You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Danny Mills Still Thinks You Are A Racist...
January 25 2022 1.46pm

Danny Mills Still Thinks You Are A Racist...

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 9 of 18 < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >

 

View Maine Eagle's Profile Maine Eagle Flag USA 16 Oct 21 2.03pm Send a Private Message to Maine Eagle Add Maine Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Since you managed to get us both carded, you will be talking to yourself this time.

1 - Iím not responsible for the subtle nuanced replies which you delicately construct in your mind, Hrolfy

2 - I was so upset to get a yellow that I cried myself to sleep last night

 


Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 16 Oct 21 6.46pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Maine Eagle

I am no troll, Hrolfy. I just call what I see.

You and your bud Stirley are very, very open and transparent with your views. Views which I find quite abhorrent to be frank.

Xenophobia, racism and bigotry should never be tolerated, and should always be called out for what they are.

The bad news for your ďmovementĒ, is that Trump will run in 2024 and get his ass handed to him, and right wing dog whistlers will slowly realize they cannot win popular votes in the US or UK.

As far as I know bigotry and xenophobia are not illegal.
Racism is and I don't beleive anyone on here is racist as they would have been arrested straight after being red carded. I thought you were bright enough to see that; maybe you are the silly one!
Why do you constantly report posters after antagonising them?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Maine Eagle's Profile Maine Eagle Flag USA 16 Oct 21 11.18pm Send a Private Message to Maine Eagle Add Maine Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

As far as I know bigotry and xenophobia are not illegal.
Racism is and I don't beleive anyone on here is racist as they would have been arrested straight after being red carded. I thought you were bright enough to see that; maybe you are the silly one!
Why do you constantly report posters after antagonising them?

Just as well for you, cryrst, as they would lock you up and throw away the key.

 


Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View kuge's Profile kuge Flag Peckham 16 Oct 21 11.56pm Send a Private Message to kuge Add kuge as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Please don't give me the one insult is different to another routine. That is crap. An insult is an insult.
It is about time that the media and the victims of such abuse stop pretending otherwise.

You and I might think that insulting people is generally unacceptable, but the media and the police, it seems, only care when it is about racism.

If there is one type of poster who really annoys me it is the ones who deliberately avoid the obvious.

Itís very simple. Racist abuse is against the law in the UK. I would always want the police to enforce the law whenever it is possible. I do not, however, expect the police to be able to enforce the law every time it is broken. Sometimes they will make a judgement that making an arrest is not safe or likely to inflame the situation. They do not and should not ever suggest that it is something that in certain situations and should be ignored.

I am not here to defend the police, I am here to defend the law. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 set out very clearly what is illegal.

If the police require the use of force to make arrests they have those powers. They should use force discretionally and proportionally.

Hrolf appears to be saying that he only wants some laws enforced and others to be ignored. The police, thankfully, do not as yet have the ability to make up laws to suit their or anyone elseís purposes.

If the police were to arrest supporters for calling the referee a Ďw***erí, they would be rightly required to say under what legislation they were doing so.

The key fact here is that racism is illegal, swearing is not.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 17 Oct 21 12.22am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Bad law love.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View BlueJay's Profile BlueJay Flag UK 17 Oct 21 12.30am Send a Private Message to BlueJay Add BlueJay as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

If you can't see the difference, then I can't be bothered to explain for too long.
One group were football fans at a match, doing what fans regularly do. The others were partly a protest group wilfully and purposefully exploiting a vigil and defying a lockdown and a ban which was put in place to protect the public.

I don't need you to explain anything thanks. Football grounds aren't magical zones where laws don't apply or need to be adhered to. If someone is acting in such a manner fobbing it off as doing what fans do is neither here nor there.

Your view is based solely on the usual racial 'sides' obsession stuff. Nothing to do with applying the same standard or adhering to law. I was contrasting you practically sucking off police one minute for 'upholding the law' when its a vigil for a slayed woman (while saying it's 'shameful' for people to criticise them for doing so) then having a complete about turn when its in favour of a 'cause' you believe in. It is what it is and you're not doing a very good job of spinning it as anything else. Let's leave it at that and save ourselves any further wasted time.

Edited by BlueJay (17 Oct 2021 12.33am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View kuge's Profile kuge Flag Peckham 17 Oct 21 12.38am Send a Private Message to kuge Add kuge as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Bad law love.

You need a tiny bit more punctation in that.

I think that you are suggesting that you believe some laws are bad, you think it is ok to disregard them.

I suggest that a judge would see things slightly differently.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 17 Oct 21 2.05am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by kuge

You need a tiny bit more punctation in that.

I think that you are suggesting that you believe some laws are bad, you think it is ok to disregard them.

I suggest that a judge would see things slightly differently.

Would you have advocated the same attitude when homosexuality was illegal then?

It's spelt punctuation.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View BlueJay's Profile BlueJay Flag UK 17 Oct 21 4.15am Send a Private Message to BlueJay Add BlueJay as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Would you have advocated the same attitude when homosexuality was illegal then?

It's spelt punctuation.

The point was was that if someone is so gushing towards the police specifically for upholding the law one minute (when its women in a vigil for a murder victim), and yet amused at them being attacked and calling them 'pathetic' for doing so the next (when its a man racially abusing someone) there is not much sense or balance in that attitude.

If your point relates to personal conduct then yes people certainly still need an awareness of the law and that there will often be legal consequences if it is not followed even if they disagree with it (which was kuges point). For instance if someone believes that weed should be legal they may wish to partake, but would be rather foolish to do so in public view (a football ground for instance) and their efforts to change the law would be a better primary focus for them.

Edited by BlueJay (17 Oct 2021 4.15am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 17 Oct 21 4.52am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by BlueJay

The point was was that if someone is so gushing towards the police specifically for upholding the law one minute (when its women in a vigil for a murder victim), and yet amused at them being attacked and calling them 'pathetic' for doing so the next (when its a man racially abusing someone) there is not much sense or balance in that attitude.

If your point relates to personal conduct then yes people certainly still need an awareness of the law and that there will often be legal consequences if it is not followed even if they disagree with it (which was kuges point). For instance if someone believes that weed should be legal they may wish to partake, but would be rather foolish to do so in public view (a football ground for instance) and their efforts to change the law would be a better primary focus for them.

Edited by BlueJay (17 Oct 2021 4.15am)

I've already addressed the point in the first paragraph, if you disagree then fine, however my point isn't made in reply to this.

As for your response towards my point to Kuge....sure I wouldn't disagree. However, Kuge seemed to be suggesting that the law be followed or it's too the judge with you. Well ok, it's an expected attitude towards a law that you agree with.

I simply pointed out a past law that he would have likely felt differently towards. So I regard his tone as reductionist.

However, If he had the same attitude towards previously persecuted homosexuals then I'd accept that he was consistent.

However, I doubt it.

In my view laws that involve 'protected characteristics' on speech are unacceptable and bad law and I've come across no argument so far to change that view.

And ultimately that was all I said....that, in my view, Kube loves bad laws.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Oct 2021 4.57am)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 17 Oct 21 7.33am Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by kuge

Itís very simple. Racist abuse is against the law in the UK. I would always want the police to enforce the law whenever it is possible. I do not, however, expect the police to be able to enforce the law every time it is broken. Sometimes they will make a judgement that making an arrest is not safe or likely to inflame the situation. They do not and should not ever suggest that it is something that in certain situations and should be ignored.

I am not here to defend the police, I am here to defend the law. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 set out very clearly what is illegal.

If the police require the use of force to make arrests they have those powers. They should use force discretionally and proportionally.

Hrolf appears to be saying that he only wants some laws enforced and others to be ignored. The police, thankfully, do not as yet have the ability to make up laws to suit their or anyone elseís purposes.

If the police were to arrest supporters for calling the referee a Ďw***erí, they would be rightly required to say under what legislation they were doing so.

The key fact here is that racism is illegal, swearing is not.

Is the problem that there appears to be no levels of racism like all other crimes, or is it determined by the victims offence level. Or something more!!!!
Taking 'history' out of it; that being slavery (which unless personal history) is done in court; is being called the n word worse than being called fatty in the eye of the abused. Is the sadness it causes any more or less painful?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View kuge's Profile kuge Flag Peckham 17 Oct 21 8.38am Send a Private Message to kuge Add kuge as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I've already addressed the point in the first paragraph, if you disagree then fine, however my point isn't made in reply to this.

As for your response towards my point to Kuge....sure I wouldn't disagree. However, Kuge seemed to be suggesting that the law be followed or it's too the judge with you. Well ok, it's an expected attitude towards a law that you agree with.

I simply pointed out a past law that he would have likely felt differently towards. So I regard his tone as reductionist.

However, If he had the same attitude towards previously persecuted homosexuals then I'd accept that he was consistent.

However, I doubt it.

In my view laws that involve 'protected characteristics' on speech are unacceptable and bad law and I've come across no argument so far to change that view.

And ultimately that was all I said....that, in my view, Kube loves bad laws.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Oct 2021 4.57am)

This is not about whether you agree with the law, it is whether the law should be enforced. What happens if the police start only enforcing the laws that they think are good and ignoring those they think are less good? This is not their job. If there are laws that require changing it is up to politicians to seek that change.

Your point about homosexuality being illeagle is a strawman argument, there are now and there have been plenty of laws in past with which I disagree. If I broke any of these laws I would expect to be arrested. If I said, no, don't arrest me because I donít think this particular law is important, well I think thatís not likely to work out well. I might say that my arrest is wrong because I am not guilty of the offence, but that would need to be argued in court.

It is I believe legitimate to expose that the law is wrong through deliberately breaking it. There is a long history of such actions. It is not legitimate for the police or the courts to decide this.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 9 of 18 < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Danny Mills Still Thinks You Are A Racist...