Society of Black Lawyers: Liverpool&Chelsea condoning racism

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Yes, exactly, whites hold a majority in positions of power disproportionate to their majority in the population, and in education. At my university there are about 3 black people on my course, which hundreds of people take.

It's likely a combination of socioeconomic reasons that would explain this. What percentage are the student body is black? I'm actually not sure what course means in a UK context? In your year or course as in an individual class?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:That proves I am better than you. More importantly, Manchester United did not come out in Ronald Akinson shirts or SS Uniforms after Bosnich and Atkinson (who incidentally had left United nearly 2 decades before his offensive comments) behaved in racist or Anti-Semitic ways, refusing to condone racism and ethnic hatred like Liverpool and Chelsea.

Of course you are, it says so and how can i argue and i must also be a racist.

"There are two important things you need to remember when debating with Resurrection Rooney
1. He is better than you 2. He knows it."

mac wrote:I don't understand what you mean. Are whites not the majority in positions of power and employment in the UK? I don't see anything wrong with that but that's because they are the majority of the UK population.

Although, I can understand where RR is coming from to an extent. It's likely the minority populations don't make up positions of power with respect to their percentage of the population.

Unlike with other races, where they can openly and freely get things done for their backgrounds and races...whites cannot do that...it's racist.

Does it really matter if the majority of politicians are white? (though in local councils that certainly isn't the case....especially in London...I know for a fact that in many white people are under-represented...including mine. What happens then? It's even worse...you have a council who's only interest is to "improve multiculturalism" i.e. remove white/Christian rights/events and replace them with the minority or a neutral replica). None of these white politicians fight for white rights, yet black politicians will do it for blacks, Asians will do it for Asians etc....

"Is there really a need to fight for white rights?" People will say.......erm of course there is. Being a majority is a disadvantage in this country....

In too many cases, you have politicians who are chipping in and doing everything they can to appease the minorities and do everything that they want, because they are scared of being branded racist and want to keep their jobs as highly paid politicians. It's probably improved a bit since the Conservatives came in...but some things are irreversible.

Anyway.....this all relates back to the Evra vs Suarez case....as Evra being black means that the law and politicians are practically forced to do something about it even if Suarez is innocent, because if they don't they will receive negative publicity. On the other hand, no one (in this country anyway) will stand up for Suarez publicly because it's political suicide to disagree with the black guy on a race issue.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Yes, exactly, whites hold a majority in positions of power disproportionate to their majority in the population, and in education. At my university there are about 3 black people on my course, which hundreds of people take.

There being only 3 black people in your course could be for any number of reasons....but certainly not due to racism.

Anyway..things don't have to be proportionately equal for there to be no racism. There's no black managers, so obviously it's racism. There's no black politicians, so obviously racism. There's no white in something.......that's not racism.

mac wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Yes, exactly, whites hold a majority in positions of power disproportionate to their majority in the population, and in education. At my university there are about 3 black people on my course, which hundreds of people take.

It's likely a combination of socioeconomic reasons that would explain this. What percentage are the student body is black? I'm actually not sure what course means in a UK context? In your year or course as in an individual class?

In my lectures, which have hundreds of people in, there are only a few blacks, and they are immigrants. There are almost no black people around the campus.

Alan wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:That proves I am better than you. More importantly, Manchester United did not come out in Ronald Akinson shirts or SS Uniforms after Bosnich and Atkinson (who incidentally had left United nearly 2 decades before his offensive comments) behaved in racist or Anti-Semitic ways, refusing to condone racism and ethnic hatred like Liverpool and Chelsea.

Of course you are, it says so and how can i argue and i must also be a racist.

"There are two important things you need to remember when debating with Resurrection Rooney
1. He is better than you 2. He knows it."

That's just what someone said about me, if you don't agree with me, then explain why.

Lux wrote:

mac wrote:I don't understand what you mean. Are whites not the majority in positions of power and employment in the UK? I don't see anything wrong with that but that's because they are the majority of the UK population.

Although, I can understand where RR is coming from to an extent. It's likely the minority populations don't make up positions of power with respect to their percentage of the population.

Unlike with other races, where they can openly and freely get things done for their backgrounds and races...whites cannot do that...it's racist.

Does it really matter if the majority of politicians are white? (though in local councils that certainly isn't the case....especially in London...I know for a fact that in many white people are under-represented...including mine. What happens then? It's even worse...you have a council who's only interest is to "improve multiculturalism" i.e. remove white/Christian rights/events and replace them with the minority or a neutral replica). None of these white politicians fight for white rights, yet black politicians will do it for blacks, Asians will do it for Asians etc....

"Is there really a need to fight for white rights?" People will say.......erm of course there is. Being a majority is a disadvantage in this country....

In too many cases, you have politicians who are chipping in and doing everything they can to appease the minorities and do everything that they want, because they are scared of being branded racist and want to keep their jobs as highly paid politicians. It's probably improved a bit since the Conservatives came in...but some things are irreversible.

White rights groups would be campaigning for advantages for white people, minority groups are campaigning for equality, that's the difference, that's why you can fight for minority rights without being castigated for being racist by sensible people. And being white is a tremendous advantage in this country, it is easier to get jobs, easier to get into positions of power, easier to become a politician and so on.

Anyway.....this all relates back to the Evra vs Suarez case....as Evra being black means that the law and politicians are practically forced to do something about it even if Suarez is innocent, because if they don't they will receive negative publicity. On the other hand, no one (in this country anyway) will stand up for Suarez publicly because it's political suicide to disagree with the black guy on a race issue.

A) The law has done fuck all about Suarez
B) Politicians have done fuck all about Suarez
C) Suarez is not innocent, he has been proven guilty
D) Plenty of people have stood up for Suarez publicly.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:White rights groups would be campaigning for advantages for white people, minority groups are campaigning for equality, that's the difference, that's why you can fight for minority rights without being castigated for being racist by sensible people. And being white is a tremendous advantage in this country, it is easier to get jobs, easier to get into positions of power, easier to become a politician and so on.

That attitude is what is I hate. It's not campaigning for advantages, it's campaigning for equality too. Where is the equality in benefits/houses being prioritised to minorities? Where is the equality in Christmas as a religious event being cancelled, yet there is a constant promotion of every other non Christian religious event? Why are people being pressured into giving people jobs simply because of their race or sex (because I could quite easily extend this to men vs women too)?

The fact that I don't hate any other race, but argue for my rights and get branded a racist by disillusioned white people 100 times more than minorities who agree with me sums it up. British white men seem to think we have some obligation to give up our rights and do everything to give other's more.

A) The law has done fuck all about Suarez
B) Politicians have done fuck all about Suarez
C) Suarez is not innocent, he has been proven guilty
D) Plenty of people have stood up for Suarez publicly.

The FA is pretty much a political body. It's full of politicians more so than footballing people. Suarez hasn't been proven guilty, because there's no proof. I'm sure you've come up with the argument that the death penalty is not right because innocent people might be killed. Fact is, people who are innocent get convicted.

The people who stand up for Suarez publicly are those who know they cannot lose anything. Liverpool don't have to answer to anybody....it's not like any of them will have to resign because their position is "untenable" - the most bullshit excuse for losing your job I've ever seen. If a politician were foolish enough to defend Suarez or Terry then they'd be lucky to keep their job.

Lux wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:White rights groups would be campaigning for advantages for white people, minority groups are campaigning for equality, that's the difference, that's why you can fight for minority rights without being castigated for being racist by sensible people. And being white is a tremendous advantage in this country, it is easier to get jobs, easier to get into positions of power, easier to become a politician and so on.

That attitude is what is I hate. It's not campaigning for advantages, it's campaigning for equality too. Where is the equality in benefits/houses being prioritised to minorities? Where is the equality in Christmas as a religious event being cancelled, yet there is a constant promotion of every other non Christian religious event? Why are people being pressured into giving people jobs simply because of their race or sex (because I could quite easily extend this to men vs women too)?

The fact that I don't hate any other race, but argue for my rights and get branded a racist by disillusioned white people 100 times more than minorities who agree with me sums it up. British white men seem to think we have some obligation to give up our rights and do everything to give other's more.

That generally doesn't happen, there are a few examples that morons like you read in The Sun or the Daily Mail and think are representative, they're not.

As for Christmas being cancelled, I have never heard something so utterly fucking stupid. The state broadcaster yesterday referred to the day as Boxing Day, rather than simply 26th of December, the Queen, the Head of State was on national TV on the 25th of December talking about how great God is. When we see these things on Eid or Diwali, you will have an argument that they are being treated equally.

A) The law has done fuck all about Suarez
B) Politicians have done fuck all about Suarez
C) Suarez is not innocent, he has been proven guilty
D) Plenty of people have stood up for Suarez publicly.

The FA is pretty much a political body. Suarez hasn't been proven guilty, because there's no proof. I'm sum you've come up with the argument that the death penalty is not right because innocent people might be killed. Fact is, people who are innocent get convicted.

The people who stand up for Suarez publicly are those who know they cannot lose anything. Liverpool don't have to answer to anybody....it's not like any of them will have to resign because their position is "untenable" - the most bullshit excuse for losing your job I've ever seen. If a politician were foolish enough to defend Suarez or Terry then they'd be lucky to keep their job.

He has been proven guilty by the FA too an Independent Commission. The proof simply hasn't been released yet.

Do you think people who think like you make up a majority in this country, or do you believe you are part of a minority of angry crackpots?

Saurez is guilty of making a mistake and using language that is acceptable in his country, And if i thought he was racist i would want him kicked out of my club.

Alan wrote:Saurez is guilty of making a mistake and using language that is acceptable in his country, And if i thought he was racist i would want him kicked out of my club.

He has been proven guilty of using racist language, what more do you want? Him to produce a document outlining why Blacks are inferior?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:That generally doesn't happen, there are a few examples that morons like you read in The Sun or the Daily Mail and think are representative, they're not.

As for Christmas being cancelled, I have never heard something so utterly fucking stupid. The state broadcaster yesterday referred to the day as Boxing Day, rather than simply 26th of December, the Queen, the Head of State was on national TV on the 25th of December talking about how great God is. When we see these things on Eid or Diwali, you will have an argument that they are being treated equally.

I read neither The Sun or Daily Mail.

I'll give you an example of how Christmas is cancelled. In every school that I know the Nativity has been changed to something neutral because "It might offend the minority kids". This is not unusual.....the councils are made up of minorities and they dictate what happens. On Guy Fawkes night in some place they rotate it every year as being a celebration to different cultures . Can you imagine what would happen if it were suggested that a minorities event were to be made neutral? I won't list every example but the amount of times I've heard "because it might offend them" is countless. But, of course..there is no "It might offend us" argument. Not that it does, because we're expected to take shit and get on with it.

He has been proven guilty by the FA too an Independent Commission. The proof simply hasn't been released yet.

There is no proof. The case has been publicised so much that we all know there is no solid proof. Any decision would be made subjectively...though there is a lot more pressure on the FA and a commission to rule against Suarez.

Anyway I will respect their decision, but I disagree with it anyway. I don't think Suarez should be punished, and I can't see anything new being released that would change my mind.

Do you think people who think like you make up a majority in this country, or do you believe you are part of a minority of angry crackpots?

I'm not angry, but I have my opinion. Like most I get on with life because whilst what happens is unjust and unfair, I can't do anything about it and I can manage anyway. But...that itself is the problem....there isn't enough will for us to get what we deserve.

I believe that I am myself, I'm not going to label myself....especially based on your completely ignorant opinion of me.

Wouldn't say I am extremist though ....I know a lot of people, no matter what race or religion they are, that agree entirely.

Lux wrote:
There is no proof. The case has been publicised so much that we all know there is no solid proof. Any decision would be made subjectively...though there is a lot more pressure on the FA and a commission to rule against Suarez.

Anyway I will respect their decision, but I disagree with it anyway. I don't think Suarez should be punished, and I can't see anything new being released that would change my mind.

Assumptions, assumptions. Stick to the facts and what is actually public knowledge, not to the speculation that has been released by certain parts of the tabloid media. Remember how RAWK and other pro Liverpool sources were "celebrating" because the delay "definitely meant that Suarez is inoccent, and that that instead of finding Suarez guilty they would charge Evra". That didn't work out too well now did it?

As things stand there are only a handful of things you know for sure.

1. Suarez has been found guilty by an independent comission
2. Liverpool disagree and have found ... methods... of showing their discontent...
3. The documents concerning the hearing will be released in Janaury.

That's all we know for sure. Anything else is pure speculation.

Lux wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:That generally doesn't happen, there are a few examples that morons like you read in The Sun or the Daily Mail and think are representative, they're not.

As for Christmas being cancelled, I have never heard something so utterly fucking stupid. The state broadcaster yesterday referred to the day as Boxing Day, rather than simply 26th of December, the Queen, the Head of State was on national TV on the 25th of December talking about how great God is. When we see these things on Eid or Diwali, you will have an argument that they are being treated equally.

I read neither The Sun or Daily Mail.

I'll give you an example of how Christmas is cancelled. In every school that I know the Nativity has been changed to something neutral because "It might offend the minority kids". This is not unusual.....the councils are made up of minorities and they dictate what happens. On Guy Fawkes night in some place they rotate it every year as being a celebration to different cultures . Can you imagine what would happen if it were suggested that a minorities event were to be made neutral? I won't list every example but the amount of times I've heard "because it might offend them" is countless. But, of course..there is no "It might offend us" argument. Not that it does, because we're expected to take shit and get on with it.

What's wrong with not having a nativity? They're not forcing you not to celebrate Christmas, if anything it's a good move for our society to become more secular. In any case, Christmas is still far more important in British society than any other culture's celebrations.

And it's hardly a terrible situation if Guy Fawkes is rotated to other cultures, as long as you can have fireworks. I've never been altogether comfortable with the celebration of a man being executed anyway.

He has been proven guilty by the FA too an Independent Commission. The proof simply hasn't been released yet.

There is no proof. The case has been publicised so much that we all know there is no solid proof. Any decision would be made subjectively...though there is a lot more pressure on the FA and a commission to rule against Suarez.

Anyway I will respect their decision, but I disagree with it anyway. I don't think Suarez should be punished, and I can't see anything new being released that would change my mind.

Did Suarez give Evra abuse with a reference to his colour? That is the question, given that Suarez admitted using the word Negro or Negrito, and was clearly abusing Evra, he is definitely guilty.

Do you think people who think like you make up a majority in this country, or do you believe you are part of a minority of angry crackpots?

I'm not angry, but I have my opinion. Like most I get on with life because whilst what happens is unjust and unfair, I can't do anything about it and I can manage anyway. But...that itself is the problem....there isn't enough will for us to get what we deserve.

I believe that I am myself, I'm not going to label myself....especially based on your completely ignorant opinion of me.

Do you think the majority of people think like you? If yes, then why don't the politicians try to keep them happy by promoting Christmas and such over all these other holidays.

Laurencio wrote:Assumptions, assumptions. Stick to the facts and what is actually public knowledge, not to the speculation that has been released by certain parts of the tabloid media. Remember how RAWK and other pro Liverpool sources were "celebrating" because the delay "definitely meant that Suarez is inoccent, and that that instead of finding Suarez guilty they would charge Evra". That didn't work out too well now did it?

As things stand there are only a handful of things you know for sure.

1. Suarez has been found guilty by an independent comission
2. Liverpool disagree and have found ... methods... of showing their discontent...
3. The documents concerning the hearing will be released in Janaury.

That's all we know for sure. Anything else is pure speculation.

Fair enough, maybe....but in that case everyone should hold back their opinion until the evidence is released....though presumably it will be the same stuff that has been released in the media already.

Lux wrote:

Laurencio wrote:Assumptions, assumptions. Stick to the facts and what is actually public knowledge, not to the speculation that has been released by certain parts of the tabloid media. Remember how RAWK and other pro Liverpool sources were "celebrating" because the delay "definitely meant that Suarez is inoccent, and that that instead of finding Suarez guilty they would charge Evra". That didn't work out too well now did it?

As things stand there are only a handful of things you know for sure.

1. Suarez has been found guilty by an independent comission
2. Liverpool disagree and have found ... methods... of showing their discontent...
3. The documents concerning the hearing will be released in Janaury.

That's all we know for sure. Anything else is pure speculation.

Fair enough, maybe....but in that case everyone should hold back their opinion until the evidence is released....though presumably it will be the same stuff that has been released in the media already.

The only people who sit with all the cards are the comission. Given that Liverpool accepted their authority before the hearing and that the FA have put their full faith and authority into their decision, it is only natural for the public who do not have all the details to assume, that given their position, their decision is the closest thing to the truth we currently have.

The media has as much access to the case documents as everyone else. Tim Vickery rather adaptly pointed out that what was said, what evidence was presented and how the deliberation regarding the final decision was conducted is a complete unknown to everyone.

Although we probably could assume that Liverpool FC's lawyers should be aware of most of the information, I would hesitate to the take the word of Liverpool FC's rather strange press release on this matter. This because it presented several pieces of information that has been proven to be false. I highly doubt it was written by any of Liverpool's lawyers as well, mainly due to gramatical errors, unsubstantiated "facts" and a general tone you rarely if ever find in a document written by legal experts. But I've said much about that press release already.

Basically, the media knows jack-shit.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:What's wrong with not having a nativity? They're not forcing you not to celebrate Christmas, if anything it's a good move for our society to become more secular. In any case, Christmas is still far more important in British society than any other culture's celebrations.

And it's hardly a terrible situation if Guy Fawkes is rotated to other cultures, as long as you can have fireworks. I've never been altogether comfortable with the celebration of a man being executed anyway.

You can't justify that based on your opinion. A lot of people will be offended by that, but because it's white British people no one will do anything. If it were a minorities event they wouldn't say "well.....maybe it is for the best".

Did Suarez give Evra abuse with a reference to his colour? That is the question, given that Suarez admitted using the word Negro or Negrito, and was clearly abusing Evra, he is definitely guilty.

You're assuming that it was abuse. I don't consider a reference to someone's colour as racism. It has been said many times that in South America culture it's the opposite. I'm not South American but end of the day I doubt Suarez intended to be racist based on this fact. I think Suarez could have apologised for the mix up and that should have been the end of it.....but obviously it didn't work out that way.

Do you think the majority of people think like you? If yes, then why don't the politicians try to keep them happy by promoting Christmas and such over all these other holidays.

You'd be surprised how many people's main objective when voting is to vote in a parliament who will stop immigration and give white British people more rights. The politicians promise things before elections, and once they're in they pretend like it never happened. They can control us because whilst we care...we can't do anything about it. To be fair to minorities....we probably don't care as much as them (not that that makes it ok)....some of them have a real passion for getting what is good for them even if it's unjust.

Lux wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:What's wrong with not having a nativity? They're not forcing you not to celebrate Christmas, if anything it's a good move for our society to become more secular. In any case, Christmas is still far more important in British society than any other culture's celebrations.

And it's hardly a terrible situation if Guy Fawkes is rotated to other cultures, as long as you can have fireworks. I've never been altogether comfortable with the celebration of a man being executed anyway.

You can't justify that based on your opinion. A lot of people will be offended by that, but because it's white British people no one will do anything. If it were a minorities event they wouldn't say "well.....maybe it is for the best".

I don't give a fuck if people are offended by it.

Did Suarez give Evra abuse with a reference to his colour? That is the question, given that Suarez admitted using the word Negro or Negrito, and was clearly abusing Evra, he is definitely guilty.

You're assuming that it was abuse. I don't consider a reference to someone's colour as racism. It has been said many times that in South America culture it's the opposite. I'm not South American but end of the day I doubt Suarez intended to be racist based on this fact. I think Suarez could have apologised for the mix up and that should have been the end of it.....but obviously it didn't work out that way.

I'd never have had you down as someone who believes in the importance of respecting foreign cultures. Suarez was not in South America when he made the comments, he was in England, where our cultural norms apply.

Do you think the majority of people think like you? If yes, then why don't the politicians try to keep them happy by promoting Christmas and such over all these other holidays.

You'd be surprised how many people's main objective when voting is to vote in a parliament who will stop immigration and give white British people more rights. The politicians promise things before elections, and once they're in they pretend like it never happened. They can control us because whilst we care...we can't do anything about it. To be fair to minorities....we probably don't care as much as them (not that that makes it ok)....some of them have a real passion for getting what is good for them even if it's unjust.

If a lot of people vote like that, why don't the BNP or UKIP ever win? Why didn't the Conservative party win an outright majority?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

If a lot of people vote like that, why don't the BNP or UKIP ever win? Why didn't the Conservative party win an outright majority?

Have to agree with RR here. Lux, if what you said was true about people's voting tendencies then people would not be voting Conservative and Labour.

Gegilworld93 wrote:Liverpool's defending of Suárez is ridiculous, disgusting and just disgraceful.

No, labelling Luis Suarez as a racist is ridiculous, disgusting and disgraceful.

What a tackle from Cantona

Maybe we should have signed a thug like Cantona and called him King. Maybe some people should look at what type of player their club signed and what he also did when he was there.


France
Cantona's first professional club was Auxerre, where he spent two years in the youth team before making his debut on 5 November 1983, in a 4–0 league victory over Nancy.

In 1984 his footballing career was put on hold as he carried out his national service. After his discharge he was loaned out to Martigues in the French Second Division before rejoining Auxerre and signing a professional contract in 1986. His performances in the First Division were good enough to earn him his first full international cap. However, his disciplinary problems began in 1987 when he was fined for punching team mate Bruno Martini in the face^[5]

The following year, Cantona was again in trouble because of a dangerous tackle on Nantes player Michel Der Zakarian, resulting in a three game suspension; this was later reduced to a two match suspension as his club Auxerre threatened to make the player unavailable for selection in the national team. He was part of the French under-21 side that won the 1988 U21 European Championship and shortly after he transferred to Marseille for a French record fee (FF22m). In January 1989 during a friendly game against Torpedo Moscow he kicked the ball at the crowd, then ripped off and threw away his shirt after being substituted. His club responded by banning him for a month. Just a few months earlier, he had been banned from international matches for one year after insulting the national coach on TV.^[6]

Having struggled to settle at Marseille, Cantona moved to Bordeaux on a six-month loan and then to Montpellier on a year-long loan. At Montpellier, he was involved in a fight with team-mate Jean-Claude Lemoult and threw his boots in Lemoult's face. The incident led to six players demanding that Cantona be sacked. However, with the support of team-mates such as Laurent Blanc and Carlos Valderrama, the club retained his services, although they banned him from the ground for ten days.^[7] Cantona was instrumental as the team went on to win the French Cup and his form persuaded Marseille to take him back.

Back at Marseille, Cantona initially played well under coach Gerard Gili and his successor Franz Beckenbauer. However, the Marseille chairman Bernard Tapie was not satisfied with the results, and replaced Beckenbauer with Raymond Goethals; Cantona was continually at odds with Goethals and Tapie and, despite helping the team win the French Division 1 title, he was transferred to Nîmes the following season.

In December 1991, during a match for Nîmes he threw the ball at the referee, having been angered by one of his decisions. He was summoned to a disciplinary hearing by the French Football Federation and was banned for one month. Cantona responded by walking up to each member of the hearing committee in turn and calling him an idiot. His ban was increased to two months, and Cantona subsequently announced his retirement from football on 16 December 1991.^[8]

The French national team coach Michel Platini was a fan of Cantona, and persuaded him to make a comeback. On the advice of Gérard Houllier as well as his psychoanalyst, he moved to England to restart his career, "He [my psychoanalyst] advised me not to sign for Marseille and recommended that I should go to England."^[9]

Lux wrote:

Unlike with other races, where they can openly and freely get things done for their backgrounds and races...whites cannot do that...it's racist.

Does it really matter if the majority of politicians are white? (though in local councils that certainly isn't the case....especially in London...I know for a fact that in many white people are under-represented...including mine. What happens then? It's even worse...you have a council who's only interest is to "improve multiculturalism" i.e. remove white/Christian rights/events and replace them with the minority or a neutral replica). None of these white politicians fight for white rights, yet black politicians will do it for blacks, Asians will do it for Asians etc....

"Is there really a need to fight for white rights?" People will say.......erm of course there is. Being a majority is a disadvantage in this country....

In too many cases, you have politicians who are chipping in and doing everything they can to appease the minorities and do everything that they want, because they are scared of being branded racist and want to keep their jobs as highly paid politicians. It's probably improved a bit since the Conservatives came in...but some things are irreversible.

Openly and freely get things done for their backgrounds? What do you mean? You have to be more specific?

No, it doesn't really matter if the majority of the politicians are white since the UK population is majority white. It makes perfect sense. Still, RR has a point that there aren't really any minorities in real positions of power in the UK. I'm curious if the UK will have a minority prime minister in the next 10 years or so. It would be quite interesting.

There is under-representation of white people in local councils in London? Can you show statistics to support this? Just curious. Also, it wouldn't be surprising because I'm sure there is under-representation of minorities in other local councils as well and they balance each other out.

I really don't understand what you mean fight for black, asian, etc. rights? The right to do what exactly? Things like practicing their religion, how they dress etc?

What rights do the average white British person need support in attaining? Clearly, you're suggesting they're suffering in some manner? Being a majority = being white so your implying being white British is a disadvantage in the UK and England. That's quite a statement. In most of the western world, the average white person actually has white privilege but are completely oblivious to it. They won't face the same open discrimination in finding a job or walking down the street a minority would in certain instances.

I've missed out on a job because I am white. The guy said they needed to employ a minority and they did. I'm not arsed about it, it's the way this country is heading.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I don't give a fuck if people are offended by it.

Would have never had you down as someone who doesn't care about people being offended.

I'd never have had you down as someone who believes in the importance of respecting foreign cultures. Suarez was not in South America when he made the comments, he was in England, where our cultural norms apply.

What BS is this? We're supposed to embrace multiculturalism, but because Evra is black and Suarez is from Uruguay we're going to not doing so?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:he was in England, where our cultural norms apply.

Which are what? To be multicultural....or so you'd think? Only when it suits certain minorities I guess.

If a lot of people vote like that, why don't the BNP or UKIP ever win? Why didn't the Conservative party win an outright majority?

mac wrote:Have to agree with RR here. Lux, if what you said was true about people's voting tendencies then people would not be voting Conservative and Labour.

Because BNP are a bunch of degenerates....and UKIP aren't competent or have any traditional backing either. Do you seriously think that I would vote for either?......

Why vote in these parties when they only vaguely represent what most people want, whilst also being complete failures in every other aspect of politics? None of the big parties will do what most people are calling for, and there are no other alternatives. That's not to say that theoretically a party could exist that is more traditional and nationalist than the big parties, whilst also not being racist illiterates.

The Conservatives are at least addressing our one way relationship with the EU....

Dan wrote:I've missed out on a job because I am white. The guy said they needed to employ a minority and they did. I'm not arsed about it, it's the way this country is heading.

I'm sure minorities have also been denied jobs because the fact that they were a minority. Of course, they wouldn't realize this but it happens. Discrimination behind the scenes.

Regardless, I still don't support you being denied a job because a minority was needed to fill a quota. That's absurd.

Lux wrote:


Because BNP are a bunch of degenerates....and UKIP aren't competent or have any traditional backing either. Do you seriously think that I would vote for either?......

Why vote in these parties when they only vaguely represent what most people want, whilst also being complete failures in every other aspect of politics? None of the big parties will do what most people are calling for, and there are no other alternatives. That's not to say that theoretically a party could exist that is more traditional and nationalist than the big parties, whilst also not being racist illiterates.

The Conservatives are at least addressing our one way relationship with the EU....

That's just how it is. Far-right parties won't be going anywhere in the UK anytime soon. They're too disorganized, incompetent and just blatantly racist.

Still, you did suggest people were voting with those tendencies so one would likely assume you meant they were voting BNP or UKIP.

I mean seriously? If people's main focus in voting was to halt immigration and give more "rights" to the majority white British population, they wouldn't vote Labour or Conservative no matter how incompetent the BNP or UKIP are. It would be hypocritical considering these parties stances on those issues.

mac wrote:That's just how it is. Far-right parties won't be going anywhere in the UK anytime soon. They're too disorganized, incompetent and just blatantly racist.

Still, you did suggest people were voting with those tendencies so one would likely assume you meant they were voting BNP or UKIP.

What I meant is that that is many people's main agendas. If you asked them what they wanted out of the next government, then they would say that.

That doesn't mean that they'll vote BNP or UKIP, in many places they don't have representatives anyway. But they'll go for the big party who they think will tackle it best. The Conservatives have said they would tackle immigration...and Labour in the past have said that they would offer a referendum on being in the EU. A clear example of how they lie to stay into power....that they brushed it off with BS excuses.

There is a lot of racism in society, and not just whites. There may be many different cultures, but in a lot of cases there's no mixing...it's just cultures keeping to themselves.

Lux wrote:

mac wrote:That's just how it is. Far-right parties won't be going anywhere in the UK anytime soon. They're too disorganized, incompetent and just blatantly racist.

Still, you did suggest people were voting with those tendencies so one would likely assume you meant they were voting BNP or UKIP.

What I meant is that that is many people's main agendas. If you asked them what they wanted out of the next government, then they would say that.

That doesn't mean that they'll vote BNP or UKIP, in many places they don't have representatives anyway. But they'll go for the big party who they think will tackle it best.

It's unfortunate if they think either of the two big parties will tackle those issues in any manner that would appease them. The Tories would be more conservative with regards to the issues but nowhere near halting immigration or giving more "rights" to the average white British citizen.

Lux wrote:

There is a lot of racism in society, and not just whites. There may be many different cultures, but in a lot of cases there's no mixing...it's just cultures keeping to themselves.

There is racism in society but you seem to be exaggerating it. Although, I agree with you on the part of individuals not mixing. Immigrants to the UK need to assimilate more or in other words become more British. Not create ethnic and cultural "ghettos".

Part of the issue is the immigrants not wanting to assimilate in fear of losing their culture and the indigenous population not being accepting of them. There should be some middle ground where the immigrants assimilate for the most part in regards to learning local culture and the native language and the locals being more accepting of them.

mac wrote:It's unfortunate if they think either of the two big parties will tackle those issues in any manner that would appease them. The Tories would be more conservative with regards to the issues but nowhere near halting immigration or giving more "right" to the average white British citizen.

Well Labour have proven that, bunch of idiots ruined the country to irreversible measures.

These parties make promises.....and unfortunately rarely actually do anything about it.

The Conservatives have done a bit...the party seems to be split....but they are a step in the right direction. I think it's unrealistic to ask for immediate or massive changes....it's too much to ask for, too late. If anything it'd be nice to just see things curbed...

Lux wrote:

Well Labour have proven that, bunch of idiots ruined the country to irreversible measures.

These parties make promises.....and unfortunately rarely actually do anything about it.

The Conservatives have done a bit...the party seems to be split....but they are a step in the right direction. I think it's unrealistic to ask for immediate or massive changes....it's too much to ask for, too late.

That's the thing with politics. Politicians make promises but rarely ever deliver on them.

The Tories should work with what they have. The UK and much of the western world is in a mess at the moment so the main focus should be the economy but things like immigration should obviously be looked at as well.

mac wrote:

Lux wrote:

Well Labour have proven that, bunch of idiots ruined the country to irreversible measures.

These parties make promises.....and unfortunately rarely actually do anything about it.

The Conservatives have done a bit...the party seems to be split....but they are a step in the right direction. I think it's unrealistic to ask for immediate or massive changes....it's too much to ask for, too late.

That's the thing with politics. Politicians make promises but rarely ever deliver on them.

The Tories should work with what they have. The UK and much of the western world is in a mess at the moment so the main focus should be the economy but things like immigration should obviously be looked at as well.

Precisely. End of the day I care more about economics than the cultural stuff.....perhaps it's why we let things slid so much but oh well.

Still, immigration is important. England is like the 6th most crowded country in the world

mac wrote:

Lux wrote:

Well Labour have proven that, bunch of idiots ruined the country to irreversible measures.

These parties make promises.....and unfortunately rarely actually do anything about it.

The Conservatives have done a bit...the party seems to be split....but they are a step in the right direction. I think it's unrealistic to ask for immediate or massive changes....it's too much to ask for, too late.

That's the thing with politics. Politicians make promises but rarely ever deliver on them.

The Tories should work with what they have. The UK and much of the western world is in a mess at the moment so the main focus should be the economy but things like immigration should obviously be looked at as well.

If the economy falls to pieces the immigration stops. Problem solved.