Daily Mail readers show their true colours

[????]

he'd have liked it in 1980 down Billy's though Sean

*disclaimer NO I WAS NOT A NEW ROMANTIC

[Jeremy]

I'm confused... are we still talking about the topic of mixed race relationships?

If so, then the racial and cultural/social issues are not always easy to separate. This is why such a relationship may present it's own set of challenges. Every situation is unique though... I don't care much for quoting of statistics (on one side) or sweeping statements that race is irrelevant (on the other side).

[mockney piers]

Relationships are hard full stop and made none the easier today with economic pressures, social changes and evolving gender roles. Culture may play a factor in that, something I can vouch for in a marriage between an atheist, sunarban spaniard and an Irish catholic farm girl.

We share fiery tempers and centuries of oppression by the church, frm that point on it's for human beings to overcme all the difficulties that living together for the rest of ones life throws up.

'Mixed race' bleating is a red herring, and if there are more kids in homes I'll warrant because people are more likely to meet each other across racial divides in inner cities than in home counties housing estates and will consequently have more economic and social woes than their suburban 'unmixed' counterparts.

Becase of course a dry statistic is essentially meanngless without further analysis, even a made up one ;)

[SeanMacGabhann]

Jeremy, when you say "the other side" are saying race is irrelevant, it is Tony who is claiming

"p.s For the umpteenth time its NOT, REPEAT NOT, about "colour" but the loss of "Culture" that is bemoaned..."

[Sherwick]

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> 'mixed race' bleating is a red herring, and if

> there are morekids I'm homes I'll warrant because

> people are more likely to meet each other across

> racial divides in inner cities than in home

> counties housing estates and will consequently

> have more economic and social woes than their

> suburban 'unmixed' counterparts.

>

> Becase of course a dry statistic is essentially

> meanngless without further analysis, even a made

> up one ;)

Absolutely. Reminds me of a very important lesson I was taught in Stats class in Uni: the lecturer displayed stats that showed that in the 1960s, afro-carribeans had a higher birt -rate than whites. He then asked the class why this was so. Of course this class (including me) gave all the usual stupid reasons, e.g. afro-carribeans like sex more etc. etc. The teacher (a white English male) then gave the real reason: it was a fact that huge majority of afro-carribean people coming to the UK in the 1960s were in their 20s - therefore when they came here they were at exactly the right age to have children, which is what they did. The cohort of whites though included all whites in the UK, and therefore, of all age groups. The cohort of afro-carribeans also included all ACs in the UK, but a very high percentage of the total cohort were in their 20s. This was the only reason why the birth rates differed (and this was proven by isolating whites in the same age-group)!

[Jeremy]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> Jeremy, when you say "the other side" are saying

> race is irrelevant, it is Tony who is claiming

>

> "p.s For the umpteenth time its NOT, REPEAT NOT,

> about "colour" but the loss of "Culture" that is

> bemoaned..."

SMG, I don't want to get the issues mixed up, I am not complaining about the loss of culture. I am saying that it is an over-simplification to say that race is irrelevant in a relationship (in my experience).

[taper]

Tony

"There are more Mixed-Raced children in Foster Homes throughout The UK than Black children with White children coming a distant third"

A quick Googgle shows that the ethnicity of children in care is as follows: White 79%, Mixed 8%, Asian 3%; Black 8% (source - http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/EIA%20Final.doc). So mixed and black children are over-represented, but your stats are cobblers.

"I've read several times b4 ( This time I do not recall where) that 75% of Mixed-Raced Partnerships fail"

The only source I found for that statistic was Stormfront (is that where you got your care data?). Studies from Germany show no difference in divorce rates. But others have identified a difference. The best discussion and digest I found on the net (here -http://www.soc.utah.edu/~vfu/papers/divorce20090513.pdf ) concluded:

"We find that crossing the Latino/White boundary in marriage does elevate divorce rates but crossing the Black/White divide does not. Marriages between Whites and African-Americans dissolve at higher rates than endogamous White marriages because the intermarriages contain a Black spouse [who divorce at higher rates), not because they are intermarriages."

[Sherwick]

taper Wrote:

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

> The only source I found for that statistic was

> Stormfront (is that where you got your care

> data?).

Alas, I suspect that Tony does get much of his 'data' from Stormfront.

:(

[mockney piers]

Oh dear re the Latino White thing. Mind you I seem to recall frm somewhere that the Irish are the blacks of Europe so I should be fine!!!

[Huguenot]

Great job Taper, point's well made

[AllforNun]

thanks

[Tony.London Suburbs]

taper Wrote:

"I've read several times b4 ( This time I do not recall where) that 75% of Mixed-Raced Partnerships fail"

The only source I found for that statistic was Stormfront (is that where you got your care data?).

As YOU are the only one who has seen this on "Stormfront", kindly return to that Site and Cut 'n Paste where they say about the 75% Figure. The reason I'm asking is to make sure you are not lying to discredit me as you have said I must have seen the same thing and got responses from the ususl suspects on the basis that you are telling the truth that that figure is there.

Obviuosly you can't lie and say I've seen something that you invented, so please show me where it is on their Site.

This will be easy as you have already located it.

Secondly you and everybody else have, VERY conveniently, skipped over the findings to show that I was right that Mixed-Raced children are nearly THREE TIMES more present in Foster/Care Homes than the proportion of their numbers.

Funny how no-one has tried to explain why that is!

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Huguenot: Now we KNOW, officially, that there are THREE TIMES more Mixed-Raced children in The UK in Foster/Care Homes compared with the proportion of their numbers then why is this do you think?

p.s I DID ask you why there were more before but as we now have the definitive answer then why is this?

[david_carnell]

Err, Tony, did you not read Pier's post?

'Mixed race' bleating is a red herring, and if there are more kids in homes I'll warrant because people are more likely to meet each other across racial divides in inner cities than in home counties housing estates and will consequently have more economic and social woes than their suburban 'unmixed' counterparts.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Sherwick Wrote:

.. it was a fact that huge majority of afro-carribean people coming to the UK in the 1960s were in their 20s -

therefore when they came here they were at exactly the right age to have children, which is what they

did. The cohort of whites though included all whites in the UK, and therefore, of all age groups. The cohort of afro-carribeans also included all ACs in the UK, but a very high percentage of the total cohort were in their 20s. This was the only reason why the birth rates differed (and this was proven by isolating whites in the same age-group)!

YOU have introduced the Subject of Black Birth-Rates and in this case your comments make sense, in respect of 1960's Britain.

As this Site is for Fun we will leave it there.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Actually taper, I have just examined further something that I wrote and you intrepreted earlier on this very thread.

It seems you might have a bit of "previous"....

I wrote:

"99% of them were White/British, which was representative of British Society then. "

I was correctly stating that during The Last 2 World Wars (the Subject matter) that 99% of the people fighting from Britain were White, which, as I correctly said, was "representative of British Society then".

I'm sure no-one would argue that was the case back in the Early and Mid 20th Century.

YOU intrepreted and QUOTED me as saying:

"99% of the people who died in the last wars were white British fighting FOR THE WHITE BRITISH PEOPLE"

and then to ridicule something that you invented that I never said you added...

"It's just not true. The Axis powers were fighting for notions of racial purity. But not us. Read Churchills's speeches and tell me where he talks about fighting for the "white British people"

You are informing me that "something is not true" that YOU said and falsely attributed to me !

Then you want me to "tell" you something that YOU invented in the first place and even asked where "Churchill talks about fighting for the "white british people"..a phrase that YOU invented and you have written it as if you are quoting me when I never said that...

For the record YOU wrote that phrase NOT me!

So far to say I'm not impressed is an understatement but, at least, redeem yourself, partially, by showing us all that Stormfront quote that you have definitely seen on their Site please.

[mockney piers]

Well, the full quote was "As you know millions died in the last 2 World Wars fighting for Freedom for Britain and the British people.

99% of them were White/British, which was representative of British Society then."

which by any measure is patently absurd, both in numbers (millions across the empire fought, not died, the millions who died were vastly Russian, Chinese and german civilains and european jews) and sentiment, doing a huge disservice to the carribeans, Africans, Indians, canadians, antipodeans etc who fought for Britain, leave alone the Poles in the RAF to whom this nation owes a debt of gratitude, but we know about your penchant for making up nonsense to support your points.

More soldiery died in the first war, perhaps a million empire deaths across the 2 wars, but then noone was fighting for British freedom in the first one, just a whole stupid fuck up (in defence of a fast eroding global hegemony which is actually fighting to prevent others' freedom from our rule) noone had enough imagination to avoid or stop.

[taper]

Google "inter-racial-marriages, stormfront" and you'll find it. i'm not linking to that filth.

[taper]

On 16 June at 1-30pm you said "99% of the 7 Million Londoners were White in 1965". I showed you this was cobblers

You claimed more mixed race children were in care than white children. I showed you this was cobblers

You talk cobblers. And offensive cobblers at that.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Another ploy of Tony's is to spend... ooooh 5 paragraphs or so complaining that someone hasn't responded to a point of his

Several people rebut some of his points and he just ignores them

I don't know why I mention it, I'm only going to get slimed again

[mockney piers]

Oh god. What a loathsome site.

Can't help that stylistically this quote is familiar.

I can't put my finger on why though.

" 3) Domestic violence is far more prevalent among mixed couples than among Whites. We need only to cite the O.J. Simpson-Nicole Brown marriage as evidence for this."??

[Jeremy]

Mockney... is that really what it says? My God.

A relationship is complex and unique, to be honest I don't find the crude application of statistics at all helpful.

[blah]

Stormfront - now thats a site for lifes winners innit

[SeanMacGabhann]

Do life's winners also put coded messages as their sig?

[blah]

why does everything have to be interpreted as a dig at the site admin ? this is SO tiresome

*yawn*

it is a petty attention seeking little goad that will hopefully irk the proto fascists that seem to have crawled out of the woodwork of late and pushed their vitriolic nasty hateful agendas at every oppportunity