Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In the Stephen Lawrence enquiry, Sir William Macpherson described insitutional racism in the Met police as follows:


"the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin", which "can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes, and behaviour, which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping, which disadvantages minority ethnic people".


I don't think that's describing an organisation that needs a white police association to push white interests. In the absence of any justifcation I would not support it.


The BPA is there to help adddress discrimination, and to do it in away that strives for equality and fairness for all.


It is not pushing a black agenda - it's offering a balancing perspective in an organisation that needs the help.


You can't see that because all you can see is their skin colour.

Claudia Drezner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The term white trash specifically focuses on a

> single race, then equates it with

> trash/rubbish/unwanted items. It would be equally

> racist to identify blacks with scum by saying

> 'black scum'.


Claudia, the term 'white trash' is never used in the way that you say it is. It is a derogatory term used to describe white people who live in trailer parks in America. The sterotype is that they are ill-educated and poor. Kind of how in Britain the word chav is used.

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> I hate it when Sydenham gets tough with you

> BBW/CD, because then you come on here and piss

> vinegar everywhere again. Go huff and puff

> somewhere else


Very sorry SJ. Do you think CD has convinced anybody?

Racism is part of a spectrum of instinctive behaviours that underlie human evolution.


It prevented societies based on fierce inter-tribal hostility and cannibalism from disappearing in a self-destructive feeding frenzy. Our cannibal ancestors were able to eat neighbouring tribes because instinctive racism enabled them to draw a distinction between ?us? and ?them?.


It was a very successful survival strategy that made us what we are today. Evolution has yet to catch up with civilised, ethnically diverse societies.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > She is the worst type of white trash.

>

>

> Racist......


BTW. I posted this on reading ottas post and without reading any posts in between. My immediate thought was that if the word white was replaced with black then the comment would automatically be considered racist.

I think that's an overly simplistic interpretation of what consititutes racism Mick Mac.


For example, we're all allowed to criticise our own families, but woe betide anyone else that does; or black people describing themselves usuing racially divisive words, or subcontinental people hailing each other as 'Paki'.


In this case the term white trash is being used in the sense of mutual shame, not as an attack on someone for their skin colour.


This is not saying there's one rule for white people and one rule for black people, it's just to highlight that racism depends on what the context is, who is using the term, and what the intent was.

Back to the old slavery thing.


The historical (and logical) interpretation of why there is 'white trash' but no 'black trash' is because a white person who was of distinctly lower class was particularly worthy of remark - whereas black people were not because (by nature of being black) they were already condemned as lower class.


The phrase took on a slightly different slant depending on who used it: used by whites it basically meant (to use language of the time "no better than a n*****") whereas used by blacks it meant "look, there's someone even we can look down on".


Thanks to Springer, Kyle etc the phrase has become widespread, popular, seemingly acceptable - apparently losing its racial element - but it's there all the same.

Fair enough. I admit I'd not thought of it so deeply. I will state quite strongly though that I don't watch Springer or Kyle!


I'm sorry for picking those words, what I basically meant was "nasty racist, uneducated, scum of the earth (who happens to be white)".

Just to add, that I can honestly not remember ever hearing q black person use this phrase (that is not to say they haven't, before someone provides video proof). I've only ever heard white people use it, in the same way that one might use "Chav". That is all that I meant.


Equally, if I was (unintentionally) racist towards this bint, I don't seem to give a shit.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, AFAICS, the "civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300" were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...