picked soundbites and mis-represnted excerpts > they've read in the Guardian or on social > media.... > > I had a social media 'debate' today with a number > of people who are calling it a disgrace. As it > happens, Ive actually read most of it....not one > of them had even opened it..... It?s pathetic to me that you claim to have read a report on racism and all you have to say is to criticise unidentifiable people for saying things in a debate that probably no one one here has seen (although it?s clear that?s a tactic you like) Why not provide a link to that debate at least?

Effra Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "On January 1 2021, Britain will get a dose of > regulatory independence, and the EU will get a > dose of regulatory competition" > > Credit to Stephen Dnes, DT Letters today It?s probably more accurate to say that on Jan 1 either Britain will be under a deal that it?s failed to prepare for (unless it changes nothing of any significance or extends transition) or Britain will be in a no deal situation that it?s failed to prepare for Either way Boris is a massive bullsh*ter and has let down all sides

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why would you even ask that question ? > The Cat was just suggesting that dialogue with a > racist might be more fruitful than business > assassination. > > > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > TheCat Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > your original post was poorly worded. > > > > > > "who have you engaged with and proved that > > their > > > views were foolish, ill informed and > > prejudiced?? > > > > You said: > > > > ?Would it not be better to engage this person? > > Attempt to prove how foolish, ill-informed, and > > prejudiced these views are...?? > > > > So I ask you how you do that yourself > > > > It?s quite simple i asked the question because i was curious as to what the person telling others how best to challenge hatred was doing themselves to challenge hatred i understand now that 90% of what that person does is to engage with me on here why are you asking me the question you've asked?

ED Bird Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Realistically, PK, you should be banned from this > forum for being an absolute troll. you should probably raise this with admin

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > TheCat Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > your original post was poorly worded. > > > > ?Would it not be better to engage this person? > > Attempt to prove how foolish, ill-informed, and > > prejudiced these views are...?? > > > > So I ask you how you do that yourself > > > > It?s quite simple > > I do it all the time. > > Probably 90 percent of it is when I engage with > you on here.... 90% of what you do to fight hate is engage with me on here!?! What a prat you are

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > your original post was poorly worded. > > "who have you engaged with and proved that their > views were foolish, ill informed and prejudiced?? You said: ?Would it not be better to engage this person? Attempt to prove how foolish, ill-informed, and prejudiced these views are...?? So I ask you how you do that yourself It?s quite simple

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > TheCat Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > pk Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > so Cat, what is it that you do to 'defeat > > > hate'? > > > > > > > > who have you engaged with and proved that > > their > > > > views were foolish, ill informed and > > > prejudiced? > > > > > > So you dont agree with me that PJ Carpet > > > Cleaning's views were "foolish, ill informed > > and > > > prejudiced"? > > > > > > odd position to take pk. > > > > > > so you've engaged with PJ and explained that > have > > you? > > > > to be clear the thing that you've made up as > being > > my position is something that you've made up > > (probably cos you get kicks out of being > weirdly > > provocative on issues of race) > > As it happens you're the one being provocative > today......I'd be fascinated to hear why you dont > think those views/comments from PJ Carpet Cleaning > are a problematic? > Please show me where I?ve said that (or implied) > No....as you well know....I havent engaged with PJ > carpet cleaning for proof. This is a forum, not a > court of law. Its my opinion based on what I've > seen. It seems like (again an opinion) also > everyone else's view thats posted on this > thread...so why are you not having a go at them > for labelling it 'racial abuse' without any > 'proof'? oh...is it becuased you're once again > blinded by your desire have a go at me about > something/anything? You?re the one going on about engaging not me, but not you don?t seem to be doing it just criticising someone who has I asked what you do to engage and you have no answer

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > so Cat, what is it that you do to 'defeat > hate'? > > > > who have you engaged with and proved that their > > views were foolish, ill informed and > prejudiced? > > So you dont agree with me that PJ Carpet > Cleaning's views were "foolish, ill informed and > prejudiced"? > > odd position to take pk. so you've engaged with PJ and explained that have you? to be clear the thing that you've made up as being my position is something that you've made up (probably cos you get kicks out of being weirdly provocative on issues of race)

so Cat, what is it that you do to 'defeat hate'? who have you engaged with and proved that their views were foolish, ill informed and prejudiced?

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Barnier was NEVER going to agree to what Boris > promised the British People. looks like we're agreeing that Boris is a massive BS merchant

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "But Mr Redwood highlighted a proposition in the > Protocol that stated: ?Nothing in this Protocol > prevents the UK from having unfettered market > access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to > the rest of the UK?s internal market.?" > From the Daily Express > > and > > Justice Secretary Robert Buckland has also > defended the Government's plans to implement the > bill. > > Mr Buckland affirmed the bill was just an > "insurance policy" if solutions to internal trade > could not be reached with the EU. > > which of course- given the pig-headedness and > utter ridiculous attitude of Barnier- will NEVER > be reached. Pathetic desperate Remainer stances > all round. AND who cares about the UK reputation > on the world stage......most of the world stage > has a LOT to do to catch up with the UK. so in summary Boris is a liar who can't be trusted to deliver what he promised to the EU, to parliament and to the British people

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > The world has changed. Every country or group of > nations faces an uncertain future, especially now, > post Covid. > Doesn?t sound like a good time to be exiting trade arrangements with your closest neighbours with nothing to replace them