Whoah, I reckon you don't actually mean that.

The way it reads is that it's OK to say that non-white are less than honest, which is an over-simplification and over-extrapolation that could very easily be racist.

From someone who refuses to acknowledge it when shown to be posting factually incorrect nonsense (frequently) and bleats on about "the real wold", that's a compliment.

And who, 'running this board', as you put it, claims to be a "socialist"? I certainly don't: I dislike labels and find them as unhelpful and frequently lacking in intellectual rigour as 'you don't live in the real world', which is perhaps one of the most infuriatingly cretinous displays of an inability to actually construct a proper argument that one is likely to find anywhere.

It assumes, with extraordinary arrogance, that only the speaker's experience is somehow 'real'; that only the confines of the speaker's existence are valid.

It is factually utter nonsense. You may not like it, but everyone else's experience of life - of the world - is just as valid as yours. Life in inner city Bethnal Green is no less real than that in refined Chorlton cum Hardy is no less real than that in a farm on the top of Shap Fell.

The experience of the carer who wipes the sh*t from an elderly person's bottom is no less real than that of someone who stacks shelves in a supermarket or someone who shuffles money from continent to continent to someone working in the media. Oh, they might be very different lives and very different experiences, but they are all quite real.

To suggest otherwise is utter and complete hogwash.

You mad socialist, you. Don't you know Sal is reporting to us from 'the real world'?

Refined Chorlton cum Hardy? Things must have changed. Lived there as a student in the 70's. Mugged a few times. Frequently woken up in the early hours by blokes confusing our house with the knocking shop next door.

:16rx13b9

Let me start with this: I am of the opinion that non white British people, as a group, contain the same sort of mix of totally honest, less than honest and dishonest as any other group.

Your pathetic whingeing implies that somehow you may not understand what you've put, so let me dissect it for you.

1. You assert that people have, on here, suggested that "non white British people are less than totally honest"

2. When this has happened, they have been accused of racism.

3. You claim some have advanced "facts" to support the proposition that "non white British people are less than totally honest". By deduction, some have [i:16rx13b9not[/i:16rx13b9 advanced any such "facts".

4. So, some have simply claimed that "non white British people are less than totally honest" without even trying to justify the claim.

5. A claim such as in (4) is pure, unadulterated racism.

6. There are no "facts" which support the claim that "non white British people are less than totally honest". So anyone making this claim and then inventing some "facts" would be bullting.

Do you see where this is going? If I said ":16rx13b9SOME who are "less than totally honest".)

You did not even say "some". And thus by singling out "non white British people" as "less than totally honest" in your comment, as well as implicitly accepting that there are, or even could be "facts" which support that outrageous proposition, you are waving a huge red flag which says "I am a racist". If that was not your intention, then you have some explaining to do.

In a few words kettle and pot - arrogance - you should read 99% of your posts. Backed up by links to someone with an agenda that supports your messed up thought processes - the supermarket stuff but one example. Not surprisingly you critisise someone - anyone who quotes the Dail Mail - for doing exactly the same when its agenda isn't yours.

I will say it again the majority of your views are so nieve as to laughable - I have listed a few in this very thread. You spout lefty theory from your ivory tower a hypocrite of the very worst kind. This rant is typical of your norrowing down to the only thing left you can argue - you don't know anything about me or what my life experiences are you just assume I was born with an "Expense Account"!!

You are in a select group on here who are "More equal than the rest" like a lot things those that post have to accept most don't play in a level playing field that is the "Real world"

Wow all the usual suspects are ganging together!!

What I am saying is this there are certain topics which cannot be discussed on here because a certain group of prominent posters attempt to strangle the debate

Here are some examples of racial differences two quick ones - factual examples!!

Years ago when I had another user name I raised the issue of grooming by Pakistani boys of young girls especially in Keighley - I was pilloried on here as a racist for even bringing up this. This was and still is a major issue in West Yorkshire and their have been criminal convictions to support this.

Uninsured vehicles is another instance of non white British, most will be born here but of immigrant origin - Bradford post codes being two of the top four and these post codes being predominently inhabited by immigrants and their offspring. Now it could be that is the white population that don't insure their vehicles but the balance of probability and common sense would suggest that if 90% of the population is of ethnic origin then 90% of the un-insured vehicles are owned by the ethnics? Unless you can list all the those who are not insured individually and produce photographic evidence the "more equals" will see this as an opportunity to label you a racist.

Islam is now something that cannot be discussed on here anymore - anyone who dared to suggest all was not well in Muhammad's house was well and truly set upon by the usual suspects!!

I have no objection to some posters having special rights - life is not fair - as long as we all know the rules of engagement.

I assume absolutely nothing about you - and I have never suggested that you were "born with an 'Expense Account'": where you get this from I have no idea, but it simply illustrates, yet again, your chippiness.

Now, I suggest that, instead of derailing this thread with your paranoid whinging, you concentrate on the discussion itself.

Get it?

Good!

that would be a good idea as i'm sure most of us are getting fed up with the sniping...

so "What now for the UK ?"

I have no idea but what I do know is that whatever happens in the EU or Japan or the US or wherever will have an impact on the UK,whether the UK is in the euozone or not.

We are all in the same boat and the smart countries will do their best to alleviate the symptoms which to me seems the [ubest[/u case scenario ! - Sarko & Merkel are trying to work out some kind of franco-german pact but also fighting each other at the same time which doesn't help matters - what worries me is the Chinese stance which appears to be to 'let well alone' and get on with building world trade domination...

which ever way you look at it the situation is pretty grim.....

Notice how countries like Switzerland, Norway and Iceland don't want to be in the Euro with their strong economies (Ok Iceland had a set back but look to berecovering quite well) and poor countries like Kosovo, Romania, even going back a bit the Greeks couldn't wait. That to me should say that someone smells a rat and they don't want to have to help prop up the weak economies and watch their own suffer, whereas the poor countries can't wait to come to the table like Oliver Twist and beg for more.

What's wrong with countries just having their own currency and economies and just keeping the things that work like the free movement through Europe and trade benefits?
All the backside kissing this country as done to Europe and the other countries still treat us with contempt and suspect always will, sod them, let their banks go to the wall, Iceland did, and they are recovering. Lets just start again and if there are casualties on the way, so be it, humans are resilient enough to come back from it.
To quote Maximo Park, "what happens when you lose every thing, you just start again"

believe it or not the french have a lot of respect for the brits - i'm not talking about politicians who have their own agendas but the french man or woman in the street
many are saddened by the minority of british spongers who give the rest a bad name (we've done this before) but the french are very nationalistic and xenophobic - they are a proud bunch not liking change but the majority I know are rascist especially toward the north african community and more latterly,the eastern europeans.
The UMP,the party of Chirac etc are now demanding that 'foreigners' don't have the right to vote in france which is quite a big thing for a party of Social Democrats ?
Showing such nationalistic tendencies is going against the EU ideals but the majority now want to see France out of the EU and looking after themselves first and foremost,instead of helping to prop up (along with the UK,Germany & Holland etc) the poorer eastern european countries.

Grow up - please!!

Get it?

Good!!

I have provided some examples to avoid accusations of generalisation.

After nearly 10 years here, I'd expect you to have learned the difference between a contribution to a thread and a mod or admin warning you as a mod or admin. Unless you'd rather take a break from the Sin Bin?

Switzerland's government DID want to be in the EU, their referendum said No.
Iceland suffers from island-mentality just like the UK does, besides they have so much interest in fish, they don't want to let anyone else in.
Weak economies have tests to pass, however enforcing adherence (e.g. Greece) has been the whole problem and this is what Merkel and Sarkozy have been trying to get in place so that it wouldn't happen again.

What's wrong with countries having their currency etc etc?
Well, where to begin? ...
1. Big currencies are harder for the sharks in the ForEx markets to gamble against and, even in the midst of the current whirlwind, the Euro is still stiing at 83p. Look at what happened when the gamblers sniffed blood when Lamont was throwing money at the pound on Black Wednesday, like in a game of poker, he ran out of cash before their combined wallets did.
2. Big currencies (esp. controlled by a central bank) are more stable.
3. A common currency across a common market is a sensible medium of exchange, both the buyer and seller know that the price they agreed is the price that will be paid.

I'll treat the comments about backside kissing etc as typical British insularity

Oh, GROW UP!! ffs. It is both pathetic, and insulting. I'm posting what I what, when I want. I'm not in anybody's fscking gang. Respond to the POINTS I make, or don't, I couldn't care less, but cut the crap.


Nope. that is you saying something COMPLETELY different. That is you now trying to divert the topic, because you are unwilling or unable to deal with the clear argument I posted.

I will answer your new points, but that does not mean your tactic has worked. I await your reply to what I said. If you have a reply.


Are you actually claiming that such 'grooming' in Keighley is due to a "racial difference"? Why then do the vast majority of "Pakistani boys" not engage in 'grooming'? Or maybe you have evidence that they do?


How come you are not getting this? Or do you actually believe that if I am "non white British" there is some "racial difference" which stops me from insuring cars? Is THAT what you think? Really?


As is fairly well known I am of the view that all religion is bollox, and has been and remains a perennial excuse for many of mankind's worst excesses. Having said which I have no clue what you mean by "Islam cannot be discussed". Where does it say that? Who has deprived me of the benefit of reading what would no doubt be your profound and insightful views on Islam? Tell me, and I shall berate them.

Now, having disposed of your attempt to divert the thread, explain to me the basis on which you claimed that "non white British people are less than totally honest". And if you get several replies, then as well as your default and paranoid conspiracy / gang delusions, maybe you should at least consider the remote possibility that it [icould[/i just be because several people disagree with you. Left field, I know, but you can't rule it out.

In the wake of the mad cow fiasco, when British beef had been deemed safe the French ignored directives to accept British beef even under pressure they basically said F U. They ignored the European Court of forced expulsion of Roma gypsies they also refuse to integrate EU laws into their own, they dig their heels in all the time as do other countries, and we seem to just accept every directive thrown at us as though we are trying to appease them.

France have been the most obstinate country since the start of the EU project YET we are the ones who are banded about as the country that is the biggest hindrance to the EU project, France never bows down to EU pressure when they feel their own interests are at stake, as soon as we finally stand up for ourselves, the whole lot come down on us. France has always made its wishes known and blocked initiatives that don’t serve its interests.

You really, really need to stop reading the tabloids and do some research of your own.

Good post.

Probably get you banned though. Shame.

How typically presumptuous
I have very rarely read tabloids since 97 when i left home when my folks always bought The Express, the occasions i do leave me shaking my head at what they deem news, i now only tend to read The Standard on the occasions i travel on the tube, i'm not one for buying papers.

That was my own research, granted from about 2005, but you don't think the French ride roughshod over EU directives and put their own self interests first?

Do you like anyone from Leeds?

Carry on ... I'm quite happy to have one, two or three, or more, take a Christmas break.

Or you could stick to the topic of the thread.

Your choices...

I think it has to be 'what now for all western countries', frankly.



I don't think we've reached the tipping point quite yet, but I do think that there will be a point where people say 'enough is enough' to constantly reducing incomes and a rising cost of living, increased job security, increasing poverty in retirement and old age and much more.

We need a vibrant mixed economy – not just in terms of public and private, but also in terms of a far better balance between service industries and manufacturing (it's around 75%-25% at present, if I remember correctly).

Now that isn't going to happen overnight, so in the short term, we do need to see the economy grow within the current balance. That's ultimately the only way to cut the UK's deficit, being specific to the UK again. You don't do that by making more people unemployed and by slashing wages – both of which remove money from the wider economy, with the obvious impact on those service industries, be they financial services, restaurants, nail salons or any shop.

I would certainly want to see some stimulus – and I think housing is the perfect vehicle, since we have a chronic shortage, plus (apparently) much of the older housing stock is in a dire state of repair.

At the same time, we need to get a grip on the City and big business – not least in terms of the deals that are being done to escape tax and even interest on unpaid tax – you only need to look at the recent revelations about Goldman Sachs being let off a big bill, with the story alongside it that the man who revealed this, to a committee of MPs (not a newspaper) is at risk of losing his job as a result. You can see why some people wouldn't want the populace as a whole to know such things.

And my personal opinion is that a UK transaction tax would also be enormously helpful at this time.

The UK has such a tax already, and bizarrely we still have the strongest financial sectorin Europe. We call it "Stamp Duty"..

But of course those nasty Johnny Foriegners are just trying to destroy the City.

It is an ideal vehicle for economic stimulus and for high (if short term) employment of skilled and unskilled labour.

The problem is that the vehicle either contradicts the clampdown on excesses or flies in the face of the current incumbents political beliefs - you can't announce yesterday that mortgages will be harder to come by in future with much more stringent income checks and at the same time hope to sell thousands of new houses, and you can't instead expect this government to finance the building of social housing, not without also expecting hell to freeze over.