Discussion:
"Let's be honest about what's really driving Brexit: bigotry"
Add Reply
MM
2018-12-03 13:11:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis.

Furthermore, while racists like Nigel Farage with his poster campaign
are so obvious, an undercurrent of racism flows right across England
in all strata of society, from the ordinary worker, to the boss of an
engineering company, to the little old lady riding a bicycle to
church.

We oldies all grew up in a country of largely white faces. Weeks,
months, would go by when one never saw a non-white face. I remember ny
Dad telling me aged six "Don't stare" on our occasional trips to
London from the South Coast, because in Hastings I hadn't seen any
non-white faces. The police were white. Doctors were white. Teachers
were white. Judges were white. It was just a fact of life, just how it
was 50 years ago in nearly every community.

The change from nearly all white faces to a mix of different
ethnicities happened too quickly to quell bigotry. Perhaps I was
different from most people in that I started work aged 15 and both my
foremen in two different garages were of Indian or Arabian extraction.
In 1961 this was most unsual, especially in rural Kent. They were
nice, friendly people, good at their jobs, totally impartial with all
the fitters, so there was nothing about them that might have shaped my
opinions towards a bias against their ethnicity.

But for many people it didn't work like that. Suddenly, after
Windrush, non-white faces appeared, accents changed, the English who
went through the war having grown up in the 1920s and '30s felt
confronted and under threat. They had fought Nazism in defence of
human rights, but curiously those human rights did not, in their eyes,
extend to *all* nationalities.

Fast forward to June 2016 and it is clearer than ever that the impetus
fuelling the Leave vote was blatant racism, or its more polite cousin,
xenophobia. People said they wanted to take back control, but what
they really meant was, they wanted to control inward migration to,
hopefully, zero if at all possible. Not only reduce it to zero, but
"encourage" repatriation of any non-white face still left over. Post
the referendum we heard about hundreds of cases of abuse, frequently
with violence, towards foreigners, which means the number we didn't
hear about or read about was a hundred times bigger. Many of those
abused were actually British born and bred, but the far-right doesn't
make a distinction. To them, foreigners are foreigners if they look or
sound like foreigners. For Farage, simply hearing foreign accents on
trains was enough to set him off. The far-right tendency across
England felt they suddenly had the right to abuse foreigners because
that was what the referendum result told them.

"In June 2017, a report collated from the British Social Attitudes
survey showed that the most significant factor in the leave vote was
anxiety about the number of people coming to the UK. A comprehensive
study published by Nuffield College in April drew similar conclusions
about the salience of immigration in attitudes to Brexit. 'Take back
control' was indeed the slogan of the leave campaign, but it was
'control' with one purpose, above all others, at its heart."

"Beneath all the talk of 'control' and 'global Britain', there is the
germ of an extremely unpleasant nativism. Again, we pesky centrists
are told to be quiet and to heed the concerns of those who have been
'left behind'. But since there is not a shred of respectable evidence
that immigration has had more than a marginal impact upon public
service capacity, wage levels or net welfare costs, I am forced to
conclude that there is now a sufficiency of Britons who just don’t
much like people of foreign extraction, and certainly don’t want many
more of them around the place."

"So often one hears that the British people 'were not consulted' about
immigration levels. To which the answer is: oh yes you damn well were.
Every time you insisted on a properly staffed NHS, on social care that
was halfway decent, on a service economy that worked, on affordable
decorators, on your Tesco and Amazon deliveries arriving on time. Each
time you took that landscape for granted, you were complicit in the
immigration policy that preceded the Brexit vote."

So really, what Brexit is all about is how to keep the English in some
kind of harmony with each other, whatever ethnicity or nationality
they happen to be or have, until enough of us have passed on and
replaced by young, educated kids who just don't have this inherent or
intrinsic trait that defines many of those who voted to leave the EU.
Already, the number of young voters now eligible to vote is
approaching 1.5 million, and a far greater proportion of them would
vote to remain if given the chance.

You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries.

Some of the above extracts, the ones in quotes, are from this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/02/honest-brexit-bigotry-ugly-chapter-history

MM
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-12-03 13:36:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis.
Furthermore, while racists like Nigel Farage with his poster campaign
are so obvious, an undercurrent of racism flows right across England
in all strata of society, from the ordinary worker, to the boss of an
engineering company, to the little old lady riding a bicycle to
church.
We oldies all grew up in a country of largely white faces. Weeks,
months, would go by when one never saw a non-white face. I remember ny
Dad telling me aged six "Don't stare" on our occasional trips to
London from the South Coast, because in Hastings I hadn't seen any
non-white faces. The police were white. Doctors were white. Teachers
were white. Judges were white. It was just a fact of life, just how it
was 50 years ago in nearly every community.
The change from nearly all white faces to a mix of different
ethnicities happened too quickly to quell bigotry. Perhaps I was
different from most people in that I started work aged 15 and both my
foremen in two different garages were of Indian or Arabian extraction.
In 1961 this was most unsual, especially in rural Kent. They were
nice, friendly people, good at their jobs, totally impartial with all
the fitters, so there was nothing about them that might have shaped my
opinions towards a bias against their ethnicity.
But for many people it didn't work like that. Suddenly, after
Windrush, non-white faces appeared, accents changed, the English who
went through the war having grown up in the 1920s and '30s felt
confronted and under threat. They had fought Nazism in defence of
human rights, but curiously those human rights did not, in their eyes,
extend to *all* nationalities.
Fast forward to June 2016 and it is clearer than ever that the impetus
fuelling the Leave vote was blatant racism, or its more polite cousin,
xenophobia. People said they wanted to take back control, but what
they really meant was, they wanted to control inward migration to,
hopefully, zero if at all possible. Not only reduce it to zero, but
"encourage" repatriation of any non-white face still left over. Post
the referendum we heard about hundreds of cases of abuse, frequently
with violence, towards foreigners, which means the number we didn't
hear about or read about was a hundred times bigger. Many of those
abused were actually British born and bred, but the far-right doesn't
make a distinction. To them, foreigners are foreigners if they look or
sound like foreigners. For Farage, simply hearing foreign accents on
trains was enough to set him off. The far-right tendency across
England felt they suddenly had the right to abuse foreigners because
that was what the referendum result told them.
"In June 2017, a report collated from the British Social Attitudes
survey showed that the most significant factor in the leave vote was
anxiety about the number of people coming to the UK. A comprehensive
study published by Nuffield College in April drew similar conclusions
about the salience of immigration in attitudes to Brexit. 'Take back
control' was indeed the slogan of the leave campaign, but it was
'control' with one purpose, above all others, at its heart."
"Beneath all the talk of 'control' and 'global Britain', there is the
germ of an extremely unpleasant nativism. Again, we pesky centrists
are told to be quiet and to heed the concerns of those who have been
'left behind'. But since there is not a shred of respectable evidence
that immigration has had more than a marginal impact upon public
service capacity, wage levels or net welfare costs, I am forced to
conclude that there is now a sufficiency of Britons who just don’t
much like people of foreign extraction, and certainly don’t want many
more of them around the place."
"So often one hears that the British people 'were not consulted' about
immigration levels. To which the answer is: oh yes you damn well were.
Every time you insisted on a properly staffed NHS, on social care that
was halfway decent, on a service economy that worked, on affordable
decorators, on your Tesco and Amazon deliveries arriving on time. Each
time you took that landscape for granted, you were complicit in the
immigration policy that preceded the Brexit vote."
So really, what Brexit is all about is how to keep the English in some
kind of harmony with each other, whatever ethnicity or nationality
they happen to be or have, until enough of us have passed on and
replaced by young, educated kids who just don't have this inherent or
intrinsic trait that defines many of those who voted to leave the EU.
Already, the number of young voters now eligible to vote is
approaching 1.5 million, and a far greater proportion of them would
vote to remain if given the chance.
You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/02/honest-brexit-bigotry-ugly-chapter-history
MM
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
Pamela
2018-12-03 14:14:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never bigoted?
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-12-03 14:20:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article that
suggests that that is the case.
Pamela
2018-12-03 14:39:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article that
suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in Africa, you
will find far greater prejudice than the article describes.

The article doesn't say only white English people behave like this. Can
you point me to where it does?
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-12-03 14:48:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article that
suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in Africa, you
will find far greater prejudice than the article describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe is far
worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like this. Can
you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have thought the
message was clear?
Pamela
2018-12-03 16:23:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article that
suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in Africa,
you will find far greater prejudice than the article describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe is
far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like this.
Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have thought the
message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave like
this". It doesn't say that.

What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are very bigoted
so there's litle truth in making the statement at all.
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-12-03 16:55:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article that
suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in Africa,
you will find far greater prejudice than the article describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe is
far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like this.
Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have thought the
message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave like
this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are very bigoted
so there's litle truth in making the statement at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe that.
WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it is excusable,
since they are reacting to systemic racism. I don't want to believe it,
but I'm not sure that a white person (like me) can ever judge the truth
of that.
Pamela
2018-12-03 17:09:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article that
suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in Africa,
you will find far greater prejudice than the article describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe is
far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like this.
Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have thought
the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave like
this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are very
bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe that.
WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it is
excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I don't want
to believe it, but I'm not sure that a white person (like me) can ever
judge the truth of that.
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-12-03 17:16:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article that
suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in Africa,
you will find far greater prejudice than the article describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe is
far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like this.
Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have thought
the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave like
this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are very
bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe that.
WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it is
excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his first
paragraph:

"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis."

the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with

"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."

Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only comes
here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through the day,
then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in. :-)
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I don't want
to believe it, but I'm not sure that a white person (like me) can ever
judge the truth of that.
MM
2018-12-04 10:01:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article that
suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in Africa,
you will find far greater prejudice than the article describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe is
far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like this.
Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have thought
the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave like
this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are very
bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe that.
WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it is
excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his first
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only comes
here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through the day,
then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in. :-)
You didn't see anything in what I wrote that specifically targeted
non-whites. My criticisms were entirely aimed at *white* English
voters who grew up when non-whites were a rarity for most English
people, while the right and far-right fomented that curiosity into
bigotry, then full-blown hatred which all came out the day after the
referendum. If we do leave, the abuse and violence towards non-whites
will rise. Just look at the bigotry endemic throughout the Home Office
in its treatment of Windrush migrants.

MM
Pamela
2018-12-04 14:25:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article
that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe
is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have thought
the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave like
this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are very
bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe
that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it is
excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only comes
here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through the day,
then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in. :-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.

If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest you
don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in such a way.
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-12-04 14:45:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article
that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe
is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have thought
the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave like
this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are very
bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe
that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it is
excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only comes
here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through the day,
then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in. :-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play along and
invite him to think about what he's accusing people of doing. Once
again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm probably flattering
myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest you
don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up, too?
Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to that
conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but am not
surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
Incubus
2018-12-04 15:29:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article
that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe
is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have thought
the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave like
this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are very
bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe
that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it is
excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only comes
here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through the day,
then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in. :-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play along and
invite him to think about what he's accusing people of doing. Once
again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm probably flattering
myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest you
don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up, too?
Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to that
conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but am not
surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
Expecting serious responses out of Pamela or MM is rather pointless. I have
filtered MM but Pamela hasn't blotted 'her' copybook quite that much yet.
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-12-04 15:42:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article
that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe
is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have thought
the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave like
this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are very
bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe
that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it is
excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only comes
here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through the day,
then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in. :-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play along and
invite him to think about what he's accusing people of doing. Once
again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm probably flattering
myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest you
don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up, too?
Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to that
conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but am not
surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
Expecting serious responses out of Pamela or MM is rather pointless. I have
filtered MM but Pamela hasn't blotted 'her' copybook quite that much yet.
I quite like MM in an odd sort of way. I know he's a wind-up, but I
don't mind playing along sometimes, since he's usually fairly
good-natured about it. I though the OP in this case, though, was rather
objectionable and ill-considered. Right now, though, I'm going to take
Pamela's (why do people think she/he/it is a he?) advice and not get
sucked in any further.
Incubus
2018-12-04 16:41:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never
bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article
that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe
is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have thought
the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave like
this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are very
bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe
that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it is
excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only comes
here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through the day,
then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in. :-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play along and
invite him to think about what he's accusing people of doing. Once
again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm probably flattering
myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest you
don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up, too?
Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to that
conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but am not
surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
Expecting serious responses out of Pamela or MM is rather pointless. I have
filtered MM but Pamela hasn't blotted 'her' copybook quite that much yet.
I quite like MM in an odd sort of way. I know he's a wind-up, but I
don't mind playing along sometimes, since he's usually fairly
good-natured about it.
He is harmless but tedious. He has been 'doxxed' a couple of times on this
group, which was unwarranted, but he seems to be not all that dissimilar in
real life to his Usenet persona.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I though the OP in this case, though, was rather
objectionable and ill-considered. Right now, though, I'm going to take
Pamela's (why do people think she/he/it is a he?) advice and not get
sucked in any further.
Pamela just seems a bit too good to be true and reminds me of Judith, who is
believed to be a chap called Tony. She inhabits the same groups and attacks
the same people.
Pamela
2018-12-04 16:45:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you
suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are
never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an
article that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland
Europe is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave
like this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave
like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are
very bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at
all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does
believe that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are
claims that it is excusable, since they are reacting to
systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently
racist country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference,
as he is obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut
feeling is that we have never truly rejected those signs in the
1960s "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs
actually equated foreigners with animals? We're still doing it
today, and this group shows plenty of evidence of it on a daily
basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only
comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through
the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked
in. :-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play
along and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of
doing. Once again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm
probably flattering myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect
a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest
you don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in
such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up,
too? Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to
that conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but
am not surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
Expecting serious responses out of Pamela or MM is rather pointless.
I have filtered MM but Pamela hasn't blotted 'her' copybook quite
that much yet.
I quite like MM in an odd sort of way. I know he's a wind-up, but I
don't mind playing along sometimes, since he's usually fairly
good-natured about it.
He is harmless but tedious. He has been 'doxxed' a couple of times on
this group, which was unwarranted, but he seems to be not all that
dissimilar in real life to his Usenet persona.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I though the OP in this case, though, was rather
objectionable and ill-considered. Right now, though, I'm going to
take Pamela's (why do people think she/he/it is a he?) advice and not
get sucked in any further.
Pamela just seems a bit too good to be true and reminds me of Judith,
who is believed to be a chap called Tony. She inhabits the same
groups and attacks the same people.
Steady on Incubus. Nice of you to say I am too good to be true
(*curtsy*) but I am neither of those people you mention.

If I were I wouldn't hide it. What would be the point?

Out of interest, what nym does Fat Tony use?
Incubus
2018-12-04 17:14:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you
suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are
never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an
article that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland
Europe is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave
like this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave
like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are
very bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at
all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does
believe that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are
claims that it is excusable, since they are reacting to
systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently
racist country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference,
as he is obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut
feeling is that we have never truly rejected those signs in the
1960s "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs
actually equated foreigners with animals? We're still doing it
today, and this group shows plenty of evidence of it on a daily
basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only
comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through
the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked
in. :-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play
along and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of
doing. Once again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm
probably flattering myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect
a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest
you don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in
such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up,
too? Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to
that conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but
am not surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
Expecting serious responses out of Pamela or MM is rather pointless.
I have filtered MM but Pamela hasn't blotted 'her' copybook quite
that much yet.
I quite like MM in an odd sort of way. I know he's a wind-up, but I
don't mind playing along sometimes, since he's usually fairly
good-natured about it.
He is harmless but tedious. He has been 'doxxed' a couple of times on
this group, which was unwarranted, but he seems to be not all that
dissimilar in real life to his Usenet persona.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I though the OP in this case, though, was rather
objectionable and ill-considered. Right now, though, I'm going to
take Pamela's (why do people think she/he/it is a he?) advice and not
get sucked in any further.
Pamela just seems a bit too good to be true and reminds me of Judith,
who is believed to be a chap called Tony. She inhabits the same
groups and attacks the same people.
Steady on Incubus. Nice of you to say I am too good to be true
(*curtsy*) but I am neither of those people you mention.
If I were I wouldn't hide it. What would be the point?
I'm just relating my observations. I don't have any certainty.
Post by Pamela
Out of interest, what nym does Fat Tony use?
Judith.
Pamela
2018-12-04 17:55:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Pamela
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do
you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are
never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an
article that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the
article describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland
Europe is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave
like this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people
behave like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are
very bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement
at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does
believe that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are
claims that it is excusable, since they are reacting to
systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently
racist country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference,
as he is obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut
feeling is that we have never truly rejected those signs in the
1960s "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs
actually equated foreigners with animals? We're still doing it
today, and this group shows plenty of evidence of it on a daily
basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism
doesn't apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he
only comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him
through the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for
being sucked in. :-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but
it doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play
along and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of
doing. Once again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm
probably flattering myself to imagine that I can get him to
reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest
you don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in
such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up,
too? Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to
that conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but
am not surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
Expecting serious responses out of Pamela or MM is rather
pointless.
I have filtered MM but Pamela hasn't blotted 'her' copybook quite
that much yet.
I quite like MM in an odd sort of way. I know he's a wind-up, but
I don't mind playing along sometimes, since he's usually fairly
good-natured about it.
He is harmless but tedious. He has been 'doxxed' a couple of times
on this group, which was unwarranted, but he seems to be not all
that dissimilar in real life to his Usenet persona.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I though the OP in this case, though, was rather objectionable and
ill-considered. Right now, though, I'm going to take Pamela's (why
do people think she/he/it is a he?) advice and not get sucked in
any further.
Pamela just seems a bit too good to be true and reminds me of
Judith, who is believed to be a chap called Tony. She inhabits the
same groups and attacks the same people.
Steady on Incubus. Nice of you to say I am too good to be true
(*curtsy*) but I am neither of those people you mention.
If I were I wouldn't hide it. What would be the point?
I'm just relating my observations. I don't have any certainty.
Post by Pamela
Out of interest, what nym does Fat Tony use?
Judith.
You're not kidding are you? Where does the name fat Tony come from if
he doesn't use it to post?
Incubus
2018-12-04 18:09:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Incubus
Post by Pamela
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do
you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are
never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an
article that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the
article describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland
Europe is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave
like this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people
behave like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are
very bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement
at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does
believe that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are
claims that it is excusable, since they are reacting to
systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently
racist country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference,
as he is obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut
feeling is that we have never truly rejected those signs in the
1960s "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs
actually equated foreigners with animals? We're still doing it
today, and this group shows plenty of evidence of it on a daily
basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism
doesn't apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he
only comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him
through the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for
being sucked in. :-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but
it doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play
along and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of
doing. Once again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm
probably flattering myself to imagine that I can get him to
reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest
you don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in
such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up,
too? Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to
that conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but
am not surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
Expecting serious responses out of Pamela or MM is rather
pointless.
I have filtered MM but Pamela hasn't blotted 'her' copybook quite
that much yet.
I quite like MM in an odd sort of way. I know he's a wind-up, but
I don't mind playing along sometimes, since he's usually fairly
good-natured about it.
He is harmless but tedious. He has been 'doxxed' a couple of times
on this group, which was unwarranted, but he seems to be not all
that dissimilar in real life to his Usenet persona.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I though the OP in this case, though, was rather objectionable and
ill-considered. Right now, though, I'm going to take Pamela's (why
do people think she/he/it is a he?) advice and not get sucked in
any further.
Pamela just seems a bit too good to be true and reminds me of
Judith, who is believed to be a chap called Tony. She inhabits the
same groups and attacks the same people.
Steady on Incubus. Nice of you to say I am too good to be true
(*curtsy*) but I am neither of those people you mention.
If I were I wouldn't hide it. What would be the point?
I'm just relating my observations. I don't have any certainty.
Post by Pamela
Out of interest, what nym does Fat Tony use?
Judith.
You're not kidding are you? Where does the name fat Tony come from if
he doesn't use it to post?
Anthony something-or-other.
Ophelia
2018-12-04 19:59:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Incubus
Post by Pamela
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do
you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are
never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an
article that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the
article describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland
Europe is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave
like this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people
behave like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are
very bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement
at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does
believe that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are
claims that it is excusable, since they are reacting to
systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently
racist country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference,
as he is obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut
feeling is that we have never truly rejected those signs in the
1960s "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs
actually equated foreigners with animals? We're still doing it
today, and this group shows plenty of evidence of it on a daily
basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism
doesn't apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he
only comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him
through the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for
being sucked in. :-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but
it doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play
along and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of
doing. Once again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm
probably flattering myself to imagine that I can get him to
reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest
you don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in
such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up,
too? Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to
that conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but
am not surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
Expecting serious responses out of Pamela or MM is rather
pointless.
I have filtered MM but Pamela hasn't blotted 'her' copybook quite
that much yet.
I quite like MM in an odd sort of way. I know he's a wind-up, but
I don't mind playing along sometimes, since he's usually fairly
good-natured about it.
He is harmless but tedious. He has been 'doxxed' a couple of times
on this group, which was unwarranted, but he seems to be not all
that dissimilar in real life to his Usenet persona.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I though the OP in this case, though, was rather objectionable and
ill-considered. Right now, though, I'm going to take Pamela's (why
do people think she/he/it is a he?) advice and not get sucked in
any further.
Pamela just seems a bit too good to be true and reminds me of
Judith, who is believed to be a chap called Tony. She inhabits the
same groups and attacks the same people.
Steady on Incubus. Nice of you to say I am too good to be true
(*curtsy*) but I am neither of those people you mention.
If I were I wouldn't hide it. What would be the point?
I'm just relating my observations. I don't have any certainty.
Post by Pamela
Out of interest, what nym does Fat Tony use?
Judith.
You're not kidding are you? Where does the name fat Tony come from if
he doesn't use it to post?
Anthony something-or-other.
==

Bourne. Ie Fat Tony, pam, Judith!
Pamela
2018-12-04 21:14:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Incubus
Post by Pamela
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do
you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people
are never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an
article that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those
in Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the
article describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland
Europe is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave
like this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people
behave like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British
are very bigoted so there's litle truth in making the
statement at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does
believe that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are
claims that it is excusable, since they are reacting to
systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently
racist country? JNugent will be able to explain the
difference, as he is obviously far better educated than I am.
But my gut feeling is that we have never truly rejected those
signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs". See how
those signs actually equated foreigners with animals? We're
still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of evidence
of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well,
Scotland rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my
criticism doesn't apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he
only comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets
him through the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me
for being sucked in. :-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM
but it doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play
along and invite him to think about what he's accusing people
of doing. Once again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm
probably flattering myself to imagine that I can get him to
reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I
suggest you don't read posts which are likely to take over
your mind in such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people
up, too? Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid
jumping to that conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply
from MM, but am not surprised that I didn't get one. Is that
not obvious?
Expecting serious responses out of Pamela or MM is rather pointless.
I have filtered MM but Pamela hasn't blotted 'her' copybook quite
that much yet.
I quite like MM in an odd sort of way. I know he's a wind-up,
but I don't mind playing along sometimes, since he's usually
fairly good-natured about it.
He is harmless but tedious. He has been 'doxxed' a couple of
times on this group, which was unwarranted, but he seems to be not
all that dissimilar in real life to his Usenet persona.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I though the OP in this case, though, was rather objectionable
and ill-considered. Right now, though, I'm going to take
Pamela's (why do people think she/he/it is a he?) advice and not
get sucked in any further.
Pamela just seems a bit too good to be true and reminds me of
Judith, who is believed to be a chap called Tony. She inhabits
the same groups and attacks the same people.
Steady on Incubus. Nice of you to say I am too good to be true
(*curtsy*) but I am neither of those people you mention.
If I were I wouldn't hide it. What would be the point?
I'm just relating my observations. I don't have any certainty.
Post by Pamela
Out of interest, what nym does Fat Tony use?
Judith.
You're not kidding are you? Where does the name fat Tony come from
if he doesn't use it to post?
Anthony something-or-other. ==
Bourne. Ie Fat Tony, pam, Judith!
Are you saying his nym is Anthony Bourne or is that his real life name?
Ophelia
2018-12-04 19:17:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never
bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article
that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe
is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have thought
the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave like
this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are very
bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe
that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it is
excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only comes
here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through the day,
then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in. :-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play along and
invite him to think about what he's accusing people of doing. Once
again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm probably flattering
myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest you
don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up, too?
Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to that
conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but am not
surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
Expecting serious responses out of Pamela or MM is rather pointless. I have
filtered MM but Pamela hasn't blotted 'her' copybook quite that much yet.
I quite like MM in an odd sort of way. I know he's a wind-up, but I
don't mind playing along sometimes, since he's usually fairly
good-natured about it.
He is harmless but tedious. He has been 'doxxed' a couple of times on this
group, which was unwarranted, but he seems to be not all that dissimilar in
real life to his Usenet persona.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I though the OP in this case, though, was rather
objectionable and ill-considered. Right now, though, I'm going to take
Pamela's (why do people think she/he/it is a he?) advice and not get
sucked in any further.
Pamela just seems a bit too good to be true and reminds me of Judith, who is
believed to be a chap called Tony. She inhabits the same groups and attacks
the same people.
==

Not just here either! Look in rec.food.cooking! He is 'at it' there too,
except I am his target!
Pamela
2018-12-04 21:16:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article
that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe
is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave
like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are very
bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe
that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it
is excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that
we have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners
with animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows
plenty of evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only
comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through
the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in.
:-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play along
and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of doing. Once
again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm probably flattering
myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest you
don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up, too?
Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to that
conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but am not
surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
"Allegedly" means I don't believe for one moment that you got
irresistably sucked in - even if you maintain you did.

In my discussion with you, you have given spurious explantions for your
false and deliberately provocative question to MM, "Why do only white
English people behave like this, do you suppose?"

If you don't like MM's posts (or mine for that matter) then perhaps
killfile them rather than later claim your mind was so overwhelmed by
temptation that you were forced to reply beyond your ablity to resist.
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-12-05 08:53:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article
that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe
is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave
like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are very
bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe
that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it
is excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that
we have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners
with animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows
plenty of evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only
comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through
the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in.
:-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play along
and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of doing. Once
again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm probably flattering
myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest you
don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up, too?
Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to that
conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but am not
surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
"Allegedly" means I don't believe for one moment that you got
irresistably sucked in - even if you maintain you did.
In my discussion with you, you have given spurious explantions for your
false and deliberately provocative question to MM, "Why do only white
English people behave like this, do you suppose?"
Morning, Pamela. This could turn into a long game. 'False and
provocative'. Okay, for the record, I do not believe that all racists
and white and English, or that all white English people are racist. My
comment was intended to be ironic. If you choose not to believe that,
then yes, it seems false. As for provocative, then yes, I chose my
words in the hope of provoking a response from MM.
Post by Pamela
If you don't like MM's posts (or mine for that matter) then perhaps
killfile them rather than later claim your mind was so overwhelmed by
temptation that you were forced to reply beyond your ablity to resist.
'Overwhelmed'? That seems a bit too strong for me - it suggests a
temporary loss of sanity, but I won't contest it too much - I won't
waste our time on semantics. I will accept that I failed to resist. My
opinion is that The Guardian has declared a kind of war on people like
me (straight, white, English), so when MM gives us a post that is mostly
quoted from The Guardian (with a little of his own seasoning), why
should I even try to resist? I am probably reacting to them more than
him. Since you are being somewhat analytical, I will say that I can
best describe myself at the time as defensive and provoked. But again,
why not? I've done nothing wrong.

I've no inclination to killfile MM - I think he once said he'd had a
serious heart operation, and for some strange reason, that makes me
think that KF'ing him would be mean. But the truth is, I've never KF'd
anyone. I know this isn't a 'safe space'.
MM
2018-12-05 10:14:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are
never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article
that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe
is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave
like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are very
bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe
that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it
is excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that
we have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners
with animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows
plenty of evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only
comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through
the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in.
:-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play along
and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of doing. Once
again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm probably flattering
myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest you
don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up, too?
Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to that
conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but am not
surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
"Allegedly" means I don't believe for one moment that you got
irresistably sucked in - even if you maintain you did.
In my discussion with you, you have given spurious explantions for your
false and deliberately provocative question to MM, "Why do only white
English people behave like this, do you suppose?"
Morning, Pamela. This could turn into a long game. 'False and
provocative'. Okay, for the record, I do not believe that all racists
and white and English, or that all white English people are racist. My
comment was intended to be ironic. If you choose not to believe that,
then yes, it seems false. As for provocative, then yes, I chose my
words in the hope of provoking a response from MM.
Which I posted. I posted another three messages later, but these were
not actually sent because of an internal fuck-up with the Eternal
September server. I tried last thing (approx 23:30), but they still
wouldn't go off. So I had to wait until this morning before the server
was good to go again.

MM
Pamela
2018-12-05 11:08:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you
suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are
never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an
article that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland
Europe is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave
like this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave
like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are
very bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at
all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does
believe that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are
claims that it is excusable, since they are reacting to
systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently
racist country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference,
as he is obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut
feeling is that we have never truly rejected those signs in the
1960s "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs
actually equated foreigners with animals? We're still doing it
today, and this group shows plenty of evidence of it on a daily
basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only
comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through
the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in.
:-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play
along and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of
doing. Once again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm
probably flattering myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect
a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest
you don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in
such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up,
too? Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to
that conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but
am not surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
"Allegedly" means I don't believe for one moment that you got
irresistably sucked in - even if you maintain you did.
In my discussion with you, you have given spurious explantions for
your false and deliberately provocative question to MM, "Why do only
white English people behave like this, do you suppose?"
Morning, Pamela. This could turn into a long game. 'False and
provocative'. Okay, for the record, I do not believe that all racists
and white and English, or that all white English people are racist.
My comment was intended to be ironic. If you choose not to believe
that, then yes, it seems false. As for provocative, then yes, I chose
my words in the hope of provoking a response from MM.
Which I posted. I posted another three messages later, but these were
not actually sent because of an internal fuck-up with the Eternal
September server. I tried last thing (approx 23:30), but they still
wouldn't go off. So I had to wait until this morning before the server
was good to go again.
MM
Dan now admits he was trying to provoke you.

Yet, in another post, he professes such extreme concern for you on
account of your heart operation that he won't do something as minor as
killfile you.

So provocation is okay but not killfiling. Best he stops digging. The
hole he's in is big enough.
Pamela
2018-12-05 11:07:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are
never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an
article that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland
Europe is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave
like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are
very bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at
all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe
that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it
is excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently
racist country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as
he is obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling
is that we have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No
Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated
foreigners with animals? We're still doing it today, and this
group shows plenty of evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only
comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through
the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in.
:-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play along
and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of doing.
Once again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm probably
flattering myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest
you don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in
such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up,
too? Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to that
conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but am not
surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
"Allegedly" means I don't believe for one moment that you got
irresistably sucked in - even if you maintain you did.
In my discussion with you, you have given spurious explantions for
your false and deliberately provocative question to MM, "Why do only
white English people behave like this, do you suppose?"
Morning, Pamela. This could turn into a long game. 'False and
provocative'. Okay, for the record, I do not believe that all racists
and white and English, or that all white English people are racist.
My comment was intended to be ironic. If you choose not to believe
that, then yes, it seems false. As for provocative, then yes, I chose
my words in the hope of provoking a response from MM.
Post by Pamela
If you don't like MM's posts (or mine for that matter) then perhaps
killfile them rather than later claim your mind was so overwhelmed by
temptation that you were forced to reply beyond your ablity to resist.
'Overwhelmed'? That seems a bit too strong for me - it suggests a
temporary loss of sanity, but I won't contest it too much - I won't
waste our time on semantics. I will accept that I failed to resist.
My opinion is that The Guardian has declared a kind of war on people
like me (straight, white, English),
I fit that description but don't feel the Guardian has done any such
thing. Of course once you have demonised the Guardian then it
justifies, in your mind, an attack masquerading as retaliation even if
the attack is actually false and provocative.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
so when MM gives us a post that is
mostly quoted from The Guardian (with a little of his own seasoning),
why should I even try to resist? I am probably reacting to them more
than him. Since you are being somewhat analytical, I will say that I
can best describe myself at the time as defensive and provoked. But
again, why not? I've done nothing wrong.
I've no inclination to killfile MM - I think he once said he'd had a
serious heart operation, and for some strange reason, that makes me
think that KF'ing him would be mean.
That "strange reason" sounds like a minor psychosis or some other
disturbance affecting perception.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
But the truth is, I've never
KF'd anyone. I know this isn't a 'safe space'.
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-12-05 11:29:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you
suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are
never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an
article that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland
Europe is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave
like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are
very bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at
all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe
that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it
is excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently
racist country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as
he is obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling
is that we have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No
Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated
foreigners with animals? We're still doing it today, and this
group shows plenty of evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only
comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through
the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in.
:-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play along
and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of doing.
Once again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm probably
flattering myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest
you don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in
such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up,
too? Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to that
conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but am not
surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
"Allegedly" means I don't believe for one moment that you got
irresistably sucked in - even if you maintain you did.
In my discussion with you, you have given spurious explantions for
your false and deliberately provocative question to MM, "Why do only
white English people behave like this, do you suppose?"
Morning, Pamela. This could turn into a long game. 'False and
provocative'. Okay, for the record, I do not believe that all racists
and white and English, or that all white English people are racist.
My comment was intended to be ironic. If you choose not to believe
that, then yes, it seems false. As for provocative, then yes, I chose
my words in the hope of provoking a response from MM.
Post by Pamela
If you don't like MM's posts (or mine for that matter) then perhaps
killfile them rather than later claim your mind was so overwhelmed by
temptation that you were forced to reply beyond your ablity to resist.
'Overwhelmed'? That seems a bit too strong for me - it suggests a
temporary loss of sanity, but I won't contest it too much - I won't
waste our time on semantics. I will accept that I failed to resist.
My opinion is that The Guardian has declared a kind of war on people
like me (straight, white, English),
I fit that description but don't feel the Guardian has done any such
thing. Of course once you have demonised the Guardian then it
justifies, in your mind, an attack masquerading as retaliation even if
the attack is actually false and provocative.
Well, I do. I've hated The Guardian ever since it made my missus cry.
The day after the referendum, she read it, and it left her convinced
that she would be extradited to Italy. It took me a long time to
convince her that that would not happen. So, I can no longer just
ignore it. I hate it, and am highly suspicious of their motivation.

I'm sorry if you think I am attacking MM. I would never do that. If
you choose to believe that, then fine - you win - I don't care any more.
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
so when MM gives us a post that is
mostly quoted from The Guardian (with a little of his own seasoning),
why should I even try to resist? I am probably reacting to them more
than him. Since you are being somewhat analytical, I will say that I
can best describe myself at the time as defensive and provoked. But
again, why not? I've done nothing wrong.
I've no inclination to killfile MM - I think he once said he'd had a
serious heart operation, and for some strange reason, that makes me
think that KF'ing him would be mean.
That "strange reason" sounds like a minor psychosis or some other
disturbance affecting perception.
Maybe. I have no objective way of knowing, but I doubt it. I think it
is a possibly misplaced sympathy.
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
But the truth is, I've never
KF'd anyone. I know this isn't a 'safe space'.
abelard
2018-12-05 11:48:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you
suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are
never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an
article that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland
Europe is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave
like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are
very bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at
all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe
that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it
is excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently
racist country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as
he is obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling
is that we have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No
Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated
foreigners with animals? We're still doing it today, and this
group shows plenty of evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only
comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through
the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in.
:-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play along
and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of doing.
Once again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm probably
flattering myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest
you don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in
such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up,
too? Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to that
conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but am not
surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
"Allegedly" means I don't believe for one moment that you got
irresistably sucked in - even if you maintain you did.
In my discussion with you, you have given spurious explantions for
your false and deliberately provocative question to MM, "Why do only
white English people behave like this, do you suppose?"
Morning, Pamela. This could turn into a long game. 'False and
provocative'. Okay, for the record, I do not believe that all racists
and white and English, or that all white English people are racist.
My comment was intended to be ironic. If you choose not to believe
that, then yes, it seems false. As for provocative, then yes, I chose
my words in the hope of provoking a response from MM.
Post by Pamela
If you don't like MM's posts (or mine for that matter) then perhaps
killfile them rather than later claim your mind was so overwhelmed by
temptation that you were forced to reply beyond your ablity to resist.
'Overwhelmed'? That seems a bit too strong for me - it suggests a
temporary loss of sanity, but I won't contest it too much - I won't
waste our time on semantics. I will accept that I failed to resist.
My opinion is that The Guardian has declared a kind of war on people
like me (straight, white, English),
I fit that description but don't feel the Guardian has done any such
thing. Of course once you have demonised the Guardian then it
justifies, in your mind, an attack masquerading as retaliation even if
the attack is actually false and provocative.
Well, I do. I've hated The Guardian ever since it made my missus cry.
The day after the referendum, she read it, and it left her convinced
that she would be extradited to Italy. It took me a long time to
convince her that that would not happen. So, I can no longer just
ignore it. I hate it, and am highly suspicious of their motivation.
I'm sorry if you think I am attacking MM. I would never do that. If
you choose to believe that, then fine - you win - I don't care any more.
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
so when MM gives us a post that is
mostly quoted from The Guardian (with a little of his own seasoning),
why should I even try to resist? I am probably reacting to them more
than him. Since you are being somewhat analytical, I will say that I
can best describe myself at the time as defensive and provoked. But
again, why not? I've done nothing wrong.
I've no inclination to killfile MM - I think he once said he'd had a
serious heart operation, and for some strange reason, that makes me
think that KF'ing him would be mean.
That "strange reason" sounds like a minor psychosis or some other
disturbance affecting perception.
Maybe. I have no objective way of knowing, but I doubt it. I think it
is a possibly misplaced sympathy.
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
But the truth is, I've never
KF'd anyone. I know this isn't a 'safe space'.
i've kf'd m&m because he is so boring and repetitive...
he has no input channel

'pamela' is only on my watch list :-)
--
www.abelard.org
Incubus
2018-12-05 12:49:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you
suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are
never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an
article that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland
Europe is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave
like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are
very bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at
all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe
that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it
is excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently
racist country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as
he is obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling
is that we have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No
Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated
foreigners with animals? We're still doing it today, and this
group shows plenty of evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only
comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through
the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in.
:-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play along
and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of doing.
Once again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm probably
flattering myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest
you don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in
such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up,
too? Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to that
conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but am not
surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
"Allegedly" means I don't believe for one moment that you got
irresistably sucked in - even if you maintain you did.
In my discussion with you, you have given spurious explantions for
your false and deliberately provocative question to MM, "Why do only
white English people behave like this, do you suppose?"
Morning, Pamela. This could turn into a long game. 'False and
provocative'. Okay, for the record, I do not believe that all racists
and white and English, or that all white English people are racist.
My comment was intended to be ironic. If you choose not to believe
that, then yes, it seems false. As for provocative, then yes, I chose
my words in the hope of provoking a response from MM.
Post by Pamela
If you don't like MM's posts (or mine for that matter) then perhaps
killfile them rather than later claim your mind was so overwhelmed by
temptation that you were forced to reply beyond your ablity to resist.
'Overwhelmed'? That seems a bit too strong for me - it suggests a
temporary loss of sanity, but I won't contest it too much - I won't
waste our time on semantics. I will accept that I failed to resist.
My opinion is that The Guardian has declared a kind of war on people
like me (straight, white, English),
I fit that description but don't feel the Guardian has done any such
thing. Of course once you have demonised the Guardian then it
justifies, in your mind, an attack masquerading as retaliation even if
the attack is actually false and provocative.
Well, I do. I've hated The Guardian ever since it made my missus cry.
The day after the referendum, she read it, and it left her convinced
that she would be extradited to Italy. It took me a long time to
convince her that that would not happen. So, I can no longer just
ignore it. I hate it, and am highly suspicious of their motivation.
I'm sorry if you think I am attacking MM. I would never do that. If
you choose to believe that, then fine - you win - I don't care any more.
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
so when MM gives us a post that is
mostly quoted from The Guardian (with a little of his own seasoning),
why should I even try to resist? I am probably reacting to them more
than him. Since you are being somewhat analytical, I will say that I
can best describe myself at the time as defensive and provoked. But
again, why not? I've done nothing wrong.
I've no inclination to killfile MM - I think he once said he'd had a
serious heart operation, and for some strange reason, that makes me
think that KF'ing him would be mean.
That "strange reason" sounds like a minor psychosis or some other
disturbance affecting perception.
Maybe. I have no objective way of knowing, but I doubt it. I think it
is a possibly misplaced sympathy.
I'd ignore Pam if I were you. You come across as a decent chap and certainly
don't owe 'her' any explanation. She will just continue to twist your words in
order to use them against you.
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-12-05 12:55:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you
suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are
never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an
article that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland
Europe is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave
like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are
very bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at
all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe
that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it
is excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently
racist country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as
he is obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling
is that we have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No
Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated
foreigners with animals? We're still doing it today, and this
group shows plenty of evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only
comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through
the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in.
:-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play along
and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of doing.
Once again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm probably
flattering myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest
you don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in
such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up,
too? Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to that
conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but am not
surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
"Allegedly" means I don't believe for one moment that you got
irresistably sucked in - even if you maintain you did.
In my discussion with you, you have given spurious explantions for
your false and deliberately provocative question to MM, "Why do only
white English people behave like this, do you suppose?"
Morning, Pamela. This could turn into a long game. 'False and
provocative'. Okay, for the record, I do not believe that all racists
and white and English, or that all white English people are racist.
My comment was intended to be ironic. If you choose not to believe
that, then yes, it seems false. As for provocative, then yes, I chose
my words in the hope of provoking a response from MM.
Post by Pamela
If you don't like MM's posts (or mine for that matter) then perhaps
killfile them rather than later claim your mind was so overwhelmed by
temptation that you were forced to reply beyond your ablity to resist.
'Overwhelmed'? That seems a bit too strong for me - it suggests a
temporary loss of sanity, but I won't contest it too much - I won't
waste our time on semantics. I will accept that I failed to resist.
My opinion is that The Guardian has declared a kind of war on people
like me (straight, white, English),
I fit that description but don't feel the Guardian has done any such
thing. Of course once you have demonised the Guardian then it
justifies, in your mind, an attack masquerading as retaliation even if
the attack is actually false and provocative.
Well, I do. I've hated The Guardian ever since it made my missus cry.
The day after the referendum, she read it, and it left her convinced
that she would be extradited to Italy. It took me a long time to
convince her that that would not happen. So, I can no longer just
ignore it. I hate it, and am highly suspicious of their motivation.
I'm sorry if you think I am attacking MM. I would never do that. If
you choose to believe that, then fine - you win - I don't care any more.
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
so when MM gives us a post that is
mostly quoted from The Guardian (with a little of his own seasoning),
why should I even try to resist? I am probably reacting to them more
than him. Since you are being somewhat analytical, I will say that I
can best describe myself at the time as defensive and provoked. But
again, why not? I've done nothing wrong.
I've no inclination to killfile MM - I think he once said he'd had a
serious heart operation, and for some strange reason, that makes me
think that KF'ing him would be mean.
That "strange reason" sounds like a minor psychosis or some other
disturbance affecting perception.
Maybe. I have no objective way of knowing, but I doubt it. I think it
is a possibly misplaced sympathy.
I'd ignore Pam if I were you. You come across as a decent chap and certainly
don't owe 'her' any explanation. She will just continue to twist your words in
order to use them against you.
You're too kind, and I'm starting to feel oddly embarrassed :-) But
thanks for the advice.
Ophelia
2018-12-05 13:51:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you
suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are
never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an
article that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland
Europe is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave
like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are
very bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at
all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe
that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it
is excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently
racist country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as
he is obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling
is that we have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No
Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated
foreigners with animals? We're still doing it today, and this
group shows plenty of evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only
comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through
the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in.
:-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play along
and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of doing.
Once again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm probably
flattering myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest
you don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in
such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up,
too? Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to that
conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but am not
surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
"Allegedly" means I don't believe for one moment that you got
irresistably sucked in - even if you maintain you did.
In my discussion with you, you have given spurious explantions for
your false and deliberately provocative question to MM, "Why do only
white English people behave like this, do you suppose?"
Morning, Pamela. This could turn into a long game. 'False and
provocative'. Okay, for the record, I do not believe that all racists
and white and English, or that all white English people are racist.
My comment was intended to be ironic. If you choose not to believe
that, then yes, it seems false. As for provocative, then yes, I chose
my words in the hope of provoking a response from MM.
Post by Pamela
If you don't like MM's posts (or mine for that matter) then perhaps
killfile them rather than later claim your mind was so overwhelmed by
temptation that you were forced to reply beyond your ablity to resist.
'Overwhelmed'? That seems a bit too strong for me - it suggests a
temporary loss of sanity, but I won't contest it too much - I won't
waste our time on semantics. I will accept that I failed to resist.
My opinion is that The Guardian has declared a kind of war on people
like me (straight, white, English),
I fit that description but don't feel the Guardian has done any such
thing. Of course once you have demonised the Guardian then it
justifies, in your mind, an attack masquerading as retaliation even if
the attack is actually false and provocative.
Well, I do. I've hated The Guardian ever since it made my missus cry.
The day after the referendum, she read it, and it left her convinced
that she would be extradited to Italy. It took me a long time to
convince her that that would not happen. So, I can no longer just
ignore it. I hate it, and am highly suspicious of their motivation.
I'm sorry if you think I am attacking MM. I would never do that. If
you choose to believe that, then fine - you win - I don't care any more.
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
so when MM gives us a post that is
mostly quoted from The Guardian (with a little of his own seasoning),
why should I even try to resist? I am probably reacting to them more
than him. Since you are being somewhat analytical, I will say that I
can best describe myself at the time as defensive and provoked. But
again, why not? I've done nothing wrong.
I've no inclination to killfile MM - I think he once said he'd had a
serious heart operation, and for some strange reason, that makes me
think that KF'ing him would be mean.
That "strange reason" sounds like a minor psychosis or some other
disturbance affecting perception.
Maybe. I have no objective way of knowing, but I doubt it. I think it
is a possibly misplaced sympathy.
I'd ignore Pam if I were you. You come across as a decent chap and certainly
don't owe 'her' any explanation. She will just continue to twist your words in
order to use them against you.
You're too kind, and I'm starting to feel oddly embarrassed :-) But
thanks for the advice.

==

No need to feel embarrassed. Incubus is giving you good advice. You are a
kind and reasonable man and some people take advantage of that here.

Don't feel it is bad to use your killfile. We have them for a reason and
there is absolutely NO reason why you need to put up with the offensiveness
prevalent here.

There are plenty of people here who, even though they might not agree, don't
sink the the depths that some do.
Pamela
2018-12-05 13:55:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do
you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are
never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an
article that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the
article describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland
Europe is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave
like this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people
behave like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are
very bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement
at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does
believe that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are
claims that it is excusable, since they are reacting to
systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently
racist country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference,
as he is obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut
feeling is that we have never truly rejected those signs in the
1960s "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs
actually equated foreigners with animals? We're still doing it
today, and this group shows plenty of evidence of it on a daily
basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism
doesn't apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he
only comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him
through the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for
being sucked in.
:-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but
it doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play
along and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of
doing. Once again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm
probably flattering myself to imagine that I can get him to
reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest
you don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in
such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up,
too? Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to
that conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but
am not surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
"Allegedly" means I don't believe for one moment that you got
irresistably sucked in - even if you maintain you did.
In my discussion with you, you have given spurious explantions for
your false and deliberately provocative question to MM, "Why do
only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?"
Morning, Pamela. This could turn into a long game. 'False and
provocative'. Okay, for the record, I do not believe that all
racists and white and English, or that all white English people are
racist. My comment was intended to be ironic. If you choose not to
believe that, then yes, it seems false. As for provocative, then
yes, I chose my words in the hope of provoking a response from MM.
Post by Pamela
If you don't like MM's posts (or mine for that matter) then
perhaps killfile them rather than later claim your mind was so
overwhelmed by temptation that you were forced to reply beyond
your ablity to resist.
'Overwhelmed'? That seems a bit too strong for me - it suggests a
temporary loss of sanity, but I won't contest it too much - I won't
waste our time on semantics. I will accept that I failed to
resist. My opinion is that The Guardian has declared a kind of war
on people like me (straight, white, English),
I fit that description but don't feel the Guardian has done any such
thing. Of course once you have demonised the Guardian then it
justifies, in your mind, an attack masquerading as retaliation even
if the attack is actually false and provocative.
Well, I do. I've hated The Guardian ever since it made my missus
cry. The day after the referendum, she read it, and it left her
convinced that she would be extradited to Italy. It took me a long
time to convince her that that would not happen. So, I can no longer
just ignore it. I hate it, and am highly suspicious of their
motivation.
I'm sorry if you think I am attacking MM. I would never do that. If
you choose to believe that, then fine - you win - I don't care any more.
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
so when MM gives us a post that is
mostly quoted from The Guardian (with a little of his own
seasoning), why should I even try to resist? I am probably
reacting to them more than him. Since you are being somewhat
analytical, I will say that I can best describe myself at the time
as defensive and provoked. But again, why not? I've done nothing
wrong.
I've no inclination to killfile MM - I think he once said he'd had
a serious heart operation, and for some strange reason, that makes
me think that KF'ing him would be mean.
That "strange reason" sounds like a minor psychosis or some other
disturbance affecting perception.
Maybe. I have no objective way of knowing, but I doubt it. I think
it is a possibly misplaced sympathy.
I'd ignore Pam if I were you. You come across as a decent chap and
certainly don't owe 'her' any explanation. She will just continue to
twist your words in order to use them against you.
Not that I've forgotten a discussion with you about travelling to Europe
during which you made various weird statements in pursuit to be shown to
be right about one small thing. In fact I don't think you were right
about anything back then and your obsessional style remains in my
memory.

You do say some useful things but, like Abelard, you have a greater need
to be seen to be right than to be actually right and it colours any
discussion. It's a pity because some of the things you say are worth
hearing.
MM
2018-12-05 17:17:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you
suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are
never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an
article that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland
Europe is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave
like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are
very bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at
all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe
that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it
is excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently
racist country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as
he is obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling
is that we have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No
Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated
foreigners with animals? We're still doing it today, and this
group shows plenty of evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only
comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through
the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in.
:-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play along
and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of doing.
Once again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm probably
flattering myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest
you don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in
such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up,
too? Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to that
conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but am not
surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
"Allegedly" means I don't believe for one moment that you got
irresistably sucked in - even if you maintain you did.
In my discussion with you, you have given spurious explantions for
your false and deliberately provocative question to MM, "Why do only
white English people behave like this, do you suppose?"
Morning, Pamela. This could turn into a long game. 'False and
provocative'. Okay, for the record, I do not believe that all racists
and white and English, or that all white English people are racist.
My comment was intended to be ironic. If you choose not to believe
that, then yes, it seems false. As for provocative, then yes, I chose
my words in the hope of provoking a response from MM.
Post by Pamela
If you don't like MM's posts (or mine for that matter) then perhaps
killfile them rather than later claim your mind was so overwhelmed by
temptation that you were forced to reply beyond your ablity to resist.
'Overwhelmed'? That seems a bit too strong for me - it suggests a
temporary loss of sanity, but I won't contest it too much - I won't
waste our time on semantics. I will accept that I failed to resist.
My opinion is that The Guardian has declared a kind of war on people
like me (straight, white, English),
I fit that description but don't feel the Guardian has done any such
thing. Of course once you have demonised the Guardian then it
justifies, in your mind, an attack masquerading as retaliation even if
the attack is actually false and provocative.
Well, I do. I've hated The Guardian ever since it made my missus cry.
The day after the referendum, she read it, and it left her convinced
that she would be extradited to Italy. It took me a long time to
convince her that that would not happen. So, I can no longer just
ignore it. I hate it, and am highly suspicious of their motivation.
You hate it? What a load of cock! The Guardian is probably our most
truthful newspaper, and God knows we need some. This was its front
page on 24 June 2016:
https://tinyurl.com/guardfrontpagepostref

Which particular story put the frighteners on your missus?

MM
Pamela
2018-12-05 18:43:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do
you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are
never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an
article that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the
article describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland
Europe is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave
like this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people
behave like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are
very bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement
at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does
believe that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are
claims that it is excusable, since they are reacting to
systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently
racist country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference,
as he is obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut
feeling is that we have never truly rejected those signs in the
1960s "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs
actually equated foreigners with animals? We're still doing it
today, and this group shows plenty of evidence of it on a daily
basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism
doesn't apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he
only comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him
through the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for
being sucked in.
:-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but
it doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play
along and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of
doing. Once again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm
probably flattering myself to imagine that I can get him to
reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest
you don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in
such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up,
too? Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to
that conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but
am not surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
"Allegedly" means I don't believe for one moment that you got
irresistably sucked in - even if you maintain you did.
In my discussion with you, you have given spurious explantions for
your false and deliberately provocative question to MM, "Why do
only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?"
Morning, Pamela. This could turn into a long game. 'False and
provocative'. Okay, for the record, I do not believe that all
racists and white and English, or that all white English people are
racist. My comment was intended to be ironic. If you choose not to
believe that, then yes, it seems false. As for provocative, then
yes, I chose my words in the hope of provoking a response from MM.
Post by Pamela
If you don't like MM's posts (or mine for that matter) then
perhaps killfile them rather than later claim your mind was so
overwhelmed by temptation that you were forced to reply beyond
your ablity to resist.
'Overwhelmed'? That seems a bit too strong for me - it suggests a
temporary loss of sanity, but I won't contest it too much - I won't
waste our time on semantics. I will accept that I failed to
resist. My opinion is that The Guardian has declared a kind of war
on people like me (straight, white, English),
I fit that description but don't feel the Guardian has done any such
thing. Of course once you have demonised the Guardian then it
justifies, in your mind, an attack masquerading as retaliation even
if the attack is actually false and provocative.
Well, I do. I've hated The Guardian ever since it made my missus cry.
The day after the referendum, she read it, and it left her convinced
that she would be extradited to Italy. It took me a long time to
convince her that that would not happen. So, I can no longer just
ignore it. I hate it, and am highly suspicious of their motivation.
You hate it? What a load of cock! The Guardian is probably our most
truthful newspaper, and God knows we need some. This was its front
page on 24 June 2016: https://tinyurl.com/guardfrontpagepostref
Which particular story put the frighteners on your missus?
MM
You can see the wonky logic in Dan's statement: "I've hated The
Guardian ever since it made my missus cry."

I can not say I'm the greatest fan of the Guardian but I acknowledge it
is a fine paper of international standing although it's sentiments are
far from being in line with my own. However to distrust the Guardian
with almost a visceral hatred, for whatever reason, suggests the speaker
is somewhat unbalanced.

Same goes for those who hate the Daily Mail no matter what it says or
does.

Dan S. MacAbre
2018-12-05 08:55:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article
that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe
is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave
like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are very
bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe
that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it
is excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that
we have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners
with animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows
plenty of evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only
comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through
the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in.
:-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play along
and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of doing. Once
again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm probably flattering
myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest you
don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up, too?
Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to that
conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but am not
surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
"Allegedly" means I don't believe for one moment that you got
irresistably sucked in - even if you maintain you did.
In my discussion with you, you have given spurious explantions for your
false and deliberately provocative question to MM, "Why do only white
English people behave like this, do you suppose?"
If you don't like MM's posts (or mine for that matter) then perhaps
killfile them rather than later claim your mind was so overwhelmed by
temptation that you were forced to reply beyond your ablity to resist.
I see he's at it again, this morning. Since life is short, I will
ignore him today.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-05 08:59:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you
suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are
never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article
that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe
is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have
thought the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave
like this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are very
bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe
that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it
is excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that
we have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners
with animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows
plenty of evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only
comes here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through
the day, then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in.
-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play along
and invite him to think about what he's accusing people of doing. Once
again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm probably flattering
myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest you
don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up, too?
Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to that
conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but am not
surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
"Allegedly" means I don't believe for one moment that you got
irresistably sucked in - even if you maintain you did.
In my discussion with you, you have given spurious explantions for your
false and deliberately provocative question to MM, "Why do only white
English people behave like this, do you suppose?"
If you don't like MM's posts (or mine for that matter) then perhaps
killfile them
What an excellent idea for killing discussion and argument stone dead.

If we don’t like certain posts, we must not contradict them.

Are you a descendant of Stalin?
MM
2018-12-05 08:13:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article
that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in
Africa, you will find far greater prejudice than the article
describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe
is far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have thought
the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave like
this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are very
bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe
that. WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it is
excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism.
I haven't seen MM write that. Maybe I missed it.
Maybe I am reading too much in between the lines, but here is his
"Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis."
the rest of the post continues in the same vein, and then ends with
"You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries."
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only comes
here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through the day,
then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in. :-)
That's a poor attempt to project what you are doing onto MM but it
doesn't work as his reputation is too strong.
I'm aware of his reputation, but sometimes I'm tempted to play along and
invite him to think about what he's accusing people of doing. Once
again it turned out to be a waste of time. I'm probably flattering
myself to imagine that I can get him to reflect a little.
Post by Pamela
If you, as you allegedly claim, get sucked in then may I suggest you
don't read posts which are likely to take over your mind in such a way.
What do you mean by 'allegedly'? Do you like to wind people up, too?
Some people say you do, but I've tried to avoid jumping to that
conclusion. I was genuinely hoping for a reply from MM, but am not
surprised that I didn't get one. Is that not obvious?
What are you on about? I replied to you at 10:01 this morning. See:
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

MM
abelard
2018-12-05 11:45:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only comes
here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through the day,
then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in. :-)
in order to follow some text it may be necessary to model it
in your own head..thus you have, at least temporarily in
your own head, a model of possibly mad notions from a
disorganised poster...like m&m
thus you've imported a bit of madness into your own head...

this may well be why many 'psychologists' lose their bearing in
reality...
to practice effectively you must discipline yourself into a greater
foundation in reality than the woman in the street...

memes are infectious...eg look at the numbers who have caught
the madness termed 'socialism' and other foolishness
--
www.abelard.org
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-12-05 11:56:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only comes
here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through the day,
then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in. :-)
in order to follow some text it may be necessary to model it
in your own head..thus you have, at least temporarily in
your own head, a model of possibly mad notions from a
disorganised poster...like m&m
thus you've imported a bit of madness into your own head...
Maybe. That would be something I know nothing about. But I never
thought of MM as disorganised. To my mind, he enjoys pushing people's
buttons, and it seems like a bit of a game. I also accept that he may
actually be correct, and his persistence is born out of desperation at a
terrible situation that he is trying his hardest to prevent. I am
actually not able to reject that as a possibility. I've never cared
that much, but this Pamela entity is in a different league. She/he has
actually goaded me, and I will never forget that.
Post by abelard
this may well be why many 'psychologists' lose their bearing in
reality...
to practice effectively you must discipline yourself into a greater
foundation in reality than the woman in the street...
memes are infectious...eg look at the numbers who have caught
the madness termed 'socialism' and other foolishness
abelard
2018-12-05 12:07:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only comes
here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through the day,
then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in. :-)
in order to follow some text it may be necessary to model it
in your own head..thus you have, at least temporarily in
your own head, a model of possibly mad notions from a
disorganised poster...like m&m
thus you've imported a bit of madness into your own head...
Maybe. That would be something I know nothing about. But I never
thought of MM as disorganised. To my mind, he enjoys pushing people's
buttons, and it seems like a bit of a game. I also accept that he may
actually be correct
'correct' about what? he says very little but repeat daft assertions

a lot of his raving appears to be related to his personal
advantage/disadvantage in the pension area..thus i don't
rate him as a serious poster
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
, and his persistence is born out of desperation at a
terrible situation that he is trying his hardest to prevent. I am
actually not able to reject that as a possibility. I've never cared
that much, but this Pamela entity is in a different league. She/he has
actually goaded me, and I will never forget that.
i preferred not to mention her...but she is quite similar to m&m
'she' does at least try to make, albeit foolish, arguments
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
this may well be why many 'psychologists' lose their bearing in
reality...
to practice effectively you must discipline yourself into a greater
foundation in reality than the woman in the street...
memes are infectious...eg look at the numbers who have caught
the madness termed 'socialism' and other foolishness
--
www.abelard.org
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-12-05 12:16:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only comes
here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through the day,
then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in. :-)
in order to follow some text it may be necessary to model it
in your own head..thus you have, at least temporarily in
your own head, a model of possibly mad notions from a
disorganised poster...like m&m
thus you've imported a bit of madness into your own head...
Maybe. That would be something I know nothing about. But I never
thought of MM as disorganised. To my mind, he enjoys pushing people's
buttons, and it seems like a bit of a game. I also accept that he may
actually be correct
'correct' about what? he says very little but repeat daft assertions
a lot of his raving appears to be related to his personal
advantage/disadvantage in the pension area..thus i don't
rate him as a serious poster
I mean correct in his belief that leaving the EU is objectively bad. I
know that what is good for one person is bad for another. That it's not
all about economics, or all about immigration, or all about geopolitics.
But there may be an aggregate sense in which someone much cleverer
than I can objectively say that it is 'good' or 'bad'. To my mind,
there is a possibility that MM may actually know the answer to this.
Unfortunately, his OP in this case seems to be a rather generalised
accusation of racism. It sort of detracts from that 'possibility' that
I have imagined :-)
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
, and his persistence is born out of desperation at a
terrible situation that he is trying his hardest to prevent. I am
actually not able to reject that as a possibility. I've never cared
that much, but this Pamela entity is in a different league. She/he has
actually goaded me, and I will never forget that.
i preferred not to mention her...but she is quite similar to m&m
'she' does at least try to make, albeit foolish, arguments
I am done with that.
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
this may well be why many 'psychologists' lose their bearing in
reality...
to practice effectively you must discipline yourself into a greater
foundation in reality than the woman in the street...
memes are infectious...eg look at the numbers who have caught
the madness termed 'socialism' and other foolishness
abelard
2018-12-05 12:23:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only comes
here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through the day,
then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in. :-)
in order to follow some text it may be necessary to model it
in your own head..thus you have, at least temporarily in
your own head, a model of possibly mad notions from a
disorganised poster...like m&m
thus you've imported a bit of madness into your own head...
Maybe. That would be something I know nothing about. But I never
thought of MM as disorganised. To my mind, he enjoys pushing people's
buttons, and it seems like a bit of a game. I also accept that he may
actually be correct
'correct' about what? he says very little but repeat daft assertions
a lot of his raving appears to be related to his personal
advantage/disadvantage in the pension area..thus i don't
rate him as a serious poster
I mean correct in his belief that leaving the EU is objectively bad.
crudely, it i neither good or bad...it's a matter of judgement
or for lesser minds, a matter of what you want
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I
know that what is good for one person is bad for another. That it's not
all about economics, or all about immigration, or all about geopolitics.
But there may be an aggregate sense in which someone much cleverer
than I can objectively say that it is 'good' or 'bad'.
good and bad are mostly relative to such interests
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
To my mind,
there is a possibility that MM may actually know the answer to this.
and pigs might fly
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Unfortunately, his OP in this case seems to be a rather generalised
accusation of racism. It sort of detracts from that 'possibility' that
I have imagined :-)
you clearly know 'she' is not the sharpest knife...so why concern
yourself muchly?
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
, and his persistence is born out of desperation at a
terrible situation that he is trying his hardest to prevent. I am
actually not able to reject that as a possibility. I've never cared
that much, but this Pamela entity is in a different league. She/he has
actually goaded me, and I will never forget that.
i preferred not to mention her...but she is quite similar to m&m
'she' does at least try to make, albeit foolish, arguments
I am done with that.
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
this may well be why many 'psychologists' lose their bearing in
reality...
to practice effectively you must discipline yourself into a greater
foundation in reality than the woman in the street...
memes are infectious...eg look at the numbers who have caught
the madness termed 'socialism' and other foolishness
--
www.abelard.org
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-12-05 12:34:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only comes
here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through the day,
then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in. :-)
in order to follow some text it may be necessary to model it
in your own head..thus you have, at least temporarily in
your own head, a model of possibly mad notions from a
disorganised poster...like m&m
thus you've imported a bit of madness into your own head...
Maybe. That would be something I know nothing about. But I never
thought of MM as disorganised. To my mind, he enjoys pushing people's
buttons, and it seems like a bit of a game. I also accept that he may
actually be correct
'correct' about what? he says very little but repeat daft assertions
a lot of his raving appears to be related to his personal
advantage/disadvantage in the pension area..thus i don't
rate him as a serious poster
I mean correct in his belief that leaving the EU is objectively bad.
crudely, it i neither good or bad...it's a matter of judgement
or for lesser minds, a matter of what you want
Yes, I realise that different things are important to different people.
I just imagine an overall formula, an expression with variables and
values that can at some point in the future describe an overall level of
satisfaction. But I admit that I have no talent for expressing the
things that pop, uninvited, into my head. And not all of them persist,
anyway.
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I
know that what is good for one person is bad for another. That it's not
all about economics, or all about immigration, or all about geopolitics.
But there may be an aggregate sense in which someone much cleverer
than I can objectively say that it is 'good' or 'bad'.
good and bad are mostly relative to such interests
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
To my mind,
there is a possibility that MM may actually know the answer to this.
and pigs might fly
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Unfortunately, his OP in this case seems to be a rather generalised
accusation of racism. It sort of detracts from that 'possibility' that
I have imagined :-)
you clearly know 'she' is not the sharpest knife...so why concern
yourself muchly?
The accusation came from MM, who has not (AFAIK) claimed to be a she :-)
It was never intended to be of any concern to me at all.
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
, and his persistence is born out of desperation at a
terrible situation that he is trying his hardest to prevent. I am
actually not able to reject that as a possibility. I've never cared
that much, but this Pamela entity is in a different league. She/he has
actually goaded me, and I will never forget that.
i preferred not to mention her...but she is quite similar to m&m
'she' does at least try to make, albeit foolish, arguments
I am done with that.
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
this may well be why many 'psychologists' lose their bearing in
reality...
to practice effectively you must discipline yourself into a greater
foundation in reality than the woman in the street...
memes are infectious...eg look at the numbers who have caught
the madness termed 'socialism' and other foolishness
MM
2018-12-05 17:57:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Maybe I'm taking it all too personally? Some claim that he only comes
here to wind people up; and if that's what gets him through the day,
then fair play to him, and shame on me for being sucked in. :-)
in order to follow some text it may be necessary to model it
in your own head..thus you have, at least temporarily in
your own head, a model of possibly mad notions from a
disorganised poster...like m&m
thus you've imported a bit of madness into your own head...
Maybe. That would be something I know nothing about. But I never
thought of MM as disorganised. To my mind, he enjoys pushing people's
buttons, and it seems like a bit of a game. I also accept that he may
actually be correct
'correct' about what? he says very little but repeat daft assertions
a lot of his raving appears to be related to his personal
advantage/disadvantage in the pension area..thus i don't
rate him as a serious poster
I mean correct in his belief that leaving the EU is objectively bad.
That is 100% correct.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I
know that what is good for one person is bad for another. That it's not
all about economics, or all about immigration, or all about geopolitics.
But there may be an aggregate sense in which someone much cleverer
than I can objectively say that it is 'good' or 'bad'. To my mind,
there is a possibility that MM may actually know the answer to this.
I'm simply siding with the millions of people around the globe who
think Britain is mad to be considering leaving the EU. Not only
millions of people, but tens of thousands of businesses, most young
people, most EU migrants who live here, and most UK ex-pats who live
in the EU.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Unfortunately, his OP in this case seems to be a rather generalised
accusation of racism. It sort of detracts from that 'possibility' that
I have imagined :-)
I absolutely believe that it was bigotry that drove the Leave vote.
The reason why the vote is changing towards Remain in places like
Sunderland is that people are now actually *thinking* for a change,
instead of just hitting out, which is what bigots tend to do.

MM
MM
2018-12-04 09:52:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article that
suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in Africa,
you will find far greater prejudice than the article describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe is
far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like this.
Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have thought the
message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave like
this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are very bigoted
so there's litle truth in making the statement at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe that.
Where did I give you that impression? I aimed my criticism four-square
at white faces, since these represented the vast majority of the
English population when the current OAPs who largely voted for Brexit
were maturing.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it is excusable,
since they are reacting to systemic racism. I don't want to believe it,
but I'm not sure that a white person (like me) can ever judge the truth
of that.
~Any~ bigotry is to be castigated, but it wasn't non-whites who won
the Brexit vote, was it?

MM
Pamela
2018-12-04 12:01:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Pamela
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
What proof do you have that non-white British people are never bigoted?
None at all, I'm just wondering why MM agrees with an article
that suggests that that is the case.
If you go to some foreign countries, say China or those in Africa,
you will find far greater prejudice than the article describes.
I don't doubt it. I'd also suggest that much of mainland Europe is
far worse than the UK.
Post by Pamela
The article doesn't say only white English people behave like
this. Can you point me to where it does?
It's about Brexit as a reaction to Immigration. I'd have thought
the message was clear?
Your claim the article says "only white English people behave like
this". It doesn't say that.
What's more, even if it did, a lot of non-white British are very
bigoted so there's litle truth in making the statement at all.
True. But my original question was aimed at MM who does believe that.
Where did I give you that impression? I aimed my criticism four-square
at white faces, since these represented the vast majority of the
English population when the current OAPs who largely voted for Brexit
were maturing.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
WRT to non-white British bigotry, there are claims that it is
excusable, since they are reacting to systemic racism. I don't want
to believe it, but I'm not sure that a white person (like me) can ever
judge the truth of that.
~Any~ bigotry is to be castigated, but it wasn't non-whites who won
the Brexit vote, was it?
MM
Seems to me Dan was being foolish by making unsubstantiated provocative
comments.
Incubus
2018-12-03 14:16:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis.
Furthermore, while racists like Nigel Farage with his poster campaign
are so obvious, an undercurrent of racism flows right across England
in all strata of society, from the ordinary worker, to the boss of an
engineering company, to the little old lady riding a bicycle to
church.
We oldies all grew up in a country of largely white faces. Weeks,
months, would go by when one never saw a non-white face. I remember ny
Dad telling me aged six "Don't stare" on our occasional trips to
London from the South Coast, because in Hastings I hadn't seen any
non-white faces. The police were white. Doctors were white. Teachers
were white. Judges were white. It was just a fact of life, just how it
was 50 years ago in nearly every community.
The change from nearly all white faces to a mix of different
ethnicities happened too quickly to quell bigotry. Perhaps I was
different from most people in that I started work aged 15 and both my
foremen in two different garages were of Indian or Arabian extraction.
In 1961 this was most unsual, especially in rural Kent. They were
nice, friendly people, good at their jobs, totally impartial with all
the fitters, so there was nothing about them that might have shaped my
opinions towards a bias against their ethnicity.
But for many people it didn't work like that. Suddenly, after
Windrush, non-white faces appeared, accents changed, the English who
went through the war having grown up in the 1920s and '30s felt
confronted and under threat. They had fought Nazism in defence of
human rights, but curiously those human rights did not, in their eyes,
extend to *all* nationalities.
Fast forward to June 2016 and it is clearer than ever that the impetus
fuelling the Leave vote was blatant racism, or its more polite cousin,
xenophobia. People said they wanted to take back control, but what
they really meant was, they wanted to control inward migration to,
hopefully, zero if at all possible. Not only reduce it to zero, but
"encourage" repatriation of any non-white face still left over. Post
the referendum we heard about hundreds of cases of abuse, frequently
with violence, towards foreigners, which means the number we didn't
hear about or read about was a hundred times bigger. Many of those
abused were actually British born and bred, but the far-right doesn't
make a distinction. To them, foreigners are foreigners if they look or
sound like foreigners. For Farage, simply hearing foreign accents on
trains was enough to set him off. The far-right tendency across
England felt they suddenly had the right to abuse foreigners because
that was what the referendum result told them.
"In June 2017, a report collated from the British Social Attitudes
survey showed that the most significant factor in the leave vote was
anxiety about the number of people coming to the UK. A comprehensive
study published by Nuffield College in April drew similar conclusions
about the salience of immigration in attitudes to Brexit. 'Take back
control' was indeed the slogan of the leave campaign, but it was
'control' with one purpose, above all others, at its heart."
"Beneath all the talk of 'control' and 'global Britain', there is the
germ of an extremely unpleasant nativism. Again, we pesky centrists
are told to be quiet and to heed the concerns of those who have been
'left behind'. But since there is not a shred of respectable evidence
that immigration has had more than a marginal impact upon public
service capacity, wage levels or net welfare costs, I am forced to
conclude that there is now a sufficiency of Britons who just don’t
much like people of foreign extraction, and certainly don’t want many
more of them around the place."
"So often one hears that the British people 'were not consulted' about
immigration levels. To which the answer is: oh yes you damn well were.
Every time you insisted on a properly staffed NHS, on social care that
was halfway decent, on a service economy that worked, on affordable
decorators, on your Tesco and Amazon deliveries arriving on time. Each
time you took that landscape for granted, you were complicit in the
immigration policy that preceded the Brexit vote."
So really, what Brexit is all about is how to keep the English in some
kind of harmony with each other, whatever ethnicity or nationality
they happen to be or have, until enough of us have passed on and
replaced by young, educated kids who just don't have this inherent or
intrinsic trait that defines many of those who voted to leave the EU.
Already, the number of young voters now eligible to vote is
approaching 1.5 million, and a far greater proportion of them would
vote to remain if given the chance.
You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/02/honest-brexit-bigotry-ugly-chapter-history
MM
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
Is it only us, though? It seems that the Welsh went a bit further in the 1980s
when it came to burning down holiday homes. It's a matter of cause and effect;
when people's interests are threatened by an external group, there are a range
of natural responses to that, some of them civilised and some of them violent.
The Left always seem to equate those of us who respond in a civilised manner
with those who respond with violence. England has been hit far harder with
mass immigration so it is only natural that we reject Globalism more
vigorously. However, I think the overwhelming majority of us are being
civilised about it.

The idea that there is no measureable impact from immigration relies upon
studies that ignore the negative impacts. There are also things that won't
necessarily be measured at all that are still pertinent. If I want a doctor's
appointment, for example, I have to book one three weeks in advance or 'war
dial' the appointment line as soon as it opens with the hope of getting a same
day appointment, which very often I cannot do. Things were completely
different thirty years ago.

That brings me on to the ridiculous idea that wanting more NHS staff means we
were consulted on immigration. Some of us have called for a points-based
system that would allow more medical workers with the hope that more places be
made available for medical degrees. Wanting more NHS staff doesn't mean we
want more plumbers, electricians, retail workers, burger vendors and welfare
recipients.

If it's written in The Guardian, it is pretty much guaranteed to be half-baked
nonsense.
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-12-03 14:22:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis.
Furthermore, while racists like Nigel Farage with his poster campaign
are so obvious, an undercurrent of racism flows right across England
in all strata of society, from the ordinary worker, to the boss of an
engineering company, to the little old lady riding a bicycle to
church.
We oldies all grew up in a country of largely white faces. Weeks,
months, would go by when one never saw a non-white face. I remember ny
Dad telling me aged six "Don't stare" on our occasional trips to
London from the South Coast, because in Hastings I hadn't seen any
non-white faces. The police were white. Doctors were white. Teachers
were white. Judges were white. It was just a fact of life, just how it
was 50 years ago in nearly every community.
The change from nearly all white faces to a mix of different
ethnicities happened too quickly to quell bigotry. Perhaps I was
different from most people in that I started work aged 15 and both my
foremen in two different garages were of Indian or Arabian extraction.
In 1961 this was most unsual, especially in rural Kent. They were
nice, friendly people, good at their jobs, totally impartial with all
the fitters, so there was nothing about them that might have shaped my
opinions towards a bias against their ethnicity.
But for many people it didn't work like that. Suddenly, after
Windrush, non-white faces appeared, accents changed, the English who
went through the war having grown up in the 1920s and '30s felt
confronted and under threat. They had fought Nazism in defence of
human rights, but curiously those human rights did not, in their eyes,
extend to *all* nationalities.
Fast forward to June 2016 and it is clearer than ever that the impetus
fuelling the Leave vote was blatant racism, or its more polite cousin,
xenophobia. People said they wanted to take back control, but what
they really meant was, they wanted to control inward migration to,
hopefully, zero if at all possible. Not only reduce it to zero, but
"encourage" repatriation of any non-white face still left over. Post
the referendum we heard about hundreds of cases of abuse, frequently
with violence, towards foreigners, which means the number we didn't
hear about or read about was a hundred times bigger. Many of those
abused were actually British born and bred, but the far-right doesn't
make a distinction. To them, foreigners are foreigners if they look or
sound like foreigners. For Farage, simply hearing foreign accents on
trains was enough to set him off. The far-right tendency across
England felt they suddenly had the right to abuse foreigners because
that was what the referendum result told them.
"In June 2017, a report collated from the British Social Attitudes
survey showed that the most significant factor in the leave vote was
anxiety about the number of people coming to the UK. A comprehensive
study published by Nuffield College in April drew similar conclusions
about the salience of immigration in attitudes to Brexit. 'Take back
control' was indeed the slogan of the leave campaign, but it was
'control' with one purpose, above all others, at its heart."
"Beneath all the talk of 'control' and 'global Britain', there is the
germ of an extremely unpleasant nativism. Again, we pesky centrists
are told to be quiet and to heed the concerns of those who have been
'left behind'. But since there is not a shred of respectable evidence
that immigration has had more than a marginal impact upon public
service capacity, wage levels or net welfare costs, I am forced to
conclude that there is now a sufficiency of Britons who just don’t
much like people of foreign extraction, and certainly don’t want many
more of them around the place."
"So often one hears that the British people 'were not consulted' about
immigration levels. To which the answer is: oh yes you damn well were.
Every time you insisted on a properly staffed NHS, on social care that
was halfway decent, on a service economy that worked, on affordable
decorators, on your Tesco and Amazon deliveries arriving on time. Each
time you took that landscape for granted, you were complicit in the
immigration policy that preceded the Brexit vote."
So really, what Brexit is all about is how to keep the English in some
kind of harmony with each other, whatever ethnicity or nationality
they happen to be or have, until enough of us have passed on and
replaced by young, educated kids who just don't have this inherent or
intrinsic trait that defines many of those who voted to leave the EU.
Already, the number of young voters now eligible to vote is
approaching 1.5 million, and a far greater proportion of them would
vote to remain if given the chance.
You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/02/honest-brexit-bigotry-ugly-chapter-history
MM
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
Is it only us, though? It seems that the Welsh went a bit further in the 1980s
Well, I don't think it is only us. My personal guess is simply that
many people are more comfortable when surrounded by people who look
fairly similar to themselves. I've no explanation for it, but surely it
has to be taken into account?
Post by Incubus
when it came to burning down holiday homes. It's a matter of cause and effect;
when people's interests are threatened by an external group, there are a range
of natural responses to that, some of them civilised and some of them violent.
The Left always seem to equate those of us who respond in a civilised manner
with those who respond with violence. England has been hit far harder with
mass immigration so it is only natural that we reject Globalism more
vigorously. However, I think the overwhelming majority of us are being
civilised about it.
The idea that there is no measureable impact from immigration relies upon
studies that ignore the negative impacts. There are also things that won't
necessarily be measured at all that are still pertinent. If I want a doctor's
appointment, for example, I have to book one three weeks in advance or 'war
dial' the appointment line as soon as it opens with the hope of getting a same
day appointment, which very often I cannot do. Things were completely
different thirty years ago.
That brings me on to the ridiculous idea that wanting more NHS staff means we
were consulted on immigration. Some of us have called for a points-based
system that would allow more medical workers with the hope that more places be
made available for medical degrees. Wanting more NHS staff doesn't mean we
want more plumbers, electricians, retail workers, burger vendors and welfare
recipients.
If it's written in The Guardian, it is pretty much guaranteed to be half-baked
nonsense.
Yup.
Pamela
2018-12-03 14:46:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that
we have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners
with animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows
plenty of evidence of it on a daily basis.
Furthermore, while racists like Nigel Farage with his poster
campaign are so obvious, an undercurrent of racism flows right
across England in all strata of society, from the ordinary worker,
to the boss of an engineering company, to the little old lady riding
a bicycle to church.
We oldies all grew up in a country of largely white faces. Weeks,
months, would go by when one never saw a non-white face. I remember
ny Dad telling me aged six "Don't stare" on our occasional trips to
London from the South Coast, because in Hastings I hadn't seen any
non-white faces. The police were white. Doctors were white. Teachers
were white. Judges were white. It was just a fact of life, just how
it was 50 years ago in nearly every community.
The change from nearly all white faces to a mix of different
ethnicities happened too quickly to quell bigotry. Perhaps I was
different from most people in that I started work aged 15 and both
my foremen in two different garages were of Indian or Arabian
extraction. In 1961 this was most unsual, especially in rural Kent.
They were nice, friendly people, good at their jobs, totally
impartial with all the fitters, so there was nothing about them that
might have shaped my opinions towards a bias against their
ethnicity.
But for many people it didn't work like that. Suddenly, after
Windrush, non-white faces appeared, accents changed, the English who
went through the war having grown up in the 1920s and '30s felt
confronted and under threat. They had fought Nazism in defence of
human rights, but curiously those human rights did not, in their
eyes, extend to *all* nationalities.
Fast forward to June 2016 and it is clearer than ever that the
impetus fuelling the Leave vote was blatant racism, or its more
polite cousin, xenophobia. People said they wanted to take back
control, but what they really meant was, they wanted to control
inward migration to, hopefully, zero if at all possible. Not only
reduce it to zero, but "encourage" repatriation of any non-white
face still left over. Post the referendum we heard about hundreds of
cases of abuse, frequently with violence, towards foreigners, which
means the number we didn't hear about or read about was a hundred
times bigger. Many of those abused were actually British born and
bred, but the far-right doesn't make a distinction. To them,
foreigners are foreigners if they look or sound like foreigners. For
Farage, simply hearing foreign accents on trains was enough to set
him off. The far-right tendency across England felt they suddenly
had the right to abuse foreigners because that was what the
referendum result told them.
"In June 2017, a report collated from the British Social Attitudes
survey showed that the most significant factor in the leave vote was
anxiety about the number of people coming to the UK. A comprehensive
study published by Nuffield College in April drew similar
conclusions about the salience of immigration in attitudes to
Brexit. 'Take back control' was indeed the slogan of the leave
campaign, but it was 'control' with one purpose, above all others,
at its heart."
"Beneath all the talk of 'control' and 'global Britain', there is
the germ of an extremely unpleasant nativism. Again, we pesky
centrists are told to be quiet and to heed the concerns of those who
have been 'left behind'. But since there is not a shred of
respectable evidence that immigration has had more than a marginal
impact upon public service capacity, wage levels or net welfare
costs, I am forced to conclude that there is now a sufficiency of
Britons who just don’t much like people of foreign extraction, and
certainly don’t want many more of them around the place."
"So often one hears that the British people 'were not consulted'
about immigration levels. To which the answer is: oh yes you damn
well were. Every time you insisted on a properly staffed NHS, on
social care that was halfway decent, on a service economy that
worked, on affordable decorators, on your Tesco and Amazon
deliveries arriving on time. Each time you took that landscape for
granted, you were complicit in the immigration policy that preceded
the Brexit vote."
So really, what Brexit is all about is how to keep the English in
some kind of harmony with each other, whatever ethnicity or
nationality they happen to be or have, until enough of us have
passed on and replaced by young, educated kids who just don't have
this inherent or intrinsic trait that defines many of those who
voted to leave the EU. Already, the number of young voters now
eligible to vote is approaching 1.5 million, and a far greater
proportion of them would vote to remain if given the chance.
You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/02/honest-brexit-
b
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
igotry-ugly-chapter-history
MM
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
Is it only us, though? It seems that the Welsh went a bit further in
the 1980s when it came to burning down holiday homes. It's a matter
of cause and effect; when people's interests are threatened by an
external group, there are a range of natural responses to that, some
of them civilised and some of them violent. The Left always seem to
equate those of us who respond in a civilised manner with those who
respond with violence. England has been hit far harder with mass
immigration
Hit harder than where? Not Germany or Italy. Nor France.
Post by Incubus
so it is only natural that we reject Globalism more
vigorously.
It doesn't follow that if there is excess immigration then globalism is
the cause.
Post by Incubus
However, I think the overwhelming majority of us are
being civilised about it.
The idea that there is no measureable impact from immigration relies
upon studies that ignore the negative impacts. There are also things
that won't necessarily be measured at all that are still pertinent.
If I want a doctor's appointment, for example, I have to book one
three weeks in advance or 'war dial' the appointment line as soon as
it opens with the hope of getting a same day appointment, which very
often I cannot do. Things were completely different thirty years ago.
Maybe you should look at falling British propserity and wonder how we
are going to afford such health & social care when our economy stagnates
after Brexit.
Post by Incubus
That brings me on to the ridiculous idea that wanting more NHS staff
means we were consulted on immigration. Some of us have called for a
points-based system that would allow more medical workers with the
hope that more places be made available for medical degrees. Wanting
more NHS staff doesn't mean we want more plumbers, electricians,
retail workers, burger vendors and welfare recipients.
I want all those jobs filling and if immigrants will do that work when
Brits won't then that's fine.
Post by Incubus
If it's written in The Guardian, it is pretty much guaranteed to be
half-baked nonsense.
So you say.
MM
2018-12-03 18:50:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 14:16:44 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis.
Furthermore, while racists like Nigel Farage with his poster campaign
are so obvious, an undercurrent of racism flows right across England
in all strata of society, from the ordinary worker, to the boss of an
engineering company, to the little old lady riding a bicycle to
church.
We oldies all grew up in a country of largely white faces. Weeks,
months, would go by when one never saw a non-white face. I remember ny
Dad telling me aged six "Don't stare" on our occasional trips to
London from the South Coast, because in Hastings I hadn't seen any
non-white faces. The police were white. Doctors were white. Teachers
were white. Judges were white. It was just a fact of life, just how it
was 50 years ago in nearly every community.
The change from nearly all white faces to a mix of different
ethnicities happened too quickly to quell bigotry. Perhaps I was
different from most people in that I started work aged 15 and both my
foremen in two different garages were of Indian or Arabian extraction.
In 1961 this was most unsual, especially in rural Kent. They were
nice, friendly people, good at their jobs, totally impartial with all
the fitters, so there was nothing about them that might have shaped my
opinions towards a bias against their ethnicity.
But for many people it didn't work like that. Suddenly, after
Windrush, non-white faces appeared, accents changed, the English who
went through the war having grown up in the 1920s and '30s felt
confronted and under threat. They had fought Nazism in defence of
human rights, but curiously those human rights did not, in their eyes,
extend to *all* nationalities.
Fast forward to June 2016 and it is clearer than ever that the impetus
fuelling the Leave vote was blatant racism, or its more polite cousin,
xenophobia. People said they wanted to take back control, but what
they really meant was, they wanted to control inward migration to,
hopefully, zero if at all possible. Not only reduce it to zero, but
"encourage" repatriation of any non-white face still left over. Post
the referendum we heard about hundreds of cases of abuse, frequently
with violence, towards foreigners, which means the number we didn't
hear about or read about was a hundred times bigger. Many of those
abused were actually British born and bred, but the far-right doesn't
make a distinction. To them, foreigners are foreigners if they look or
sound like foreigners. For Farage, simply hearing foreign accents on
trains was enough to set him off. The far-right tendency across
England felt they suddenly had the right to abuse foreigners because
that was what the referendum result told them.
"In June 2017, a report collated from the British Social Attitudes
survey showed that the most significant factor in the leave vote was
anxiety about the number of people coming to the UK. A comprehensive
study published by Nuffield College in April drew similar conclusions
about the salience of immigration in attitudes to Brexit. 'Take back
control' was indeed the slogan of the leave campaign, but it was
'control' with one purpose, above all others, at its heart."
"Beneath all the talk of 'control' and 'global Britain', there is the
germ of an extremely unpleasant nativism. Again, we pesky centrists
are told to be quiet and to heed the concerns of those who have been
'left behind'. But since there is not a shred of respectable evidence
that immigration has had more than a marginal impact upon public
service capacity, wage levels or net welfare costs, I am forced to
conclude that there is now a sufficiency of Britons who just don’t
much like people of foreign extraction, and certainly don’t want many
more of them around the place."
"So often one hears that the British people 'were not consulted' about
immigration levels. To which the answer is: oh yes you damn well were.
Every time you insisted on a properly staffed NHS, on social care that
was halfway decent, on a service economy that worked, on affordable
decorators, on your Tesco and Amazon deliveries arriving on time. Each
time you took that landscape for granted, you were complicit in the
immigration policy that preceded the Brexit vote."
So really, what Brexit is all about is how to keep the English in some
kind of harmony with each other, whatever ethnicity or nationality
they happen to be or have, until enough of us have passed on and
replaced by young, educated kids who just don't have this inherent or
intrinsic trait that defines many of those who voted to leave the EU.
Already, the number of young voters now eligible to vote is
approaching 1.5 million, and a far greater proportion of them would
vote to remain if given the chance.
You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/02/honest-brexit-bigotry-ugly-chapter-history
MM
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
Is it only us, though? It seems that the Welsh went a bit further in the 1980s
when it came to burning down holiday homes.
Did you condone that activity? What is the state today of holiday home
provision in Wales? Oh, yes, and the IRA used to bomb people who
didn't agree with them.
Post by Incubus
It's a matter of cause and effect;
when people's interests are threatened by an external group, there are a range
of natural responses to that, some of them civilised and some of them violent.
That assumes there *is* a threat. But the Guardian article notes:

"....there is not a shred of respectable evidence that immigration has
had more than a marginal impact upon public service capacity, wage
levels or net welfare costs..."

Therefore, a "marginal impact" has been blown up and exaggerated out
of all proportion to any perceived "threat". The *threat* in question
is to fear inundation by an imagined inferior alien force and
therefore wholly in the mind of the beholder of such views.
Post by Incubus
The Left always seem to equate those of us who respond in a civilised manner
with those who respond with violence. England has been hit far harder with
mass immigration so it is only natural that we reject Globalism more
vigorously. However, I think the overwhelming majority of us are being
civilised about it.
So all the threats of insurrection if we don't leave are merely empty
threats and that it isn't going to happen? What's the rush? Why *must*
March 29, 2019 be sacrosanct? What difference would a year or two make
as long as that could mean a much better "deal" at the end? No
Brexiter was asked whether Article 50 should be triggered as soon as
it was. It is obvious now that it was triggered *far* too early, given
the complexity of leaving after 45 years of membership.

I'll tell you why the government is desperate to keep to March 29.
It's because from 1 April a whole new set of changes start taking
place in the EU and those changes would almost certainly threaten the
Tory majority at the general election in 2022. Even 2022, if the
transition period is extended, is far too close for comfort for the
Tories, because they will be entering into election campaigning with
the dark cloud of the unresolved referendum result still hanging over
them. For many Tory MPs it will be a fate worse than death to have to
pound the streets and knock on doors and persuade voters that the
Tories are still worth their vote.
Post by Incubus
The idea that there is no measureable impact from immigration relies upon
studies that ignore the negative impacts. There are also things that won't
necessarily be measured at all that are still pertinent. If I want a doctor's
appointment, for example, I have to book one three weeks in advance or 'war
dial' the appointment line as soon as it opens with the hope of getting a same
day appointment, which very often I cannot do. Things were completely
different thirty years ago.
And that problem, which I have also experienced many times, has
*no*thing to do with immigration and *every*thing to do with previous
and current governments' failure to recognise the problem and deal
with it. But if you're so concerned about this matter, Brexit is only
making it worse, not better! Over the past few weeks we have heard how
thousands of EU workers are leaving Britain either for their home
countries or to another EU country that is more welcoming to them and
their skills. So you are simply shooting yourselves in the foot by
making this country what it has become since the referendum.
Post by Incubus
That brings me on to the ridiculous idea that wanting more NHS staff means we
were consulted on immigration. Some of us have called for a points-based
system that would allow more medical workers with the hope that more places be
made available for medical degrees. Wanting more NHS staff doesn't mean we
want more plumbers, electricians, retail workers, burger vendors and welfare
recipients.
Face it, for continued expansion of the British economy and greater
prosperity and more taxes to pay for the NHS, there are not enough
indigenous workers to fill current vacancies, let alone new vacancies
created by entrepreneurs - although such people are having second
thoughts about investing in Britain after Brexit.

As for welfare recipients it's a fact that indigenous Britons receive
a much greater slice of any welfare going than migrant workers.
Whenever I do get a GP appointment and am sitting in the waiting room,
what do I see around me? Strapping Polish builders? No, I see largely
old men and women with justified illnesses, often obvious ones.
Strapping Polish builders are highly *un*likely to need GP services.
Like, when I was young, I never needed any kind of medical treatment,
as in fact most young people don't. So it's just a myth to blame
inward migration for your difficulty to get someone to answer the
phone at your GP.
Post by Incubus
If it's written in The Guardian, it is pretty much guaranteed to be half-baked
nonsense.
Ah, so true to Brexiter form, you know you've lost any rational
argument, so what better than to shoot the messenger?

MM
MM
2018-12-03 16:25:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis.
Furthermore, while racists like Nigel Farage with his poster campaign
are so obvious, an undercurrent of racism flows right across England
in all strata of society, from the ordinary worker, to the boss of an
engineering company, to the little old lady riding a bicycle to
church.
We oldies all grew up in a country of largely white faces. Weeks,
months, would go by when one never saw a non-white face. I remember ny
Dad telling me aged six "Don't stare" on our occasional trips to
London from the South Coast, because in Hastings I hadn't seen any
non-white faces. The police were white. Doctors were white. Teachers
were white. Judges were white. It was just a fact of life, just how it
was 50 years ago in nearly every community.
The change from nearly all white faces to a mix of different
ethnicities happened too quickly to quell bigotry. Perhaps I was
different from most people in that I started work aged 15 and both my
foremen in two different garages were of Indian or Arabian extraction.
In 1961 this was most unsual, especially in rural Kent. They were
nice, friendly people, good at their jobs, totally impartial with all
the fitters, so there was nothing about them that might have shaped my
opinions towards a bias against their ethnicity.
But for many people it didn't work like that. Suddenly, after
Windrush, non-white faces appeared, accents changed, the English who
went through the war having grown up in the 1920s and '30s felt
confronted and under threat. They had fought Nazism in defence of
human rights, but curiously those human rights did not, in their eyes,
extend to *all* nationalities.
Fast forward to June 2016 and it is clearer than ever that the impetus
fuelling the Leave vote was blatant racism, or its more polite cousin,
xenophobia. People said they wanted to take back control, but what
they really meant was, they wanted to control inward migration to,
hopefully, zero if at all possible. Not only reduce it to zero, but
"encourage" repatriation of any non-white face still left over. Post
the referendum we heard about hundreds of cases of abuse, frequently
with violence, towards foreigners, which means the number we didn't
hear about or read about was a hundred times bigger. Many of those
abused were actually British born and bred, but the far-right doesn't
make a distinction. To them, foreigners are foreigners if they look or
sound like foreigners. For Farage, simply hearing foreign accents on
trains was enough to set him off. The far-right tendency across
England felt they suddenly had the right to abuse foreigners because
that was what the referendum result told them.
"In June 2017, a report collated from the British Social Attitudes
survey showed that the most significant factor in the leave vote was
anxiety about the number of people coming to the UK. A comprehensive
study published by Nuffield College in April drew similar conclusions
about the salience of immigration in attitudes to Brexit. 'Take back
control' was indeed the slogan of the leave campaign, but it was
'control' with one purpose, above all others, at its heart."
"Beneath all the talk of 'control' and 'global Britain', there is the
germ of an extremely unpleasant nativism. Again, we pesky centrists
are told to be quiet and to heed the concerns of those who have been
'left behind'. But since there is not a shred of respectable evidence
that immigration has had more than a marginal impact upon public
service capacity, wage levels or net welfare costs, I am forced to
conclude that there is now a sufficiency of Britons who just don’t
much like people of foreign extraction, and certainly don’t want many
more of them around the place."
"So often one hears that the British people 'were not consulted' about
immigration levels. To which the answer is: oh yes you damn well were.
Every time you insisted on a properly staffed NHS, on social care that
was halfway decent, on a service economy that worked, on affordable
decorators, on your Tesco and Amazon deliveries arriving on time. Each
time you took that landscape for granted, you were complicit in the
immigration policy that preceded the Brexit vote."
So really, what Brexit is all about is how to keep the English in some
kind of harmony with each other, whatever ethnicity or nationality
they happen to be or have, until enough of us have passed on and
replaced by young, educated kids who just don't have this inherent or
intrinsic trait that defines many of those who voted to leave the EU.
Already, the number of young voters now eligible to vote is
approaching 1.5 million, and a far greater proportion of them would
vote to remain if given the chance.
You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/02/honest-brexit-bigotry-ugly-chapter-history
MM
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
We've always been an arrogant people.

MM
Bod
2018-12-03 16:26:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis.
Furthermore, while racists like Nigel Farage with his poster campaign
are so obvious, an undercurrent of racism flows right across England
in all strata of society, from the ordinary worker, to the boss of an
engineering company, to the little old lady riding a bicycle to
church.
We oldies all grew up in a country of largely white faces. Weeks,
months, would go by when one never saw a non-white face. I remember ny
Dad telling me aged six "Don't stare" on our occasional trips to
London from the South Coast, because in Hastings I hadn't seen any
non-white faces. The police were white. Doctors were white. Teachers
were white. Judges were white. It was just a fact of life, just how it
was 50 years ago in nearly every community.
The change from nearly all white faces to a mix of different
ethnicities happened too quickly to quell bigotry. Perhaps I was
different from most people in that I started work aged 15 and both my
foremen in two different garages were of Indian or Arabian extraction.
In 1961 this was most unsual, especially in rural Kent. They were
nice, friendly people, good at their jobs, totally impartial with all
the fitters, so there was nothing about them that might have shaped my
opinions towards a bias against their ethnicity.
But for many people it didn't work like that. Suddenly, after
Windrush, non-white faces appeared, accents changed, the English who
went through the war having grown up in the 1920s and '30s felt
confronted and under threat. They had fought Nazism in defence of
human rights, but curiously those human rights did not, in their eyes,
extend to *all* nationalities.
Fast forward to June 2016 and it is clearer than ever that the impetus
fuelling the Leave vote was blatant racism, or its more polite cousin,
xenophobia. People said they wanted to take back control, but what
they really meant was, they wanted to control inward migration to,
hopefully, zero if at all possible. Not only reduce it to zero, but
"encourage" repatriation of any non-white face still left over. Post
the referendum we heard about hundreds of cases of abuse, frequently
with violence, towards foreigners, which means the number we didn't
hear about or read about was a hundred times bigger. Many of those
abused were actually British born and bred, but the far-right doesn't
make a distinction. To them, foreigners are foreigners if they look or
sound like foreigners. For Farage, simply hearing foreign accents on
trains was enough to set him off. The far-right tendency across
England felt they suddenly had the right to abuse foreigners because
that was what the referendum result told them.
"In June 2017, a report collated from the British Social Attitudes
survey showed that the most significant factor in the leave vote was
anxiety about the number of people coming to the UK. A comprehensive
study published by Nuffield College in April drew similar conclusions
about the salience of immigration in attitudes to Brexit. 'Take back
control' was indeed the slogan of the leave campaign, but it was
'control' with one purpose, above all others, at its heart."
"Beneath all the talk of 'control' and 'global Britain', there is the
germ of an extremely unpleasant nativism. Again, we pesky centrists
are told to be quiet and to heed the concerns of those who have been
'left behind'. But since there is not a shred of respectable evidence
that immigration has had more than a marginal impact upon public
service capacity, wage levels or net welfare costs, I am forced to
conclude that there is now a sufficiency of Britons who just don’t
much like people of foreign extraction, and certainly don’t want many
more of them around the place."
"So often one hears that the British people 'were not consulted' about
immigration levels. To which the answer is: oh yes you damn well were.
Every time you insisted on a properly staffed NHS, on social care that
was halfway decent, on a service economy that worked, on affordable
decorators, on your Tesco and Amazon deliveries arriving on time. Each
time you took that landscape for granted, you were complicit in the
immigration policy that preceded the Brexit vote."
So really, what Brexit is all about is how to keep the English in some
kind of harmony with each other, whatever ethnicity or nationality
they happen to be or have, until enough of us have passed on and
replaced by young, educated kids who just don't have this inherent or
intrinsic trait that defines many of those who voted to leave the EU.
Already, the number of young voters now eligible to vote is
approaching 1.5 million, and a far greater proportion of them would
vote to remain if given the chance.
You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/02/honest-brexit-bigotry-ugly-chapter-history
MM
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
We've always been an arrogant people.
MM
Speak for yourself.
--
Bod
JNugent
2018-12-03 16:54:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by MM
Post by MM
We've always been an arrogant people.
Speak for yourself.
He always does.
Fredxx
2018-12-03 16:31:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis.
Furthermore, while racists like Nigel Farage with his poster campaign
are so obvious, an undercurrent of racism flows right across England
in all strata of society, from the ordinary worker, to the boss of an
engineering company, to the little old lady riding a bicycle to
church.
We oldies all grew up in a country of largely white faces. Weeks,
months, would go by when one never saw a non-white face. I remember ny
Dad telling me aged six "Don't stare" on our occasional trips to
London from the South Coast, because in Hastings I hadn't seen any
non-white faces. The police were white. Doctors were white. Teachers
were white. Judges were white. It was just a fact of life, just how it
was 50 years ago in nearly every community.
The change from nearly all white faces to a mix of different
ethnicities happened too quickly to quell bigotry. Perhaps I was
different from most people in that I started work aged 15 and both my
foremen in two different garages were of Indian or Arabian extraction.
In 1961 this was most unsual, especially in rural Kent. They were
nice, friendly people, good at their jobs, totally impartial with all
the fitters, so there was nothing about them that might have shaped my
opinions towards a bias against their ethnicity.
But for many people it didn't work like that. Suddenly, after
Windrush, non-white faces appeared, accents changed, the English who
went through the war having grown up in the 1920s and '30s felt
confronted and under threat. They had fought Nazism in defence of
human rights, but curiously those human rights did not, in their eyes,
extend to *all* nationalities.
Fast forward to June 2016 and it is clearer than ever that the impetus
fuelling the Leave vote was blatant racism, or its more polite cousin,
xenophobia. People said they wanted to take back control, but what
they really meant was, they wanted to control inward migration to,
hopefully, zero if at all possible. Not only reduce it to zero, but
"encourage" repatriation of any non-white face still left over. Post
the referendum we heard about hundreds of cases of abuse, frequently
with violence, towards foreigners, which means the number we didn't
hear about or read about was a hundred times bigger. Many of those
abused were actually British born and bred, but the far-right doesn't
make a distinction. To them, foreigners are foreigners if they look or
sound like foreigners. For Farage, simply hearing foreign accents on
trains was enough to set him off. The far-right tendency across
England felt they suddenly had the right to abuse foreigners because
that was what the referendum result told them.
"In June 2017, a report collated from the British Social Attitudes
survey showed that the most significant factor in the leave vote was
anxiety about the number of people coming to the UK. A comprehensive
study published by Nuffield College in April drew similar conclusions
about the salience of immigration in attitudes to Brexit. 'Take back
control' was indeed the slogan of the leave campaign, but it was
'control' with one purpose, above all others, at its heart."
"Beneath all the talk of 'control' and 'global Britain', there is the
germ of an extremely unpleasant nativism. Again, we pesky centrists
are told to be quiet and to heed the concerns of those who have been
'left behind'. But since there is not a shred of respectable evidence
that immigration has had more than a marginal impact upon public
service capacity, wage levels or net welfare costs, I am forced to
conclude that there is now a sufficiency of Britons who just don’t
much like people of foreign extraction, and certainly don’t want many
more of them around the place."
"So often one hears that the British people 'were not consulted' about
immigration levels. To which the answer is: oh yes you damn well were.
Every time you insisted on a properly staffed NHS, on social care that
was halfway decent, on a service economy that worked, on affordable
decorators, on your Tesco and Amazon deliveries arriving on time. Each
time you took that landscape for granted, you were complicit in the
immigration policy that preceded the Brexit vote."
So really, what Brexit is all about is how to keep the English in some
kind of harmony with each other, whatever ethnicity or nationality
they happen to be or have, until enough of us have passed on and
replaced by young, educated kids who just don't have this inherent or
intrinsic trait that defines many of those who voted to leave the EU.
Already, the number of young voters now eligible to vote is
approaching 1.5 million, and a far greater proportion of them would
vote to remain if given the chance.
You'll note I mentioned only the English above. Well, Scotland
rejected Brexit, as did Northern Ireland, so my criticism doesn't
apply to people of those countries.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/02/honest-brexit-bigotry-ugly-chapter-history
MM
Why do only white English people behave like this, do you suppose?
We've always been an arrogant people.
The most arrogant of all are those who think they should overturn a
result from a once in a generation referendum.
MM
2018-12-04 10:02:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
The most arrogant of all are those who think they should overturn a
result from a once in a generation referendum.
If Parliament votes that way, well, you wanted full sovereignty,
didn't you?

MM
R. Mark Clayton
2018-12-04 12:23:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Fredxx
The most arrogant of all are those who think they should overturn a
result from a once in a generation referendum.
If Parliament votes that way, well, you wanted full sovereignty,
didn't you?
MM
They wanted a democratic vote, but what they desperately do NOT want is another democratic vote. Apparently that would not be democratic. The Express and some hard Brexiteers are starting to panic "betrayal" screamed the front page of the former on Monday, Gove has sussed that he needs to support the deal or there might be no Brexit, and even Rees Mogg is starting to lose his cool...

An interesting historical precedent was that Henry Capet was elected King of France in 965, and he and his descendants ruled it for over eight centuries.
Ian Jackson
2018-12-04 13:53:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Fredxx
The most arrogant of all are those who think they should overturn a
result from a once in a generation referendum.
If Parliament votes that way, well, you wanted full sovereignty,
didn't you?
MM
They wanted a democratic vote, but what they desperately do NOT want is
another democratic vote. Apparently that would not be democratic. The
Express and some hard Brexiteers are starting to panic "betrayal"
screamed the front page of the former on Monday, Gove has sussed that
he needs to support the deal or there might be no Brexit, and even Rees
Mogg is starting to lose his cool...
It might be 'a betrayal' if the Government had immediately looked at the
result, and said "OK, it's a majority to leave - but we don't really
believe it's a large enough to carry out the promise that we made"
(which legally they could have done). Instead, they took a deep breath,
and then enthusiastically embarked on a tortuous and rock-strewn path to
Brexit.

However, there's now every indication that there is no longer even a
slim majority for leaving - so instead of 'respecting' an old, expired
majority, the most responsible course of action would be democratically
confirm the suspicions that TWOTP is now in favour of remaining in a
warts-and-all EU. But they are adamant that they will not allow this,
with those who are shouting "Democracy!" the loudest being the most
vociferous in demanding that, for the time being, no more democracy is
needed.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
An interesting historical precedent was that Henry Capet was elected
King of France in 965, and he and his descendants ruled it for over
eight centuries.
This is the problem with the "One man - one vote - once" sort of
situation (so typical in countries where natural democracy has not
previously been part of their culture). My recollection of old French
history is rather rusty, but I'm guessing that after the election of
Henry Capet, no further elections (or even opinion polls) were held. In
contrast, the UK has been holding increasingly structured and
representative parliamentary elections for over 400 years - with the
common man and woman enjoying a parliamentary vote for over a century. I
therefore find it strange that quite a lot of those who are charged with
running and protecting our electoral system are so absolutely intent on
insisting that, in the case of Brexit, the principle of "One man - one
vote - once" must apply.
--
Ian
R. Mark Clayton
2018-12-04 16:51:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Fredxx
The most arrogant of all are those who think they should overturn a
result from a once in a generation referendum.
If Parliament votes that way, well, you wanted full sovereignty,
didn't you?
MM
They wanted a democratic vote, but what they desperately do NOT want is
another democratic vote. Apparently that would not be democratic. The
Express and some hard Brexiteers are starting to panic "betrayal"
screamed the front page of the former on Monday, Gove has sussed that
he needs to support the deal or there might be no Brexit, and even Rees
Mogg is starting to lose his cool...
It might be 'a betrayal' if the Government had immediately looked at the
result, and said "OK, it's a majority to leave - but we don't really
believe it's a large enough to carry out the promise that we made"
(which legally they could have done). Instead, they took a deep breath,
and then enthusiastically embarked on a tortuous and rock-strewn path to
Brexit.
However, there's now every indication that there is no longer even a
slim majority for leaving - so instead of 'respecting' an old, expired
majority, the most responsible course of action would be democratically
confirm the suspicions that TWOTP is now in favour of remaining in a
warts-and-all EU. But they are adamant that they will not allow this,
with those who are shouting "Democracy!" the loudest being the most
vociferous in demanding that, for the time being, no more democracy is
needed.
Indeed, but really to overturn a referendum you need another referendum as in Wales (regularly held in dry counties until the abstainers died off) and Scottish devolution.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by R. Mark Clayton
An interesting historical precedent was that Henry Capet was elected
King of France in 965, and he and his descendants ruled it for over
eight centuries.
This is the problem with the "One man - one vote - once" sort of
situation (so typical in countries where natural democracy has not
previously been part of their culture). My recollection of old French
history is rather rusty, but I'm guessing that after the election of
Henry Capet, no further elections (or even opinion polls) were held.
No there was no meeting of their equivalent of a parliament for over two centuries until Louis XVI called one shortly before his early demise.
Post by Ian Jackson
In
contrast, the UK has been holding increasingly structured and
representative parliamentary elections for over 400 years - with the
common man and woman enjoying a parliamentary vote for over a century.
Well women only since 1930 and there was both gerrymandering and franchise fiddling in Northern Ireland well into the 1970's.
Post by Ian Jackson
I
therefore find it strange that quite a lot of those who are charged with
running and protecting our electoral system are so absolutely intent on
insisting that, in the case of Brexit, the principle of "One man - one
vote - once" must apply.
I can't think of a fairer system than one person one vote, but for a huge change like that there should have been a qualified majority.
Post by Ian Jackson
--
Ian
MM
2018-12-05 08:35:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 08:51:33 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Fredxx
The most arrogant of all are those who think they should overturn a
result from a once in a generation referendum.
If Parliament votes that way, well, you wanted full sovereignty,
didn't you?
MM
They wanted a democratic vote, but what they desperately do NOT want is
another democratic vote. Apparently that would not be democratic. The
Express and some hard Brexiteers are starting to panic "betrayal"
screamed the front page of the former on Monday, Gove has sussed that
he needs to support the deal or there might be no Brexit, and even Rees
Mogg is starting to lose his cool...
It might be 'a betrayal' if the Government had immediately looked at the
result, and said "OK, it's a majority to leave - but we don't really
believe it's a large enough to carry out the promise that we made"
(which legally they could have done). Instead, they took a deep breath,
and then enthusiastically embarked on a tortuous and rock-strewn path to
Brexit.
However, there's now every indication that there is no longer even a
slim majority for leaving - so instead of 'respecting' an old, expired
majority, the most responsible course of action would be democratically
confirm the suspicions that TWOTP is now in favour of remaining in a
warts-and-all EU. But they are adamant that they will not allow this,
with those who are shouting "Democracy!" the loudest being the most
vociferous in demanding that, for the time being, no more democracy is
needed.
Indeed, but really to overturn a referendum you need another referendum as in Wales (regularly held in dry counties until the abstainers died off) and Scottish devolution.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by R. Mark Clayton
An interesting historical precedent was that Henry Capet was elected
King of France in 965, and he and his descendants ruled it for over
eight centuries.
This is the problem with the "One man - one vote - once" sort of
situation (so typical in countries where natural democracy has not
previously been part of their culture). My recollection of old French
history is rather rusty, but I'm guessing that after the election of
Henry Capet, no further elections (or even opinion polls) were held.
No there was no meeting of their equivalent of a parliament for over two centuries until Louis XVI called one shortly before his early demise.
Post by Ian Jackson
In
contrast, the UK has been holding increasingly structured and
representative parliamentary elections for over 400 years - with the
common man and woman enjoying a parliamentary vote for over a century.
Well women only since 1930 and there was both gerrymandering and franchise fiddling in Northern Ireland well into the 1970's.
Post by Ian Jackson
I
therefore find it strange that quite a lot of those who are charged with
running and protecting our electoral system are so absolutely intent on
insisting that, in the case of Brexit, the principle of "One man - one
vote - once" must apply.
I can't think of a fairer system than one person one vote, but for a huge change like that there should have been a qualified majority.
Why do you think so many Brexiter MPs reject the idea of a second
referendum or people's vote, saying it would be "anti-democratic"?

Am I missing something here, or is there some fundamental reason why a
further referendum should be considered anti-democratic if a further
general election would not be?

MM
Ian Jackson
2018-12-05 09:52:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 08:51:33 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Fredxx
The most arrogant of all are those who think they should overturn a
result from a once in a generation referendum.
If Parliament votes that way, well, you wanted full sovereignty,
didn't you?
MM
They wanted a democratic vote, but what they desperately do NOT want is
another democratic vote. Apparently that would not be democratic. The
Express and some hard Brexiteers are starting to panic "betrayal"
screamed the front page of the former on Monday, Gove has sussed that
he needs to support the deal or there might be no Brexit, and even Rees
Mogg is starting to lose his cool...
It might be 'a betrayal' if the Government had immediately looked at the
result, and said "OK, it's a majority to leave - but we don't really
believe it's a large enough to carry out the promise that we made"
(which legally they could have done). Instead, they took a deep breath,
and then enthusiastically embarked on a tortuous and rock-strewn path to
Brexit.
However, there's now every indication that there is no longer even a
slim majority for leaving - so instead of 'respecting' an old, expired
majority, the most responsible course of action would be democratically
confirm the suspicions that TWOTP is now in favour of remaining in a
warts-and-all EU. But they are adamant that they will not allow this,
with those who are shouting "Democracy!" the loudest being the most
vociferous in demanding that, for the time being, no more democracy is
needed.
Indeed, but really to overturn a referendum you need another
referendum as in Wales (regularly held in dry counties until the
abstainers died off) and Scottish devolution.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by R. Mark Clayton
An interesting historical precedent was that Henry Capet was elected
King of France in 965, and he and his descendants ruled it for over
eight centuries.
This is the problem with the "One man - one vote - once" sort of
situation (so typical in countries where natural democracy has not
previously been part of their culture). My recollection of old French
history is rather rusty, but I'm guessing that after the election of
Henry Capet, no further elections (or even opinion polls) were held.
No there was no meeting of their equivalent of a parliament for over
two centuries until Louis XVI called one shortly before his early
demise.
Post by Ian Jackson
In
contrast, the UK has been holding increasingly structured and
representative parliamentary elections for over 400 years - with the
common man and woman enjoying a parliamentary vote for over a century.
Well women only since 1930 and there was both gerrymandering and
franchise fiddling in Northern Ireland well into the 1970's.
Post by Ian Jackson
I
therefore find it strange that quite a lot of those who are charged with
running and protecting our electoral system are so absolutely intent on
insisting that, in the case of Brexit, the principle of "One man - one
vote - once" must apply.
I can't think of a fairer system than one person one vote, but for a
huge change like that there should have been a qualified majority.
Why do you think so many Brexiter MPs reject the idea of a second
referendum or people's vote, saying it would be "anti-democratic"?
Am I missing something here, or is there some fundamental reason why a
further referendum should be considered anti-democratic if a further
general election would not be?
As you will hear from many an in-phoner, "We had a democratic,
once-in-a-generation referendum in 2016, and we don't need another one.
Any suggestion that we didn't really didn't know what we were voting for
is deeply offensive, and it just goes to show how arrogant, nasty and
despicable many of the those who want to stay in the EU really are. They
think they are all so superior, and that we are all scum. They will do
anything they can to thwart the will of the people, but if our
democratic will is not respected we will all be absolutely furious, and
there could well be unpredictable consequences. We are all fed up with
the way things are going on, and all we want is for the Government to do
the proper thing and simply get on and implement what we all voted for.
If we don't leave the EU, our faith in democracy will be destroyed, and
I'll never vote again."

Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at things!
--
Ian
kat
2018-12-05 10:33:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
As you will hear from many an in-phoner, "We had a democratic,
once-in-a-generation referendum in 2016, and we don't need another one. Any
suggestion that we didn't really didn't know what we were voting for is deeply
offensive, and it just goes to show how arrogant, nasty and despicable many of
the those who want to stay in the EU really are. They think they are all so
superior, and that we are all scum. They will do anything they can to thwart the
will of the people, but if our democratic will is not respected we will all be
absolutely furious, and there could well be unpredictable consequences. We are
all fed up with the way things are going on, and all we want is for the
Government to do the proper thing and simply get on and implement what we all
voted for. If we don't leave the EU, our faith in democracy will be destroyed,
and I'll never vote again."
Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at things!
It is. We had a referendum, where a majority voted for something that they were
promised would be implemented, we had a general election where both main
parties promised Brexit. If there is no Brexit, just why would one bother to
vote ever again?

And that thought ought to apply to those who would prefer there is no Brexit.
You might be happy that democracy and promises all failed, this time, but what
about next time?
--
kat
Post by Ian Jackson
^..^<
MM
2018-12-05 08:13:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 04:23:12 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Fredxx
The most arrogant of all are those who think they should overturn a
result from a once in a generation referendum.
If Parliament votes that way, well, you wanted full sovereignty,
didn't you?
MM
They wanted a democratic vote, but what they desperately do NOT want is another democratic vote. Apparently that would not be democratic. The Express and some hard Brexiteers are starting to panic "betrayal" screamed the front page of the former on Monday, Gove has sussed that he needs to support the deal or there might be no Brexit, and even Rees Mogg is starting to lose his cool...
An interesting historical precedent was that Henry Capet was elected King of France in 965, and he and his descendants ruled it for over eight centuries.
After the amazing goings-on in the HoC this afternoon, and when the
house finally settled itself after the umpteenth vote against the
government, I watched Gove for a bit on the front bench. He really
looked ill. He had such a look of utter despair on this face. If he
wasn't such a fool, I'd feel sorry for him.

MM
Ian Jackson
2018-12-05 08:43:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 04:23:12 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Fredxx
The most arrogant of all are those who think they should overturn a
result from a once in a generation referendum.
If Parliament votes that way, well, you wanted full sovereignty,
didn't you?
MM
They wanted a democratic vote, but what they desperately do NOT want
is another democratic vote. Apparently that would not be democratic.
The Express and some hard Brexiteers are starting to panic "betrayal"
screamed the front page of the former on Monday, Gove has sussed that
he needs to support the deal or there might be no Brexit, and even
Rees Mogg is starting to lose his cool...
An interesting historical precedent was that Henry Capet was elected
King of France in 965, and he and his descendants ruled it for over
eight centuries.
After the amazing goings-on in the HoC this afternoon, and when the
house finally settled itself after the umpteenth vote against the
government, I watched Gove for a bit on the front bench. He really
looked ill. He had such a look of utter despair on this face. If he
wasn't such a fool, I'd feel sorry for him.
I hardly ever watch the Parliament Channel, but last night I was glued
to it from 7pm to midnight. I missed all my usual evening TV watching.
In the end I just had to go to bed.

As I've said in uk.politics.uk, with certain exceptions there was a
marked contrast between the simple statesmanlike and well-reasoned
presentations from those supporting Remain and the often rather
supercilious and patronising attitude of those supporting Leave.
--
Ian
MM
2018-12-05 10:24:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 08:43:13 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 04:23:12 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Fredxx
The most arrogant of all are those who think they should overturn a
result from a once in a generation referendum.
If Parliament votes that way, well, you wanted full sovereignty,
didn't you?
MM
They wanted a democratic vote, but what they desperately do NOT want
is another democratic vote. Apparently that would not be democratic.
The Express and some hard Brexiteers are starting to panic "betrayal"
screamed the front page of the former on Monday, Gove has sussed that
he needs to support the deal or there might be no Brexit, and even
Rees Mogg is starting to lose his cool...
An interesting historical precedent was that Henry Capet was elected
King of France in 965, and he and his descendants ruled it for over
eight centuries.
After the amazing goings-on in the HoC this afternoon, and when the
house finally settled itself after the umpteenth vote against the
government, I watched Gove for a bit on the front bench. He really
looked ill. He had such a look of utter despair on this face. If he
wasn't such a fool, I'd feel sorry for him.
I hardly ever watch the Parliament Channel, but last night I was glued
to it from 7pm to midnight. I missed all my usual evening TV watching.
In the end I just had to go to bed.
As I've said in uk.politics.uk, with certain exceptions there was a
marked contrast between the simple statesmanlike and well-reasoned
presentations from those supporting Remain and the often rather
supercilious and patronising attitude of those supporting Leave.
Unfortunately for them, the Brexiters *always* sound supercilious and
patronising, like, for instance Norman Wells and JNugent in this
group. It seems as if a Brexiter mind just goes together with certain
belligerent character traits.

However, if you watched yesterday you must have seen Boris get heckled
by his own side on so many occasions the Speaker had to intervene at
one point.

The Sun refers to him as "Bumbling Boris", which he certainly was.

MM
MM
2018-12-05 10:17:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 04:23:12 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Post by Fredxx
The most arrogant of all are those who think they should overturn a
result from a once in a generation referendum.
If Parliament votes that way, well, you wanted full sovereignty,
didn't you?
MM
They wanted a democratic vote, but what they desperately do NOT want is another democratic vote. Apparently that would not be democratic. The Express and some hard Brexiteers are starting to panic "betrayal" screamed the front page of the former on Monday, Gove has sussed that he needs to support the deal or there might be no Brexit, and even Rees Mogg is starting to lose his cool...
An interesting historical precedent was that Henry Capet was elected King of France in 965, and he and his descendants ruled it for over eight centuries.
After the amazing goings-on in the HoC this afternoon, and when the
house finally settled itself after the umpteenth vote against the
government, I watched Gove for a bit on the front bench. He really
looked ill. He had such a look of utter despair on this face. If he
wasn't such a fool, I'd feel sorry for him.
MM
Note that the above post from me was written *yesterday*, but the
Eternal September server went on strike till I tried again this
morning.

Therefore, "this afternoon" refers now to *yesterday* afternoon.

MM
JNugent
2018-12-03 16:53:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
We've always been an arrogant people.
See?

When you confine your remarks and generalisations only to yourself and
those closest to you, you can be quite accurate.
Ian Jackson
2018-12-03 13:51:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
For Farage, simply hearing foreign accents on
trains was enough to set him off.
In fairness to NF, he frequently insists that he is definitely not
against immigration of any race from any country - but he wants us to
have total control over it. I think it's one of the few things he's
being 100% honest about.
--
Ian
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-03 14:07:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis.
Who cares about the truth, when one can write multi paragraphs of BS and
continue to get paid for doing so, as is the daily diet in the Guardian?

Has anyone even bothered to ask the Brexit voters why they voted to leave? Or
(as with the nastiness 24 hours after the noisy minority found to their
horror that they had not got their own way) did they just guess that those
who voted leave were racists because it was an easy stick with which to get
revenge?

Does not wanting this country to be a magnet for
a-city-the-size-of-Leicester-worth of immigrants every year mean we are
necessarily racist? Or simply we are pragmatists who acknowledge that just
letting those numbers of people into the country without decades of forward
planning is going to put an unbearable strain on housing, schooling, medical
facilities and the transport network, to name but four.

Yes it must be really wonderful for the sanctimonious and self righteous in
their ivory towers to dream of a UK where every extra million of humanity is
welcomed with open arms without a thought for the social and logistical
consequences that will produce inevitably, but to throw insults of racism at
those who advise caution, is just ignorant.
Ophelia
2018-12-03 15:35:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis.
Who cares about the truth, when one can write multi paragraphs of BS and
continue to get paid for doing so, as is the daily diet in the Guardian?

Has anyone even bothered to ask the Brexit voters why they voted to leave?
Or
(as with the nastiness 24 hours after the noisy minority found to their
horror that they had not got their own way) did they just guess that those
who voted leave were racists because it was an easy stick with which to get
revenge?

Does not wanting this country to be a magnet for
a-city-the-size-of-Leicester-worth of immigrants every year mean we are
necessarily racist? Or simply we are pragmatists who acknowledge that just
letting those numbers of people into the country without decades of forward
planning is going to put an unbearable strain on housing, schooling, medical
facilities and the transport network, to name but four.

Yes it must be really wonderful for the sanctimonious and self righteous in
their ivory towers to dream of a UK where every extra million of humanity is
welcomed with open arms without a thought for the social and logistical
consequences that will produce inevitably, but to throw insults of racism at
those who advise caution, is just ignorant.

==

Very well said! They won't accept it though! Their hysterical whinging
because they lost is becoming farcical!
A. Filip
2018-12-03 15:56:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
[...]
Who cares about the truth, when one can write multi paragraphs of BS and
continue to get paid for doing so, as is the daily diet in the Guardian?
Has anyone even bothered to ask the Brexit voters why they voted to leave?
[...]
They will say a lot, they will not say everything (as usual).
They may be unwilling to say or they don't really know
"the last straw" (consciously).

<cynicism> It had to be victory by protest vote. Crucial "tail" believed
that wise MPes and even wiser Brussels' bureaucrats can fix any stupid
referendum choice. Let's fuck voters choice in "True European"
way as frequent. </cynicism>
--
A. Filip
| Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.
| (Benjamin Franklin)
Ian Jackson
2018-12-03 16:10:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Has anyone even bothered to ask the Brexit voters why they voted to leave?
WHAT?!!! Where have you been for the past two years! It's a question
that's been (and is being) constantly asked.

While some of the reasons given are understandable and justified, a hell
of a lot are quite laughable. 'Bent bananas' and 'smaller condoms' are
still doing the rounds. Also. a lot of 'reasons' are simply grievances
about poor lifestyle and dissatisfaction with the performance of local
and national government, and have little or absolutely nothing to do
with our EU membership.
--
Ian
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-12-03 16:19:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Has anyone even bothered to ask the Brexit voters why they voted to leave?
WHAT?!!! Where have you been for the past two years! It's a question
that's been (and is being) constantly asked.
While some of the reasons given are understandable and justified, a hell
of a lot are quite laughable. 'Bent bananas' and 'smaller condoms' are
Have you known anyone actually say it was about bananas? :-) The banana
regulations do seem a bit bureaucratic, but I think it was only some of
the newspapers that mentioned them years ago.

The only people I've heard complaining about banana regulations were the
Madeirans who suddenly found that theirs were deemed too small to export
to the EU, or something like that.
Post by Ian Jackson
still doing the rounds. Also. a lot of 'reasons' are simply grievances
about poor lifestyle and dissatisfaction with the performance of local
and national government, and have little or absolutely nothing to do
with our EU membership.
Ian Jackson
2018-12-03 16:58:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In message <pu3l2h$g3t$***@dont-email.me>, Dan S. MacAbre <***@way.com>
writes
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Has anyone even bothered to ask the Brexit voters why they voted to leave?
WHAT?!!! Where have you been for the past two years! It's a question
that's been (and is being) constantly asked.
While some of the reasons given are understandable and justified, a
hell of a lot are quite laughable. 'Bent bananas' and 'smaller
condoms' are
Have you known anyone actually say it was about bananas? :-)
Yes, yes and yes! When asked, three lots of friends immediately gave
'bananas' as the very first reason - although they also added a few more
reasons (some of which were less-laughable - including immigration).

However, one had just come back from taking a friend for emergency
treatment at hospital - and said that a team of five doctors had worked
overnight for five hours to get his condition stabilised. As we had been
discussing Brexit, I asked her how many of the doctors were British, and
she rather shamefacedly replied "None of them".
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
The banana regulations do seem a bit bureaucratic, but I think it was
only some of the newspapers that mentioned them years ago.
It was everywhere!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybugadhq
http://preview.tinyurl.com/y89gycb2
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
The only people I've heard complaining about banana regulations were
the Madeirans who suddenly found that theirs were deemed too small to
export to the EU, or something like that.
I recall the problem with the small variety of Madeira bananas, but I
can't find an immediate reference. While they may initially have seemed
to pose a problem, I very much doubt if this persisted for very long. It
was probably simply some jobsworth going over the top. The EU isn't
totally stupid, and on many occasions has quickly rescinded or amended
regulations which defied common sense (which you will see of you look at
some of the 'Euromyth' websites).
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Ian Jackson
still doing the rounds. Also. a lot of 'reasons' are simply
grievances about poor lifestyle and dissatisfaction with the
performance of local and national government, and have little or
absolutely nothing to do with our EU membership.
--
Ian
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-12-03 17:08:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Has anyone even bothered to ask the Brexit voters why they voted to leave?
 WHAT?!!! Where have you been for the past two years! It's a question
that's been (and is being) constantly asked.
 While some of the reasons given are understandable and justified, a
hell  of a lot are quite laughable. 'Bent bananas' and 'smaller
condoms' are
Have you known anyone actually say it was about bananas? :-)
Yes, yes and yes! When asked, three lots of friends immediately gave
'bananas' as the very first reason - although they also added a few more
reasons (some of which were less-laughable - including immigration).
I'm quite sure that immigration is a problem for lots of people, and if
you press them about it, they will pretend it's about something else
(like bananas); because complaining about immigration is currently
frowned upon. I don't know what you can do. Making them 'suck it up'
(as our American cousins say) is just going to cause more problems in
the future. Unless you really can change human nature. I think you
can, but only slowly.

In the 'real world' I only know one person who voted to leave, and
that's my mum, who thought the EU was costing us too much money.
Post by Ian Jackson
However, one had just come back from taking a friend for emergency
treatment at hospital - and said that a team of five doctors had worked
overnight for five hours to get his condition stabilised. As we had been
discussing Brexit, I asked her how many of the doctors were British, and
she rather shamefacedly replied "None of them".
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
 The banana regulations do seem a bit bureaucratic, but I think it was
only some of the newspapers that mentioned them years ago.
It was everywhere!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybugadhq
http://preview.tinyurl.com/y89gycb2
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
The only people I've heard complaining about banana regulations were
the Madeirans who suddenly found that theirs were deemed too small to
export to the EU, or something like that.
I recall the problem with the small variety of Madeira bananas, but I
can't find an immediate reference. While they may initially have seemed
to pose a problem, I very much doubt if this persisted for very long. It
was probably simply some jobsworth going over the top. The EU isn't
totally stupid, and on many occasions has quickly rescinded or amended
regulations which defied common sense (which you will see of you look at
some of the 'Euromyth' websites).
I went to Madeira a few times (most recently maybe ten years ago). We
had a tour guide who was telling us that much of the landscape used to
be covered with banana trees, but that they quickly had to find
something else to do, like tourism. That's all I know about it, and I
hadn't thought about it from that day to this. :-)
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
still doing the rounds. Also. a lot of 'reasons' are simply
grievances  about poor lifestyle and dissatisfaction with the
performance of local  and national government, and have little or
absolutely nothing to do  with our EU membership.
Incubus
2018-12-04 11:13:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Has anyone even bothered to ask the Brexit voters why they voted to leave?
 WHAT?!!! Where have you been for the past two years! It's a question
that's been (and is being) constantly asked.
 While some of the reasons given are understandable and justified, a
hell  of a lot are quite laughable. 'Bent bananas' and 'smaller
condoms' are
Have you known anyone actually say it was about bananas? :-)
Yes, yes and yes! When asked, three lots of friends immediately gave
'bananas' as the very first reason - although they also added a few more
reasons (some of which were less-laughable - including immigration).
I'm quite sure that immigration is a problem for lots of people, and if
you press them about it, they will pretend it's about something else
(like bananas); because complaining about immigration is currently
frowned upon. I don't know what you can do. Making them 'suck it up'
(as our American cousins say) is just going to cause more problems in
the future. Unless you really can change human nature. I think you
can, but only slowly.
In the 'real world' I only know one person who voted to leave, and
that's my mum, who thought the EU was costing us too much money.
Post by Ian Jackson
However, one had just come back from taking a friend for emergency
treatment at hospital - and said that a team of five doctors had worked
overnight for five hours to get his condition stabilised. As we had been
discussing Brexit, I asked her how many of the doctors were British, and
she rather shamefacedly replied "None of them".
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
 The banana regulations do seem a bit bureaucratic, but I think it was
only some of the newspapers that mentioned them years ago.
It was everywhere!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybugadhq
http://preview.tinyurl.com/y89gycb2
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
The only people I've heard complaining about banana regulations were
the Madeirans who suddenly found that theirs were deemed too small to
export to the EU, or something like that.
I recall the problem with the small variety of Madeira bananas, but I
can't find an immediate reference. While they may initially have seemed
to pose a problem, I very much doubt if this persisted for very long. It
was probably simply some jobsworth going over the top. The EU isn't
totally stupid, and on many occasions has quickly rescinded or amended
regulations which defied common sense (which you will see of you look at
some of the 'Euromyth' websites).
I went to Madeira a few times (most recently maybe ten years ago). We
had a tour guide who was telling us that much of the landscape used to
be covered with banana trees, but that they quickly had to find
something else to do, like tourism. That's all I know about it, and I
hadn't thought about it from that day to this. :-)
I have been to Madeira a couple of times. As I recall, the EU gave them grants
to concrete over all the natural beauty of the island.

So much for the EU's environmentalist stance.
MM
2018-12-05 08:46:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 11:13:25 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
I have been to Madeira a couple of times. As I recall, the EU gave them grants
to concrete over all the natural beauty of the island.
So much for the EU's environmentalist stance.
Is this what you mean?

"Greener and more secure electricity in Madeira thanks to EU funds"

"€45 million from the Cohesion Fund is invested to upscale the
production of electricity from water and wind on the island of
Madeira, an autonomous region of Portugal and one of the EU's nine
Outermost regions. The project further improves the stability of
electricity supply on the island off the northwest coast of Africa.
Commissioner for Regional Policy, Corina Cre?u, said:

"I am proud to see what a difference Cohesion Policy investments can
make to citizens in Europe's outermost regions. The new, highly
innovative and sustainable power station will help Madeira reduce its
greenhouse gas emissions as well as its dependence on fossil fuels --
this is good news for the environment and the local economy at the
same time.

"The upgrade of an existing hydro power plant will triple production
capacity to more than 38 megawatt. In addition, a new 17.7 megawatt
pump storage facility together with a 1 million cubic metre water
storage dam will make it possible to store created wind energy when
there is an excess in supply, so additional electricity can be
provided during periods of high demand.The new installations will
benefit 130 000 consumers, half of Madeira's inhabitants. When
presenting its proposals for the future Cohesion Policy on 29 May, the
Commission had also proposed to further increase the contribution of
Cohesion Policy investments to climate action in the next budgetary
period."

https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/greener-and-more-secure-electricity-madeira-thanks-eu-funds-2018-jun-19_en

MM
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-03 14:09:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Let's start by asking: Are we an intrinsically or inherently racist
country? JNugent will be able to explain the difference, as he is
obviously far better educated than I am. But my gut feeling is that we
have never truly rejected those signs in the 1960s "No Blacks, No
Irish, No Dogs". See how those signs actually equated foreigners with
animals? We're still doing it today, and this group shows plenty of
evidence of it on a daily basis.
Who cares about the truth, when one can write multi paragraphs of BS and continue to get paid for doing so, as is the daily diet in the Guardian?
Has anyone even bothered to ask the Brexit voters why they voted to leave? Or (as with the nastiness 24 hours after the noisy minority found to their horror
that they had not got their own way) did they just guess that those who voted
leave were racists because it was an easy stick with which to get revenge?
Does not wanting this country to be a magnet for a-city-the-size-of-Leicester-worth of immigrants every year mean we are necessarily racist? Or simply we are
pragmatists who acknowledge that just letting those numbers of people into
the country without decades of forward planning is going to put an unbearable
strain on housing, schooling, medical facilities and the transport network,
to name but four.
Yes it must be really wonderful for the sanctimonious and self righteous in their ivory towers to dream of a UK where every extra million of humanity is
welcomed with open arms without a thought for the social and logistical
consequences that will produce inevitably, but to throw insults of racism at
those who advise caution, is just ignorant.
Loading...