Met caught out targetting Black drivers..?

[Thomas]

But I feel you are conflating two things - the relatively widespread nature of often lower level racism, often of a verbal nature, with the legal status of those accused of racist criminal offences. It is perfectly possible to believe that racism is far too common whilst simultaneously believing in innocent until proven guilty under law.

You and cromwell or whoever else can believe anything you like. The point is , it doesnt make it true.

To be taken seriously in any debate on any subject , you normally have to try and back up with evidence any claims that are made. You and cromwell between you have spectacularly failed to do so.

You have supplied something like 6 examples of racism , some of which is anecdotal , one of which cromwell gave which wasnt even in the uk , of these mythical claims of widespread racism in the uk among a population of 67 million.

Thats is in no way any sort of evidence of racism being far too common in the uk is it?

A claim is exactly that , a claim nothing more. You dont kangaroo court 67 million people over empty claims and wishfull thinking of widespread racism simply because that is what you choose to believe.

though observers will as always have opinions regarding probable guilt or innocence in individual cases and will express them

sorry this is meaningless drivel. Observers have no right to drag anyones name through the mud simply because they wish to believe someone is guilty of racism before it is ever proved.

Thomas, whilst there are a tiny percentage of real anti-semites in Labour who are being dealt with - which is more than can be said for anti-semites in other parties - most such claims are grossly exaggerated or, most commmonly, involve the wilful conflation of legitimate criticism of Israel or of Zionist ideology with antisemitism.

Tiny percentage?

Im simply using your "tip of the iceberg" principle regarding racism and applying it to anti semtism in your party.

Surprise surprise , you then start demanding this empty headed principle isnt applied to your party becasue you dont like it , and can only be used when you approve  , like when talking of your "belief" in vast hordes of claims of racism.

which is more than can be said for anti-semites in other parties

The equality and human rights commission has only ever felt the need to investigate two political parties in the uk for claims of anti semitism , one the BNP back in 2010 , and now your party.

most such claims are grossly exaggerated

oh the feckn irony. Thats exactly what we are saying about your mythical hordes of racist claims !

most commmonly, involve the wilful conflation of legitimate criticism of Israel or of Zionist ideology with antisemitism

You are treating people as complete fools. I think a schoolchild could tell you the difference .

However jeremy corbyn himself said that he would be extremely carefull about using the word zionist as it is being increasingly hijacked by anti semites and used as a code for  criticism of"jews".

A guide to Labour Party anti-Semitism claims

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45030552

12 shocking claims of abuse in leaked Labour antisemitism dossier

https://news.sky.com/story/12-shocking-claims-of-abuse-in-leaked-labour-antisemitism-dossier-11879053

Jeremy Corbyn has made Labour a "welcoming refuge" for antisemitism and the party is "no longer a safe space for Jewish people", a dossier submitted to the human rights watchdog warns.

The Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) document, which was leaked on Friday, reveals sworn statements from 70 present and former Labour staffers which will be given to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) inquiry into antisemitism in the party.

Labour is only the second ever political party to have been probed by the EHRC, after the British National Party (BNP).

[papasmurf]

That could be construed as Antisemitism — the Jewish Chronicle has been British since 1841...

That is NOT mainstream media, there has been next to zero comment on the BBC, ITV, Sky, Channel 4, and the same with the national press.

[patman post]

That could be construed as Antisemitism — the Jewish Chronicle has been British since 1841...

[papasmurf]

The local Jewish media cover the story for those who like to consider all sides:
https://www.thejc.com/news/israel/israel-continues-airstrikes-on-hamas-targets-for-fifth-night-following-balloon-bombs-1.505729

I know that as well, that does not explain the lack of comment in the British media.

[patman post]

The local Jewish media cover the story for those who like to consider all sides:
https://www.thejc.com/news/israel/israel-continues-airstrikes-on-hamas-targets-for-fifth-night-following-balloon-bombs-1.505729

[papasmurf]

https://www.debka.com/israel-prepares-for-gaza-showdown-after-7-rockets-notch-up-palestinian-aggression/
They have been responding to incendiary balloons setting fire to Israeli fields causing scrub fires and rocket fire. Nothing to do with Antisemitism.

I know what they state they are responding to, that does not explain the absence of comment in the British mainstream media.

[Barry]

Precisely.  I wonder if fear of being called anti-Semitic is the Israel bombing of Gaza for nearly two weeks not being mentioned  on the mainstream British media.

https://www.debka.com/israel-prepares-for-gaza-showdown-after-7-rockets-notch-up-palestinian-aggression/
They have been responding to incendiary balloons setting fire to Israeli fields causing scrub fires and rocket fire. Nothing to do with Antisemitism.

[patman post]

Nearly back to the thread subject I wonder if police cars out on patrol still have a snooker competion between each other based on the colours of the cars they stop/check?

More likely their own version of Pot Black or Black=Pot...

[papasmurf]

Thomas, whilst there are a tiny percentage of real anti-semites in Labour who are being dealt with - which is more than can be said for anti-semites in other parties - most such claims are grossly exaggerated or, most commmonly, involve the wilful conflation of legitimate criticism of Israel or of Zionist ideology with antisemitism. All should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, but the party - under pressure from right wing Jewish elements - often does the reverse, assuming guilt until or unless innocence is proved. But these tend to be internal party matters not involving the criminal justice system.

Precisely.  I wonder if fear of being called anti-Semitic is the Israel bombing of Gaza for nearly two weeks not being mentioned  on the mainstream British media.

Nearly back to the thread subject I wonder if police cars out on patrol still have a snooker competion between each other based on the colours of the cars they stop/check?

[srb7677]

Thomas, whilst there are a tiny percentage of real anti-semites in Labour who are being dealt with - which is more than can be said for anti-semites in other parties - most such claims are grossly exaggerated or, most commmonly, involve the wilful conflation of legitimate criticism of Israel or of Zionist ideology with antisemitism. All should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, but the party - under pressure from right wing Jewish elements - often does the reverse, assuming guilt until or unless innocence is proved. But these tend to be internal party matters not involving the criminal justice system.

Of course all accusations of criminal racist behaviour more generally are just that - accusations, as yet unproven in law. The accused have a right in law to be regarded as innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty, though observers will as always have opinions regarding probable guilt or innocence in individual cases and will express them.

But I feel you are conflating two things - the relatively widespread nature of often lower level racism, often of a verbal nature, with the legal status of those accused of racist criminal offences. It is perfectly possible to believe that racism is far too common whilst simultaneously believing in innocent until proven guilty under law.

[Thomas]

Ok fair enough, if that's what you want. This problem is only going to get worse though.

I think it will get worse deppity till eventually there is a day of reckoning.

Interesting though , over the course of the "debate" on this and related subjects , we keep hearing about the implicit bias of those on the left , and how a "claim" of racism , contrary to the rule of law that underpins western society , must automatically be taken as guilt on the side of the accused party till proven innocence if what im reading insinuated is correct.( no doubt i will be told otherwise)

Wings over scotland published a few scottish polls the other day , and one that interested me was in relation to this subject of how the law should apply differently to different people....

5. "Sometimes the law should be different for different groups of people"

Agree: 13%
Disagree: 87%

No big deal here, just the core principle of criminal justice – that the law should be the same for everyone – being casually tossed aside by almost one in seven Scots.

Rather unexpectedly, Lib Dem voters (16%) were keenest to have the law altered by demographics, with Labour and SNP supporters tied on 12% and Tories on 9%. Once more young people were also the most supportive age group (17%) compared to 12% and 10% for middle and older ages.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/darwins-failures/#more-117748

The law should be the same for everyone , contrary to what is being insinuated in this thread , a claim of racism is just that  , a claim till proven otherwise. Like any other claim. There shouldnt be a seperate law for black folk where a claim of racism is automatically assumed to be an indicator of guilt on the accussed.

As you can see from the poll and comments  , its the usual minority liberal looney left ( that includes some of the clowns in the snp and wider yes movement ) that seem to want to toss the law applies equally and without fear or favour to all aside when it suits their argument.

(labour.....racist claims are the tip of the iceberg.

Public........what about anti semtism claims in labour?

Labour ......naw that rule doesnt apply to us!)

[DeppityDawg]

I'm not claiming I'm more right than you either,I don't want to get in to an argument with you over this so I'm leaving it there.....no doubt Thomas  will claim running away but I don't give a rats what he thinks if I do ever go I'll make sure he's the first to know......but perhaps not.

Ok fair enough, if that's what you want. This problem is only going to get worse though.

[cromwell]

No I didn't you're doing a Thomas,I said many which is an indefinite because I said already I don't know.
Ever heard the saying Many a true word is spoken in jest,how many are then do you know? I don't.
Some,many have you never used those words?

Then I am sorry Cromwell, but I no longer even understand what your argument is? Your claim was that most racist incidents/allegations were true (or words to that effect), yet there's no hope of ever being able to prove that. I can't be bothered to go back there now, but basically, it looks to me that you support the notion that 'most' racist accusations are true, and since virtually all the claims we see in the media are from ethnic minorities, you are by default supporting the notion that racism is 'endemic' in this country. What other conclusion should I come to?

Apart from the Dawn Butler incident, there are several stories that have made headlines over the last few days/weeks. There is a video of some dickhead getting knocked out on the tube after making what are clear racist comments. I'm sure most people laughed at him getting sparked out - but why don't you now demand some action? Prosecute him? Why not? The evidence is there?

Then there is also a video circulating of some Asian guy getting arrested in Yorkshire - he is now claiming 'racism', that he couldn't breathe (strange that everyone getting arrested can't fecking breathe now can they?), that he saw the angel of death (talk about drama), and that he didn't resist arrest. The last bit is bollox - in the video the officer can be clearly seen having to drag him off the car, and there is other video evidence of the same man assaulting another guy - can we prosecute him too because the evidence is there? No, can we f*ck. We can't prosecute someone who has assaulted someone else, not without having to go through the usual circus of 'racism' claims, or the officer concerned getting suspended - this is the shite people are getting sick of. Like Patman Post claiming that the Police being 'polite' is now an attempt to wind him up and get a reaction? Thats some comment from a poster whose whole history on these forums has been based on trying to get a reaction. What are they supposed to do ffs? Get down on their knee for him? You legitimise this by making claims that 'most' racism claims are true, when a claim that that can never be proved.

Thats an opinion btw, not a claim that I am more 'right' than you. For the same reason I sometimes use capital letter to emphasis what I object to, just so its clear. Sorry if you don't like that, but its clearly difficult to get some people to understand the fecking point you are making

Well don't be sorry because you are perfectly entitled to your opinion,I thought I'd made it perfectly clear what I believe but obviously not.

As far as me not liking you writing in capitals  tbh not bothered I was taking the piss because I once remember you having a go at Smurfy constantly doing it,whether you remember or not is irrelevant really.

I'm not claiming I'm more right than you either,I don't want to get in to an argument with you over this so I'm leaving it there.....no doubt Thomas  will claim running away but I don't give a rats what he thinks if I do ever go I'll make sure he's the first to know......but perhaps not.

[srb7677]

This long-winded "debate" over semantics is most tiresome.

Fact is that whilst some wrongdoers might accuse the police or their accusers of racism as some kind of attempt at a defence or mitigation, I think only a fool would try to claim that many stated experiences of racism are bullshit. They are likely to have been perceived as genuinely racist by the person on the receiving end in many cases. And anecdotal though it may be, the fact that many of us have witnessed with our own eyes and ears many racist incidents over the years does tend to suggest a certain degree of ubiquity.

In my view those trying to deny this and believing it is all bollocks generally have an interest in downplaying the reality of racism for whatever motive.

[DeppityDawg]

No I didn't you're doing a Thomas,I said many which is an indefinite because I said already I don't know.
Ever heard the saying Many a true word is spoken in jest,how many are then do you know? I don't.
Some,many have you never used those words?

Then I am sorry Cromwell, but I no longer even understand what your argument is? Your claim was that most racist incidents/allegations were true (or words to that effect), yet there's no hope of ever being able to prove that. I can't be bothered to go back there now, but basically, it looks to me that you support the notion that 'most' racist accusations are true, and since virtually all the claims we see in the media are from ethnic minorities, you are by default supporting the notion that racism is 'endemic' in this country. What other conclusion should I come to?

Apart from the Dawn Butler incident, there are several stories that have made headlines over the last few days/weeks. There is a video of some dickhead getting knocked out on the tube after making what are clear racist comments. I'm sure most people laughed at him getting sparked out - but why don't you now demand some action? Prosecute him? Why not? The evidence is there?

Then there is also a video circulating of some Asian guy getting arrested in Yorkshire - he is now claiming 'racism', that he couldn't breathe (strange that everyone getting arrested can't fecking breathe now can they?), that he saw the angel of death (talk about drama), and that he didn't resist arrest. The last bit is bollox - in the video the officer can be clearly seen having to drag him off the car, and there is other video evidence of the same man assaulting another guy - can we prosecute him too because the evidence is there? No, can we f*ck. We can't prosecute someone who has assaulted someone else, not without having to go through the usual circus of 'racism' claims, or the officer concerned getting suspended - this is the shite people are getting sick of. Like Patman Post claiming that the Police being 'polite' is now an attempt to wind him up and get a reaction? Thats some comment from a poster whose whole history on these forums has been based on trying to get a reaction. What are they supposed to do ffs? Get down on their knee for him? You legitimise this by making claims that 'most' racism claims are true, when a claim that that can never be proved.

Thats an opinion btw, not a claim that I am more 'right' than you. For the same reason I sometimes use capital letter to emphasis what I object to, just so its clear. Sorry if you don't like that, but its clearly difficult to get some people to understand the fecking point you are making