I Wonder How Long Gulliver Will...
Politics1 min ago
defamation of character or the truth.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by webbo3. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think it's quite amazing how a few bullied at school idiots can control the rest of us. i find it funny that these lilly skinned fools think by making people not voice thier opinions, will make these people think any different instead of making things worse, which it does. If it was down to them, our army would have to protect itself with balloons on the end of sticks, with a 5 minute precedure to go through before using. They are dragging this country to it's knees with thier 'oh don't upset anyone' attitude. I hate the b4st###s and would love to se them vanish, i remember when you could have fun in this country without having to have it boxed up, safety cirtificated and sold to you with a regestered trade mark, you can't walk 4 feet in this country without bumping in to 'don't do this' sign and a 'where this for safty' sign, it's the same dopey middle class gits doing that rubbish as well. I know full well you may not be middle class but i also know how much it gets up your noses.
nedflanders - "He's a Racist at least!"
So the Scots are a race are they? I think not.
Caucasian is a race.
Black African is a race.
Asian is a race.
etc.
The Scots are not a race. Neither are the Welsh, the English, the French, etc. These are simply geographic definitions.
A person's race refers to the categorisation of groups based on their inheritable characteristics (such as skin colour, facial features, etc.)
"What's the difference between the Thatcher incident and this? Nothing IMO, both racism."
Then you need to reassess you opinion because if you can't see the difference between these two incidents then there is something seriously wrong with your capacity for reasoned argument.
So the Scots are a race are they? I think not.
Caucasian is a race.
Black African is a race.
Asian is a race.
etc.
The Scots are not a race. Neither are the Welsh, the English, the French, etc. These are simply geographic definitions.
A person's race refers to the categorisation of groups based on their inheritable characteristics (such as skin colour, facial features, etc.)
"What's the difference between the Thatcher incident and this? Nothing IMO, both racism."
Then you need to reassess you opinion because if you can't see the difference between these two incidents then there is something seriously wrong with your capacity for reasoned argument.
TCL-MUMPING � Thanks for that.
�Under the 1976 Race Relations Act �....
So what?
Ask any anthropologist and they'll tell you a �race� of people is defined by the characteristics that can be genetically inherited. This means skin colour, physical build, cranial or facial features, etc.
The French are not a race. If they were, the French would all look the same. You'd be able to spot a Frenchie at 100 yards. But you can't can you?
Are they all the same colour? Do they all share a physical characteristic?
No, of course not. Hence, they are not a race. They are just another geographically identifiable race of Caucasians.
Despite what the "law" says, the French are not a race. Nor are the English, Welsh, Scottish, etc.
Just because the "law" says something is true does not necessarily make it so.
�Under the 1976 Race Relations Act �....
So what?
Ask any anthropologist and they'll tell you a �race� of people is defined by the characteristics that can be genetically inherited. This means skin colour, physical build, cranial or facial features, etc.
The French are not a race. If they were, the French would all look the same. You'd be able to spot a Frenchie at 100 yards. But you can't can you?
Are they all the same colour? Do they all share a physical characteristic?
No, of course not. Hence, they are not a race. They are just another geographically identifiable race of Caucasians.
Despite what the "law" says, the French are not a race. Nor are the English, Welsh, Scottish, etc.
Just because the "law" says something is true does not necessarily make it so.
TCL-MUMPING - �That is the law of the land and the fact that you do not agree wi the legal definition is of no consequence.� (sic)
Spoken like a true robot.
How old are you?
Are you saying that we should accept our county�s laws without question? That we should accept the definition of a word or phrase without discussion?
Please, please, please think.
Spoken like a true robot.
How old are you?
Are you saying that we should accept our county�s laws without question? That we should accept the definition of a word or phrase without discussion?
Please, please, please think.
birdie1971 I'm not sure what ma age has to do wi ma answer but if you were born in1971 then I am older than you are. You said "The Scots are not a race. Neither are the Welsh, the English, the French, etc. These are simply geographic definitions." If I were happy about that statement do you think I would have posted in response?
I am having a discussion about the definition as used by you and as a matter of interest, the Court of Session ruled in 2001 that the RRA applied to discrimination between Scots and the English.
It seems nothing in yir own statement holds water as far as the law is concerned.
I am having a discussion about the definition as used by you and as a matter of interest, the Court of Session ruled in 2001 that the RRA applied to discrimination between Scots and the English.
It seems nothing in yir own statement holds water as far as the law is concerned.
This entire Clarkson story is ridiculous.
It's BBC-bashing. They stupidly mismanaged the Brand/Ross thing and let a tiny little storm in a tiny little tea cup blow up out of all proportion. And in doing so they made a rod for their own back.
As a result, they're then expected to freak out to an equal degree at anything near-the-knuckle.
Of course, they shouldn't tolerate bigotry. But we shouldn't stamp out anything edgy or undesirable for 10 year old kids or the Women's Institute.
Can we all just stop this and start again?
It's BBC-bashing. They stupidly mismanaged the Brand/Ross thing and let a tiny little storm in a tiny little tea cup blow up out of all proportion. And in doing so they made a rod for their own back.
As a result, they're then expected to freak out to an equal degree at anything near-the-knuckle.
Of course, they shouldn't tolerate bigotry. But we shouldn't stamp out anything edgy or undesirable for 10 year old kids or the Women's Institute.
Can we all just stop this and start again?
TCL-MUMPING � �It seems nothing in yir own statement holds water as far as the law is concerned.�
What's with the �ma age� and �wi ma answer�? Bizarre.
Anyway, back to your main quote above - that was my point wasn't it? What I was saying is that, just because the law says something is so, does not make it true.
For example, a judge recently decreed that the word �****� is racist. Now as you may have guessed, I'm not a judge, but I still maintain that this particular learned gentleman is wrong on this point. Just as the law is wrong on it's definition of �race�.
Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree, but I still maintain that the �law� is wrong on this point and the scientists (or rather, the taxonomists) are right.
Believe it or not, the law is not always correct.
What's with the �ma age� and �wi ma answer�? Bizarre.
Anyway, back to your main quote above - that was my point wasn't it? What I was saying is that, just because the law says something is so, does not make it true.
For example, a judge recently decreed that the word �****� is racist. Now as you may have guessed, I'm not a judge, but I still maintain that this particular learned gentleman is wrong on this point. Just as the law is wrong on it's definition of �race�.
Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree, but I still maintain that the �law� is wrong on this point and the scientists (or rather, the taxonomists) are right.
Believe it or not, the law is not always correct.
I'm mad now.
Why has the word �p@ki� been censored by AB? And why do I have to deliberately misspell it in order for it to be published?
It's pathetic AB - I thought you would be above such nonsense.
If this word is so offensive, please explain the existence of this Pakistani community website...
http://www.****.com/
If the above website gets censored, I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out.
Long live free speech.
Why has the word �p@ki� been censored by AB? And why do I have to deliberately misspell it in order for it to be published?
It's pathetic AB - I thought you would be above such nonsense.
If this word is so offensive, please explain the existence of this Pakistani community website...
http://www.****.com/
If the above website gets censored, I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out.
Long live free speech.
You may not agree about the various judges' opinions but that is the law. The RRA 1976 would have been debated in Parliament and undergone scrutiny at all stages. In legal issues there is guidance as to the way things are carried out and they apply in the Ulster, Scotland, England & Wales and in some instances only Wales. Those laws apply equally in those jurisdictions.
Language is a completely different matter. The use and spelling in a particular language may change within a few miles of the various folk using it let alone within a single country. You find the use of "wi" or "ma" bizarre but you want free speech. I am free to write in that same way as I speak, I SAY "ma" and I SAY "wi" and I will continue to write as I choose.
Language is a completely different matter. The use and spelling in a particular language may change within a few miles of the various folk using it let alone within a single country. You find the use of "wi" or "ma" bizarre but you want free speech. I am free to write in that same way as I speak, I SAY "ma" and I SAY "wi" and I will continue to write as I choose.
I do want free speech. I just found your writing style to be bizarre � I didn�t �demand� that you stop writing in this way. You seem to be trying to put words in my mouth. Write as you please.
Obviously we�ll have to agree to disagree on this matter.
But I would like to ask one last question � Do you think the English are a �race�? Is there an inheritable genetic characteristic that would define �The English� as a racial group?
Obviously we�ll have to agree to disagree on this matter.
But I would like to ask one last question � Do you think the English are a �race�? Is there an inheritable genetic characteristic that would define �The English� as a racial group?
<B<"I didn�t �demand� that you stop writing in this way. You seem to be trying to put words in my mouth." for someone who appears to be particular about the use of words I did not say you had demanded anything. As I said already, The Court of Session ruled the English are a separate race as far as the RRA is concerned and that is the important matter.
Latest Posts
Remembering Sqad On His Birthday
ChatterBank3 mins ago
News8 mins ago
The Religion Of Peace Strike Again...and...
News16 mins ago
