pk

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's assumptions being made all over the place, > surely I'm allowed a couple myself you say "assumption", i say "prejudice" either way it seems that you admit you've drawn your conclusions without much reference to "facts" ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm intrigued that it's ME who's a racist !! there needn't be only one set of prejudiced people here

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How can you say KK is racist from what he has > said? It's not like the shop keepers he's > supporting are white British skin heads is it. > > Stupid unnecessary comment. he assumes (without any facts that he's willing to share): that the victim of a beating is a "wannabe gangster who's never worked for anything himself" that "profiling" black people (seemingly as a whiole) as the perpetrators of crime is reasonable and that it's useful to ask khan's which group they get "poncing, thieving and intimidation from" (again assuming that it reasonable to make generalisations about ethnic groups that "basically some bruvvas tried to bully the Khan's staff and got owned, they're used to getting their way through rough talk and intimidation but they fell short this time" and "brought-up on gangster hip-hop and dominating people" and in general there's a general refusal to believe any allegations made by black people here (given the above stereotypes) even tho he doesn't claim to know any facts if think that racism must be associated with supporting "white british skinheads" may be you're pretty naive yourself

Bellenden Belle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Kidkruger - Your post is as unhelpful and as full > of assumptions as those defending the protesters. > > and when taken with the rest of KK's contribution on this thread (s)he's clearly (and maybe proudly) racist/ignorant/illogical

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Loz Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > >> > > > If she can't be bothered, why should I? > > > > > > > because it might avoid offending people? > > Sorry, but if the person you yourself quoted as > publicly pushing this linguistic policing exercise > can't be bothered following it herself, then I > really can't be bothered. I don't try to offend > people, but if people (like you) want to got out > of their way to take unneeded offence then, > really, that's their (and your) problem, not > mine. > i quoted an example, there are many more (even some dictionaries acknowledge this) i've no problem here, just perhaps a little more empathy > > > > > PS I hope you are going to write to that > famous charity "Riding for the Disabled" and tell > them to > > > change their terribly offensive name. > > > > why do you hope that? > > Well, you are the one that seems to be bothered > about the use of the phrase 'the disabled'. I > hate to think you were being hypocritical by > looking the other way on that example. you clearly struggle with the fact that context (and history) can impact on the way in which words are used, RFD have used that name for many years and have built goodwill in it (and indeed use that goodwill for charitable purposes) so i won't be lobbying them to change just as i didn't lobby the (then) spastic society to change its name (although they did themselves decide to do so as the usage of and associations with the word 'spastic' changed over time (as language does)) anyway, reckon that's it for me on this one

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >> > If she can't be bothered, why should I? > because it might avoid offending people? > PS I hope you are going to write to that famous > charity "Riding for the Disabled" and tell them to > change their terribly offensive name. why do you hope that?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > i'm a bit late to this but to me, i find some > of > > the above to be pretty patronising and ill > > considered, although i am sure not > intentionally > > offensive > > > > the use of the term 'the disabled' (and > similarly > > 'them') (as in 'i'd be desparate to employ > them') > > as if 'they' are a single homogenous group who > > should all be lumped together is something that > i > > know e.g. baroness grey-thompson has objected > to > > in recent days. > > > > i doubt that people would be similarly > comfortable > > speaking about other groups who suffer from > > discrimination in the same way, would people > > really say e.g. 'the gays'? > > Sorry? You are getting wound up by the use of the > definite article? Blimey, some people must get up > extra early some days in order to find things to > get offended by. i am not wound up or offended at all, thanks but i do try not to do things that i am aware might offend or patronise others (given that i've read articles on the same in the last few days) and which can be easily avoided (which it seems that you think is not worth (even neglible) effort on your part)

i'm a bit late to this but to me, i find some of the above to be pretty patronising and ill considered, although i am sure not intentionally offensive the use of the term 'the disabled' (and similarly 'them') (as in 'i'd be desparate to employ them') as if 'they' are a single homogenous group who should all be lumped together is something that i know e.g. baroness grey-thompson has objected to in recent days. i doubt that people would be similarly comfortable speaking about other groups who suffer from discrimination in the same way, would people really say e.g. 'the gays'?

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I was genuinely proud to be British for a couple > of weeks- but it doesn't take much to remind you > what's really important to the people of this > country. and what's that? moaning and cynicism?

Beer in The Evening? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely as a campaigner against racism > he'd be familiar with the standard definition of > racism? what is that then?

Jessie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I find it unnerving that you put photos of people > up on an internet forum i think it's wrong - so open to abuse

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > has someone passed a law making it > illegal to be a complete a***hole? someone passed a law (in 1998) that made it an offence to send indecent, offensive or threatening communications and i believe that the investigation here was into such a 'malicious communication'

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That story merely relates that the new London > Routemaster doesn't fall within current EU > legislation. > > Since there are no other back platform double > deckers this isn't exactly surprising is it? > what i don't get is that if the routemaster's strength is that the old one was a london icon (which didn't successfully export elsewhere (as far as i am aware) not even elsewhere in this country). why this one would be a successful export overseas when no else in the world seems to think that there's a market for back platform double deckers?

thanks

Bellenden Jo Wrote: Did need to ask where is was > though, as it wasn't sign posted anywhere. So are there any tips for others trying to find it?

Annette Curtain Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it feels more like it's suited to functions than for drinking or > dining. > and i think that's where they make their money (and i am sure that it's pretty good money once all the wedding premiums are added)

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is somewhat ironic that a community should be > willing to protect a minority working unsociable > hours when its convenient to them, but not to > support a minority of families and elderly people > who need to park close to their houses when it's > inconvenient ;-) > > Double standards that perhaps reveal a more > selfish motivation? so do you really think that CPZ's are put into place to 'support a minority of families and elderly people who need to park close to their houses'? wouldn't it then be more appropriate to limit the scheme to securing parking for those groups? or shouldn't other steps be taken for these purposes e.g. the creation of disabled parking bays (which is pretty much the main/only reason that i can think of that means people need to park right outside their houses) and to meet genuine needs without charges?

MrCheeky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > yes i belive they are innocent and so do many > other people. but not twelve of their peers who actually heard all the evidence and the arguments presented by both sides and taking it all into account thought that they were both guilty beyond reasonable doubt

LauraHW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd like to raise the profile of this appalling > and utterly insulting article in the > Daily Mail today. > > I'm so incensed I don't even know where to start! why do you want to 'raise the profile' of something appalling and insulting?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Turned on Radio 4 this morning half way through a > discussion about this, and they pointed out that > in a law court, it would need to be proven beyond > reasonable doubt, whereas in this case, it was > just based on what the panel deemed as more > likely. they were probably talking about JT not Suarez here - 'beyond reasonable doubt' is for criminal offences, otherwise it's on the 'balance of probabilities'

i'll be interested to see if the FA have the balls to give the same to JT i can't see why they shouldn't but as they've had him act as England's captain since the Anton incident, i'd be surprised

why not phone him up and tell him about your frustrations?

Monkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have you got an axe to grind? certainly looks that way doesn't it to me it's wrong to name and bad mouth an individual (and to suggest that they should be sacked) on a public forum based on some unidentified 'bad press'

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The idea of an album as a complete body of work > that should be listened to as a whole, has always > struck me as rather silly and pretentious. Even > before CDs, I never listened to music in that way. i've always thought that was what made some albums special - like innervisions which i still listen to from start to end occasionally (and still probably think of as side A and side B) may be that makes me pretentious, but i don't think so

if it's only one i'd have to agree with songs in the key of life (may be in part as it's a double, with bonus tracks) i'd put innervisions next

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Why can't one parent concede that exposing a child > to public house where alcohol is consumed may not > be the best option for welfare of the CHILD ? > > so what is the best option for of child welfare?