Jump to content

The Lurker

Regulars
  • Posts

    403
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Lurker

  1. I think that Newsdesk is clearly in possession of some knowledge of what has actually gone wrong with the identification. If it’s the same as I’ve heard I would suggest that those slamming the organisers and officials wind their collective necks in to avoid an embarrassing climb down when the full facts come out.
  2. Equally it might be easier if you both stopped bickering.
  3. I'm sorry; I don't know how to do the separate quote thingy; I'll respond in order. Race had nothing to do with it; the victims were vulnerable due to their family circumstances and socio-economic background; see 'The Prosecutor' by Nazir Afzal (he prosecuted the Rochdale grooming gang; (I haven't finished it yet) provides some interesting background and 'Prey' by Cassie Pike details the victims perspective of this type of crime. https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/10/27/is-grooming-children-for-sex-a-disproportionately-asian-crime this article (you'll have to register to read in full) is short but essentially the point is that Asian abuse gangs are more likely to be visible and easier to prosecute en-masse than white gangs or groups; the actual stats for the ethnicity (whilst unclear due to poor record keeping) are more in line with population demographics. There are very, very few cases of death by excessive Police force in the USA where the victims are White People in comparison to the amount of Black People killed. Look at the reaction to the old bloke being pushed over in New York (could be wrong on location there) to see that. https://theweek.com/articles/918849/what-about-police-violence-against-white-people this article (no restrictions this time) delves into the details and explains the disparity between the ethnicity of victims of Police brutality in the US. What I take away from reading that is that it is every American citizen's interests to reduce Police violence; for those who can't be arsed clicking the link 33.5 people per 10 million were killed in 2019; the next closest rival is Canada at 9.8! Of course violence against white people can be racially motivated but the BLM movement is specifically about the state (Police) killing it's own citizens. It is not about violence within the general population. I don't have to hand (OK, I admit it; I can't be bothered to look) stats for racially motivated violence but I would be willing to bet a pint of MPA that White men are by far the biggest perpetrators. Again; of course killing White people can be racially motivated but in the context of Police killings it is difficult to see that a White victim of a White Police Officer as being racially motivated; more a symptom of the casual use of lethal violence in American Police culture. I have tried to find stats on White civilians killed by Black Police Officers but that doesn't seem to be available. You may see that as a George Soros funded conspiracy; I see it as being such a statistically insignificant number that studies are impossible. I would recommend that you research the concept of shooting bias which explores the likelihood of being a victim of Police shooting based on ethnicity. 'I'll see the world the way I see it, I don't care if it hurts your feelings.' I've quoted this one specifically because it's quite worrying really. I know I'm just some random anonymous bloke on the internet and not caring about me is fine but do you have this same attitude with people that you know in person? If so that is a very callous way of thinking and not one that I would have divined from your previous posting. The absolute best thing about having a mind is that it can be changed; that is a sign of strength and not weakness. I will repeat the assertions I've made in this and the other BLM thread. Dismissing the BLM movement as an over reaction or as being racist in itself is at best the lazy resort of people who simply do not want to question their own place and role in our world and at worst a symptom of racism. Read some books; read some articles; learn about the perspectives of people who are different from you. I also repeat that I am a white middle aged bloke from Yorkshire; I never met a Black person until I joined the army at sixteen. I'm fairly sure that my attitude would be along the 'all lives matter' if I hadn't bothered to educate myself on this subject. You really have nothing to loose by challenging your own beliefs; it can be quite liberating. I will now bow out (reserving the right to change my mind!) from this topic; I apologise if anyone feels as though I have attacked them personally; that has not been my intention; it simply frustrates me that so many people refuse to consider the possibility that their beliefs may be harmful.
  4. What point are you trying to make there? Do you believe that because white people are sometimes the victims of violence at the hands of people of colour that violence against people of colour cannot be racially motivated? Do you believe that the victims of grooming gangs were targeted because they were white? If so where is your evidence to support that belief? Do you believe that because US police occasionally use excessive force on white people that not one single example of Black People being killed by US Police is racially motivated or influenced? If the answer to any of those is yes then you need to have a long hard look at the way you view the world and how you come to your conclusions. I dislike the term white privilege because it’s very hard to convince a white lad dragged up by a single Junkie parent on a shitty estate that he has any kind of privilege. But it is a privilege to be able to walk down a street without people assuming you’re a wrong ‘un because of your skin colour. I would strongly recommend the book ‘why I no longer talk to white people about race.’ It opened my eyes and gave me a new perspective. It’s only a few quid on Kindle just ignore the foot notes; they’re mostly references.
  5. I think that your idea of the ‘approved orthodoxy’ and ‘prevailing narrative’ is very different to mine. I strongly recommend that you drag yourself away from YouTube opinionistas and read some books and newspapers. Why you would chose to believe a few people of colour on social media with unknown motivation over the hundreds of thousands of people that have marched is beyond me; could it be that their narrative suits your own cosy view? The prevailing narrative is of structural racism and white privilege (a term I dislike but it’s all we’ve got at the moment) if you think it’s the opposite then you’re lying to yourself. What is it about true racial equality that scares you?
  6. Then you're either thick as fuck or deliberately missing the point because denying the existence institutional/systemic racism is the easy option. Do you understand that BLM or any other equality campaign doesn't want to take anything away from you? You will not be poorer if people who are not white have a fair crack at the whip. 'All lives matter' and 'Black Lives Matter' are not mutually exclusive concepts but denying the requirement for the BLM movement is the resort of the lazy who don't want to contemplate that there is a problem with the way that many police forces around the world differentiate in the way they deal with people of colour and the way they treat white people. Do you believe that a group of black men armed to the teeth would have been allowed to stand on the steps of various state capitol buildings and 'peacefully' protest by US law enforcement? If you do you're a fool.
  7. I disagree; I’ve had my skull saved more than once and know others who’ve had their brains spared from being spread over carriageway. It strikes me that the arguments against are the same ones that were churned out when motor cycle helmets were made compulsory and seatbelts. They save lives. They also save significant expense to the NHS and tax payer by reducing the severity of injuries. The only difficulty I could see would be enforcement amongst kids.
  8. Seems entirely reasonable to me. I’m old enough to remember pointing and laughing at someone in a cycle helmet. I now stare in amazement when I see someone without one. I’ve been saved from severe injury by a helmet; wouldn’t leave home without one now.
  9. If you do not understand the meaning behind the Black Lives Matter movement then you are either thick; deliberately obtuse or racist. Probably a mix of all three. The movement is not stating that black lives matter more than any other lives but that they matter just as much and can the Police please stop killing us? Years ago I would probably have been one of the “all lives matter” wankers; yes; if you’ve stated that you are a wanker! But one of my oldest friends married a woman of colour; the stories he tells me of the prejudice that his wife and children have to deal with every single day is terrifying. I would have scoffed at the concept of white privilege but I now understand that simply walking down the high street of the city I was born in without receiving side ways looks; without people crossing the street and without receiving verbal and physical abuse is a privilege many Black British people never get to enjoy. I know the situation this side of the Atlantic is nothing like as bad as in the US but it is still bad and many people want to show their support for a global movement that came into existence to tackle a global problem. There are only so many times that peaceful protest can be ignored before people will turn to more radical and destructive methods to make their point. I am a middle-aged, heterosexual white man and I support #blacklivesmatter because I understand the fear in which so many of our fellow humans live on a daily basis. Part of the solution or part of the problem; there is no middle ground on this one.
  10. I'm fairly sure parking restrictions are still null and void; double yellows and disabled spaces were always still enforced but unless I've missed a bulletin then there are no longer any time limits on parking.
  11. They looked on Facebook you melon!
  12. I assume you're alluding to road tax with that? I'll respond but I don't want this to descend into yet another pro/anti-road cycling thread so this will be my last and I'd also like to make it clear that I'm well aware that it isn't called 'road tax' blah blah. I pay road tax on my car for the use of the road; as so about 85% of cyclist; when I cycle (90% of which is commuting and therefore a journey I would be taking anyway) my car is at home neither polluting nor causing wear and congestion on the roads. I am also significantly healthier than I would be if I didn't cycle; for me riding to and from work burns off about half a pound of body-weight (based on the oft quoted 3,500 calories per pound of body weight) and I do that on average three times a week all year round unless injured so my burden on the NHS is significantly less than it would be if I drove everywhere. So no; I don't think cyclists should invest in roads; even if they don't own a car and pay tax on it.
  13. 1. Not all cyclists are out for a jolly or a training ride; many cycle journeys are commutes and like all commutes regardless of mode of transport people will travel the shortest/quickest way. 2. Lycra has evolved over many years as the best clothing to wear whilst cycling; not only reducing drag and therefore shortening commutes but providing an element of protection from road rash during a fall; if you don't like the way I look in lycra then don't look at me. 3. Cycle lanes can be problematic; many are 'designed' by people who haven't ridden a bike in years and have no idea of the requirements; the type that are just a painted green strip (Peel Road) also fill up with all the crap thrown out from under the wheels of passing cars and become a crash/puncture hazard; they really need to be separated from the road by a curbstone and with space for overtaking. I know it can be frustrating getting stuck where you can't pass but instead of blaming the cyclist maybe direct your ire at the DOI's lack of investment in road design and ultimately; you'll never be held up for more than a few minutes and whilst you're held up you're sat in your nice warm box that you don't have to pedal up Richmond Hill. To try and drag back to topic; a well thought out integration of road and cycling may well help with future IOM tourism.
  14. I don't intend on being drawn into the All-Island Limit debate but I disagree about lifting the current 40 mph limit; it's no longer necessary. Raise to 50 for a week then 60 the next; consider leaving it at 60 for a while but I believe that the debate about future, permanent speed limits should be done in the context of a general election.
  15. Seems like the basis of a good idea; I'd prefer isolation until the second negative test though. I'm not sure about testing capacity; we can do 200 tests per day; 300 at a push? That's not even one full crossing on the Ben. I have no idea what sort of numbers arrive on the Island each day in normal circumstances but I'd guess we'd need at least ten times the current testing capacity.
  16. I sincerely hope it won't take that long but it's entirely down to the UK getting its house in order which doesn't seem to be happening very quickly. I'd like IOMG to give an indication of what the state of play needs to be before borders are opened. I did wonder if we could consider opening to ROI first as they seem to have a better grip on this but it would be too easily abused and a pointless compromise. All or nothing I reckon.
  17. When threads drift in a direction that no longer interests me or if a particular poster spams a topic I usually drift away and do something less boring in stead but this is something I'd like to keep an eye on. I've grown adept at scrolling past the usual bickering.
  18. How do you do that? I've looked for an obvious button but can't seem to find anything.
  19. I'd like to see them utilising the spare testing capacity to do some random testing on the general public to get an idea if there's a significant asymptomatic cohort out there. Lucky dip on the electoral role sort of thing.
  20. I agree; which is why it isn’t something I would do.
  21. Saying the same thing over and aver isn’t debating; it’s childish. ‘this forum’ is a collection of individuals and therefore cannot have an agenda. What you’re actually seeing is the vast majority of posters not agreeing with you which is not a sign of you being an unappreciated genius.
  22. I am though aren’t I? Fairly sure I haven’t posted since Friday; I made my point and my argument and then left it at that. Repeating the same thing over and over (with likes and replies from the same little puddle of sycophants) stifles any real debate. You’re trying to browbeat people into agreeing with you. It’s just so bloody tedious; almost as tedious as calling people a troll when they disagree with you.
  23. But you're not 'telling the truth.' You're spouting your opinion; some of which may be true. There's a big difference and failing to realise that is the hallmark of a particular kind of dimness; the kind that thinks it's very clever but isn't really. Your Trumpian insults and belittling of anyone who doesn't share your opinion as being frightened or hysterical is filling these pages with tedious repetition. You disagree with lock down; you think everything should be open. We all know what you think so how about giving it a rest; you're boring.
  24. I assume you’re referring to the bloke that had been instructed to self isolate and then went to his Grandfather’s house to walk his Grandfather’s dog? Twisting facts?
  25. Oh dear; can’t make a good argument so resort to insults.
×
×
  • Create New...