Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: scawsby steve on May 26, 2025, 07:59:17 pm
-
Dreadful incident being reported at the public celebration of Liverpool's Premier League title.
Someone has driven a car into the crowd. No details yet on the severity of the casualties.
-
Footage all over x, not really good
-
Oh Christ... What IS it with some people?
ANY gathering at all is going to end up being forbidden. Imagine a Bonfire Night crowd or an airshow or....
BobG
-
Seen some footage myself and it looks awful. Hopefully no-one is seriously injured. A 53 yo man has been arrested. Quite rightly, Police are asking people not to speculate
-
Terrible news.
-
I’ve seen the videos and they are horrendous. My eleven year old son’s friend is there and was nearby. Luckily he is ok but there will be many that are not.
I suspect that there will be some fatalities
Absolutely shocking scenes
-
At the start the car seems to be getting trashed by people before he drove into people
-
Reports say he crashed into the crowd and when they banged on the car shouting what are you doing he backed up and rammed more people.
-
Reports say he crashed into the crowd and when they banged on the car shouting what are you doing he backed up and rammed more people.
the first video shows the car not moving and it getting smashed up, he then reversed and then went forward,there might have been something before that thou
-
More than 50% of terrorist attacks are done by by white people,the BBC are playing this down as one ,what ever this is it is shocking ,stayed in Liverpool a few times and it's a great place with great people
-
More than 50% of terrorist attacks are done by by white people,the BBC are playing this down as one ,what ever this is it is shocking ,stayed in Liverpool a few times and it's a great place with great people
slightly tainting the figures when the majority of 20th century attacks were IRA in Ireland. vast majority of incidents in the 21st century are linked to islamic extremists, which no one is saying this is..
-
27 people taken to hospital.
2 are serious, including a child.
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
Probably because they’ve learned their lesson and need act quickly to try and stop idiots spreading misinformation online, as this can lead to further unrest in a volatile situation.
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
I knew someone would say that, I also knew it would come from someone of your ilk, so they were too slow at Southport and too quick at Liverpool, tell us what is the optimum time to realease a statement?
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
I knew someone would say that, I also knew it would come from someone of your ilk, so they were too slow at Southport and too quick at Liverpool, tell us what is the optimum time to realease a statement?
I knew someone of your "ilk" would ask that question, well the timescale has now been decided between the Home Office and Police, within a relatively short time from now on.
Hopefully the incident doesn't have any loss of life, then Starmer won't need to place flowers for a few seconds, hang around the place for 15 minutes and say nothing in public before pissing off to a party in Downing Street quick as possible as he did after the Southport killings.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13877291/Keir-Starmer-floral-tribute-children-killed-Southport-knife-attack-Labour-drinks-Downing-Street.html
-
Any chance we could keep the politics in the politics section?!
-
Any chance the whole thing can be moved to off topic. And no, before someone suggests, we don't want a clap at (insert random minute here) at our next match
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
What a sad indictment of our society this is.
One, for the incident to happen in the first place.
And two, that it is necessary to reveal the ethnicity, age and sex of the perpetrator almost immediately, to prevent online conspiracy theorists spreading misinformation and further violence as a result from their sheep like followers.
Oh and three, that this descends into political point scoring on here.
Mods please move this thread.
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
Well, when the next one happens, and they don't release the ethnicity of the culprit straight away, we will know who's done it.
-
Within 10 mins of it happening , a lad I was at school with was sharing videos along with all the usual rhetoric. He and others were absolutely confident of who had done it and have now switched to some bizarre two tier arguing with police for them reporting who did it , as with the fact he was bundled into a police van with out allowing chance for a profile picture as another " explain that moment" absolutely obsessed that it and quote " can't be one of us , we don't do that" . Never mind that police were extremely brave in getting the perpetrator to safety to save him getting lynched , it has to be a bigger conspiracy. And if anyones wondering, he was a massive Reform campaigner in the recent elections. Just shows there's no such thing as a coincidence.
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
Well, when the next one happens, and they don't release the ethnicity of the culprit straight away, we will know who's done it.
We, no we won’t. If they don’t release any details folks would just be guessing, and jumping to (potentially incorrect) conclusions..
Not everything is ethnic related you know.. criminals are criminals first and foremost, regardless of their background. Or do you think it’s the other way around eh.?
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
Well, when the next one happens, and they don't release the ethnicity of the culprit straight away, we will know who's done it.
We, no we won’t. If they don’t release any details folks would just be guessing, and jumping to (potentially incorrect) conclusions..
Not everything is ethnic related you know.. criminals are criminals first and foremost, regardless of their background. Or do you think it’s the other way around eh.?
Yeah, alright pal :lol:
-
God Almighty.....
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
Well, when the next one happens, and they don't release the ethnicity of the culprit straight away, we will know who's done it.
Why do some people want to know the ethnicity of criminals? Isn't them being a criminal enough? Or are they more bothered about race than crime?
-
Club Doncaster prides itself with an inclusive policy which means of course everyone, no ifs nor buts, those that disagree with this policy are at liberty to do so and should make a formal complaint expressing their concerns and reasons for those concerns. There are many opportunities to do so.
Or, if they don't feel comfortable making their views public and prefer to retain their anonymity they can of course leave the club themselves.
-
Club Doncaster prides itself with an inclusive policy which means of course everyone, no ifs nor buts, those that disagree with this policy are at liberty to do so and should make a formal complaint expressing their concerns and reasons for those concerns. There are many opportunities to do so.
Or, if they don't feel comfortable making their views public and prefer to retain their anonymity they can of course leave the club themselves.
You don't have a clue. However Sir Mark Rowley, head of the Metropolitan Police has now said details of ethnicity of accused should be released as soon as possible, differing from the time of the Southport stabbings when the information released was that it was carried out by a choir singer from Wales.
Now Mr Clueless I want to take you up on your claim of "inclusivity".
You think the club should allow a man dressing as and calling himself a woman be able to have access to women only spaces , I.E being able to use female toilets at the ground?
Now I'm not aware of it happening but should such an incident take place and the club insist on the right of a man to enter female only toilets then I would instigate proceedings against the club for not following law, is that clear?
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
Well, when the next one happens, and they don't release the ethnicity of the culprit straight away, we will know who's done it.
Why do some people want to know the ethnicity of criminals? Isn't them being a criminal enough? Or are they more bothered about race than crime?
It's all about a much much bigger picture
-
Club Doncaster prides itself with an inclusive policy which means of course everyone, no ifs nor buts, those that disagree with this policy are at liberty to do so and should make a formal complaint expressing their concerns and reasons for those concerns. There are many opportunities to do so.
Or, if they don't feel comfortable making their views public and prefer to retain their anonymity they can of course leave the club themselves.
You don't have a clue. However Sir Mark Rowley, head of the Metropolitan Police has now said details of ethnicity of accused should be released as soon as possible, differing from the time of the Southport stabbings when the information released was that it was carried out by a choir singer from Wales.
Now Mr Clueless I want to take you up on your claim of "inclusivity".
You think the club should allow a man dressing as and calling himself a woman be able to have access to women only spaces , I.E being able to use female toilets at the ground?
Now I'm not aware of it happening but should such an incident take place and the club insist on the right of a man to enter female only toilets then I would instigate proceedings against the club for not following law, is that clear?
I don't think anyone from the club would be crass enough to ask one of your dumbshit questions, to make it simple for you as appear to be an extremely simple person of simple thought, imagine yourself in the ground near the dugout, now if you wouldn't feel comfortable posing one of your dumbshit ideas to those in the dugout then you really need to get a grip and air your limited views and dumbshit ideas where others may agree with you.
Have you found anyone on here that does? if so maybe discuss your problems together offline. Just a suggestion like.
-
Club Doncaster prides itself with an inclusive policy which means of course everyone, no ifs nor buts, those that disagree with this policy are at liberty to do so and should make a formal complaint expressing their concerns and reasons for those concerns. There are many opportunities to do so.
Or, if they don't feel comfortable making their views public and prefer to retain their anonymity they can of course leave the club themselves.
You don't have a clue. However Sir Mark Rowley, head of the Metropolitan Police has now said details of ethnicity of accused should be released as soon as possible, differing from the time of the Southport stabbings when the information released was that it was carried out by a choir singer from Wales.
Now Mr Clueless I want to take you up on your claim of "inclusivity".
You think the club should allow a man dressing as and calling himself a woman be able to have access to women only spaces , I.E being able to use female toilets at the ground?
Now I'm not aware of it happening but should such an incident take place and the club insist on the right of a man to enter female only toilets then I would instigate proceedings against the club for not following law, is that clear?
I don't think anyone from the club would be crass enough to ask one of your dumbshit questions, to make it simple for you as appear to be an extremely simple person of simple thought, imagine yourself in the ground near the dugout, now if you wouldn't feel comfortable posing one of your dumbshit ideas to those in the dugout then you really need to get a grip and air your limited views and dumbshit ideas where others may agree with you.
Have you found anyone on here that does? if so maybe discuss your problems together offline. Just a suggestion like.
Have to admit that went over my head, you seem to be suggesting I should ask someone in the dugout whether a man calling himself a woman should be entitled to use a female only toilet. Well I wouldn't because I couldn't care less what a team manager or assistant thought on the matter.
My position is I would instigate legal action against the club for allowing men to enter female toilets.
Clear enough?
Do you think men should enter women only toilets, why?
-
Club Doncaster prides itself with an inclusive policy which means of course everyone, no ifs nor buts, those that disagree with this policy are at liberty to do so and should make a formal complaint expressing their concerns and reasons for those concerns. There are many opportunities to do so.
Or, if they don't feel comfortable making their views public and prefer to retain their anonymity they can of course leave the club themselves.
You don't have a clue. However Sir Mark Rowley, head of the Metropolitan Police has now said details of ethnicity of accused should be released as soon as possible, differing from the time of the Southport stabbings when the information released was that it was carried out by a choir singer from Wales.
Now Mr Clueless I want to take you up on your claim of "inclusivity".
You think the club should allow a man dressing as and calling himself a woman be able to have access to women only spaces , I.E being able to use female toilets at the ground?
Now I'm not aware of it happening but should such an incident take place and the club insist on the right of a man to enter female only toilets then I would instigate proceedings against the club for not following law, is that clear?
I don't think anyone from the club would be crass enough to ask one of your dumbshit questions, to make it simple for you as appear to be an extremely simple person of simple thought, imagine yourself in the ground near the dugout, now if you wouldn't feel comfortable posing one of your dumbshit ideas to those in the dugout then you really need to get a grip and air your limited views and dumbshit ideas where others may agree with you.
Have you found anyone on here that does? if so maybe discuss your problems together offline. Just a suggestion like.
What on earth are you blithering on about ?
What has it got to do with Doncaster Rovers?!
-
I bet our friend SydneyRover knows all about the case of Linzi Smith, she who got banned from Newcastle United for having views expressed away from the football ground and received NO support from any supporters group.
-
Club Doncaster prides itself with an inclusive policy which means of course everyone, no ifs nor buts, those that disagree with this policy are at liberty to do so and should make a formal complaint expressing their concerns and reasons for those concerns. There are many opportunities to do so.
Or, if they don't feel comfortable making their views public and prefer to retain their anonymity they can of course leave the club themselves.
You don't have a clue. However Sir Mark Rowley, head of the Metropolitan Police has now said details of ethnicity of accused should be released as soon as possible, differing from the time of the Southport stabbings when the information released was that it was carried out by a choir singer from Wales.
Now Mr Clueless I want to take you up on your claim of "inclusivity".
You think the club should allow a man dressing as and calling himself a woman be able to have access to women only spaces , I.E being able to use female toilets at the ground?
Now I'm not aware of it happening but should such an incident take place and the club insist on the right of a man to enter female only toilets then I would instigate proceedings against the club for not following law, is that clear?
I don't think anyone from the club would be crass enough to ask one of your dumbshit questions, to make it simple for you as appear to be an extremely simple person of simple thought, imagine yourself in the ground near the dugout, now if you wouldn't feel comfortable posing one of your dumbshit ideas to those in the dugout then you really need to get a grip and air your limited views and dumbshit ideas where others may agree with you.
Yes I can see it, now then Grant I don't think men should enter female toilets, what's your opinion?
Oh and Syd, my dumbshit ideas on female's having a right to female only toilets is law, passed in Parliament in 2010 by Labour
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
Well, when the next one happens, and they don't release the ethnicity of the culprit straight away, we will know who's done it.
Why do some people want to know the ethnicity of criminals? Isn't them being a criminal enough? Or are they more bothered about race than crime?
It's all about a much much bigger picture
Go on, explain.
-
Club Doncaster prides itself with an inclusive policy which means of course everyone, no ifs nor buts, those that disagree with this policy are at liberty to do so and should make a formal complaint expressing their concerns and reasons for those concerns. There are many opportunities to do so.
Or, if they don't feel comfortable making their views public and prefer to retain their anonymity they can of course leave the club themselves.
You don't have a clue. However Sir Mark Rowley, head of the Metropolitan Police has now said details of ethnicity of accused should be released as soon as possible, differing from the time of the Southport stabbings when the information released was that it was carried out by a choir singer from Wales.
Now Mr Clueless I want to take you up on your claim of "inclusivity".
You think the club should allow a man dressing as and calling himself a woman be able to have access to women only spaces , I.E being able to use female toilets at the ground?
Now I'm not aware of it happening but should such an incident take place and the club insist on the right of a man to enter female only toilets then I would instigate proceedings against the club for not following law, is that clear?
your limited views and dumbshit ideas where others may agree with you.
Have you found anyone on here that does? if so maybe discuss your problems together offline. Just a suggestion like.
Very nice these "be kind" types aren't they? When challenged they get Very upset, don't like someone challenging their self regarded moral and intellectual superiority.
Glyn Wigley was doing it along with BobG on the Tate thread, occasionally BillyStubbsTears does it on other threads, though admittedly he's been silenced since Sir Keir Rodney outed himself as someone in favour of remigration, thus being in the terms set by BillyStubbsTears a fascist.
Now SydneyRover is joining in with irrelevant cod psychology
-
Club Doncaster prides itself with an inclusive policy which means of course everyone, no ifs nor buts, those that disagree with this policy are at liberty to do so and should make a formal complaint expressing their concerns and reasons for those concerns. There are many opportunities to do so.
Or, if they don't feel comfortable making their views public and prefer to retain their anonymity they can of course leave the club themselves.
You don't have a clue. However Sir Mark Rowley, head of the Metropolitan Police has now said details of ethnicity of accused should be released as soon as possible, differing from the time of the Southport stabbings when the information released was that it was carried out by a choir singer from Wales.
Now Mr Clueless I want to take you up on your claim of "inclusivity".
You think the club should allow a man dressing as and calling himself a woman be able to have access to women only spaces , I.E being able to use female toilets at the ground?
Now I'm not aware of it happening but should such an incident take place and the club insist on the right of a man to enter female only toilets then I would instigate proceedings against the club for not following law, is that clear?
your limited views and dumbshit ideas where others may agree with you.
Have you found anyone on here that does? if so maybe discuss your problems together offline. Just a suggestion like.
Very nice these "be kind" types aren't they? When challenged they get Very upset, don't like someone challenging their self regarded moral and intellectual superiority.
Glyn Wigley was doing it along with BobG on the Tate thread, occasionally BillyStubbsTears does it on other threads, though admittedly he's been silenced since Sir Keir Rodney outed himself as someone in favour of remigration, thus being in the terms set by BillyStubbsTears a fascist.
Now SydneyRover is joining in with irrelevant cod psychology
This thread is about the attempted murder of football fans winning a title.
You've somehow managed to turn it into some bollox about race,religion and transgender issues.
I'm not saying you have a chip on your shoulder,I'm saying you have a mass production potatoes industry on it.
-
Club Doncaster prides itself with an inclusive policy which means of course everyone, no ifs nor buts, those that disagree with this policy are at liberty to do so and should make a formal complaint expressing their concerns and reasons for those concerns. There are many opportunities to do so.
Or, if they don't feel comfortable making their views public and prefer to retain their anonymity they can of course leave the club themselves.
You don't have a clue. However Sir Mark Rowley, head of the Metropolitan Police has now said details of ethnicity of accused should be released as soon as possible, differing from the time of the Southport stabbings when the information released was that it was carried out by a choir singer from Wales.
Now Mr Clueless I want to take you up on your claim of "inclusivity".
You think the club should allow a man dressing as and calling himself a woman be able to have access to women only spaces , I.E being able to use female toilets at the ground?
Now I'm not aware of it happening but should such an incident take place and the club insist on the right of a man to enter female only toilets then I would instigate proceedings against the club for not following law, is that clear?
your limited views and dumbshit ideas where others may agree with you.
Have you found anyone on here that does? if so maybe discuss your problems together offline. Just a suggestion like.
Very nice these "be kind" types aren't they? When challenged they get Very upset, don't like someone challenging their self regarded moral and intellectual superiority.
Glyn Wigley was doing it along with BobG on the Tate thread, occasionally BillyStubbsTears does it on other threads, though admittedly he's been silenced since Sir Keir Rodney outed himself as someone in favour of remigration, thus being in the terms set by BillyStubbsTears a fascist.
Now SydneyRover is joining in with irrelevant cod psychology
This thread is about the attempted murder of football fans winning a title.
You've somehow managed to turn it into some bollox about race,religion and transgender issues.
I'm not saying you have a chip on your shoulder,I'm saying you have a mass production potatoes industry on it.
This. In spades.
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
Well, when the next one happens, and they don't release the ethnicity of the culprit straight away, we will know who's done it.
Why do some people want to know the ethnicity of criminals? Isn't them being a criminal enough? Or are they more bothered about race than crime?
It's all about a much much bigger picture
Go on, explain.
Bump, still waiting..
-
Club Doncaster prides itself with an inclusive policy which means of course everyone, no ifs nor buts, those that disagree with this policy are at liberty to do so and should make a formal complaint expressing their concerns and reasons for those concerns. There are many opportunities to do so.
Or, if they don't feel comfortable making their views public and prefer to retain their anonymity they can of course leave the club themselves.
You don't have a clue. However Sir Mark Rowley, head of the Metropolitan Police has now said details of ethnicity of accused should be released as soon as possible, differing from the time of the Southport stabbings when the information released was that it was carried out by a choir singer from Wales.
Now Mr Clueless I want to take you up on your claim of "inclusivity".
You think the club should allow a man dressing as and calling himself a woman be able to have access to women only spaces , I.E being able to use female toilets at the ground?
Now I'm not aware of it happening but should such an incident take place and the club insist on the right of a man to enter female only toilets then I would instigate proceedings against the club for not following law, is that clear?
your limited views and dumbshit ideas where others may agree with you.
Have you found anyone on here that does? if so maybe discuss your problems together offline. Just a suggestion like.
Very nice these "be kind" types aren't they? When challenged they get Very upset, don't like someone challenging their self regarded moral and intellectual superiority.
Glyn Wigley was doing it along with BobG on the Tate thread, occasionally BillyStubbsTears does it on other threads, though admittedly he's been silenced since Sir Keir Rodney outed himself as someone in favour of remigration, thus being in the terms set by BillyStubbsTears a fascist.
Now SydneyRover is joining in with irrelevant cod psychology
This thread is about the attempted murder of football fans winning a title.
You've somehow managed to turn it into some bollox about race,religion and transgender issues.
I'm not saying you have a chip on your shoulder,I'm saying you have a mass production potatoes industry on it.
Ah you see women feeling uncomfortable with men in their private spaces as "some bollox".
Tell me, do you have a history of treating women with contempt because such a phrase could only be written by sexist, misogynistic ape.
There's no such thing as "transgender" just two sexes, male and female.
No surprise you get support from the person who got enjoyment from seeing a man punching a woman in the face at the last Olympics and called anyone opposed to that a puppet of Putin.
Can't for the life of me see how I've turned this thread into an issue on race, the comment about conduct of authorities around mass crime incidents was written, by someone else BEFORE I posted, my contribution was mentioning Sir Mark Rowley head of Metropolitan Police has said the identity of a suspect should be released soon as possible, that my clueless friend has eff all to do with race, or as you're trying to suggest, me taking part in some kind of race hate. Do try harder to understand.
Oh, and on this thread I've written absolutely S.F.A on religion so perhaps maybe read next time and not write invented shit because you can't knock down what I've written.
I did though draw attention to Sir Keir Rodney pissing off to Downing Street
for a party, after he'd spent a short amount of time in Southport, but erm, well the ones who used to write about
Downing Street parties swerved any chance to disagree with me on that.
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
Well, when the next one happens, and they don't release the ethnicity of the culprit straight away, we will know who's done it.
Why do some people want to know the ethnicity of criminals? Isn't them being a criminal enough? Or are they more bothered about race than crime?
It's all about a much much bigger picture
Go on, explain.
Bump, still waiting..
Don't need to explain anything to you
-
I think the problem is that many people are questioning whether the authorities would have immediately given the details of the driver had he NOT been White.
-
I think the problem is that many people are questioning whether the authorities would have immediately given the details of the driver had he NOT been White.
Going back a step the problem was that some were determined to label the offender as non-british without that this wouldn't have been a problem.
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
Well, when the next one happens, and they don't release the ethnicity of the culprit straight away, we will know who's done it.
Why do some people want to know the ethnicity of criminals? Isn't them being a criminal enough? Or are they more bothered about race than crime?
It's all about a much much bigger picture
Go on, explain.
Bump, still waiting..
Don't need to explain anything to you
Why not, explain something to the whole forum.?
You made a vague statement with no clear meaning nor back up. I challenged you on what you meant.
You either can’t say because you don’t know, I’m which case it was dumb to say in the first place. Or you don’t want to say because you know it might expose you.
I genuinely have no idea which, but f you don’t explain your statements, folks might do exactly what you are seeking to do and jump to conclusions..
-
I think the problem is that many people are questioning whether the authorities would have immediately given the details of the driver had he NOT been White.
Going back a step the problem was that some were determined to label the offender as non-british without that this wouldn't have been a problem.
Once again, BB totally fails to see the core problem here.
The problem is that the authorities got caught out over the Southport atrocity.
The policy in this country since time immemorial is to let the police get on with investigations, releasing into the public domain only information that they think is going to help the enquiries.
Southport showed that was no longer tenable.
That left a void that was exploited by Russian funded propaganda, spreading lies which were propagated in this very forum by people who are either genuinely evil or just too f**king stupid to be able to function in the modern world.
The consequence, within days, was an explosion of knuckle dragging, pissed up indulgence and attempted mass murder. Egged on skillfully by the Kitson who several people in here want to be the next PM.
There is the core of the problem.
-
And before any of the usual suspects wade in, just engage brain and ask yourselves which of the established facts I've just listed you disagree with.
-
Once again, BST fails to understand. According to your theory, the Liverpool fans who attacked the driver and his car wouldn't have done so had he been white, the problem with that being that he was!
Now, be a man for once and address my post....
1) Do YOU think the problem is that many people are questioning whether the authorities would have immediately given the details of the driver had he NOT been White.
2) Do you think the authorities would have immediately given details of the driver had he NOT been white?
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
Well, when the next one happens, and they don't release the ethnicity of the culprit straight away, we will know who's done it.
Why do some people want to know the ethnicity of criminals? Isn't them being a criminal enough? Or are they more bothered about race than crime?
It's all about a much much bigger picture
Go on, explain.
Bump, still waiting..
Don't need to explain anything to you
Why not, explain something to the whole forum.?
You made a vague statement with no clear meaning nor back up. I challenged you on what you meant.
You either can’t say because you don’t know, I’m which case it was dumb to say in the first place. Or you don’t want to say because you know it might expose you.
I genuinely have no idea which, but f you don’t explain your statements, folks might do exactly what you are seeking to do and jump to conclusions..
If you say so, but I would suggest you open your eyes, take a step back and really look at what's going on.
-
A psychiatrist on the radio summed this up perfectly for me.
We live in an age where some members of society base their response to a crime based not on the victim’s nor the atrocity itself but rather on who the perpetrators are.
For example, the response is different if the crime is committed by a 53 year old ‘native’ white man as opposed to a 25 year old Asian man who’s lived in the UK for 2 years. It feeds their own individual value system.
When we see politicians behave in this manner (as we did last year) it ‘authenticates’ this view and empowers others to share it. Whether they have the correct facts or not.
He also said that you could read into the contents of people’s immediate reaction to a crime or atrocity. For example, you get those people whose first instinct are thoughts for the victims. On the other end of the scale are those whose first reaction is ‘I bet I know the kind of person who did it’.
Something to do with natural empathy apparently…or not as the case may be.
-
Once again, BST fails to understand. According to your theory, the Liverpool fans who attacked the driver and his car wouldn't have done so had he been white, the problem with that being that he was!
Now, be a man for once and address my post....
1) Do YOU think the problem is that many people are questioning whether the authorities would have immediately given the details of the driver had he NOT been White.
I think you're a bit confused bullet with two different situations. In Southport there was no crowd in the vicinity and the crwhen
2) Do you think the authorities would have immediately given details of the driver had he NOT been white?
You are confusing two separate and individual situations, Southport the mob was called up and urged on by those on social media jumping to conclusions that they wanted, whereas in Liverpool the crowd was already there and wanted instant 'justice'
-
A psychiatrist on the radio summed this up perfectly for me.
We live in an age where some members of society base their response to a crime based not on the victim’s nor the atrocity itself but rather on who the perpetrators are.
For example, the response is different if the crime is committed by a 53 year old ‘native’ white man as opposed to a 25 year old Asian man who’s lived in the UK for 2 years. It feeds their own individual value system.
When we see politicians behave in this manner (as we did last year) it ‘authenticates’ this view and empowers others to share it. Whether they have the correct facts or not.
He also said that you could read into the contents of people’s immediate reaction to a crime or atrocity. For example, you get those people whose first instinct are thoughts for the victims. On the other end of the scale are those whose first reaction is ‘I bet I know the kind of person who did it’.
Something to do with natural empathy apparently…or not as the case may be.
There's definitely a two tier justice system under starmer, just not the one your thinking.
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
Well, when the next one happens, and they don't release the ethnicity of the culprit straight away, we will know who's done it.
Why do some people want to know the ethnicity of criminals? Isn't them being a criminal enough? Or are they more bothered about race than crime?
It's all about a much much bigger picture
Go on, explain.
Bump, still waiting..
Don't need to explain anything to you
Why not, explain something to the whole forum.?
You made a vague statement with no clear meaning nor back up. I challenged you on what you meant.
You either can’t say because you don’t know, I’m which case it was dumb to say in the first place. Or you don’t want to say because you know it might expose you.
I genuinely have no idea which, but f you don’t explain your statements, folks might do exactly what you are seeking to do and jump to conclusions..
If you say so, but I would suggest you open your eyes, take a step back and really look at what's going on.
No, you tell me what you think is going on..
What I can see is a bigger picture where some individuals want to put the blame on certain sections of society, without proof, to further their own motives.
Answer me this: if the police hadn’t revealed the driver’s ethnicity, what would you have assumed it was, based in your “knowledge” of the bigger picture.
Don’t come back with some drivel, just answer the f**king question.
-
A psychiatrist on the radio summed this up perfectly for me.
We live in an age where some members of society base their response to a crime based not on the victim’s nor the atrocity itself but rather on who the perpetrators are.
For example, the response is different if the crime is committed by a 53 year old ‘native’ white man as opposed to a 25 year old Asian man who’s lived in the UK for 2 years. It feeds their own individual value system.
When we see politicians behave in this manner (as we did last year) it ‘authenticates’ this view and empowers others to share it. Whether they have the correct facts or not.
He also said that you could read into the contents of people’s immediate reaction to a crime or atrocity. For example, you get those people whose first instinct are thoughts for the victims. On the other end of the scale are those whose first reaction is ‘I bet I know the kind of person who did it’.
Something to do with natural empathy apparently…or not as the case may be.
There's definitely a two tier justice system under starmer, just not the one your thinking.
Which part of the psychiatrists view do you disagree with? Which bracket of his explanation do you feel that you fall into?
-
Very funny to be crying about 2 tier policing on the day it was revealed the guy was a middle class white career professional who has only been charged with GBH.
He's even got newspaper front pages talking about what a lovely family man he is. Give it a few years and he'll have a podcast and a column in the Telegraph.
-
Once again, BST fails to understand. According to your theory, the Liverpool fans who attacked the driver and his car wouldn't have done so had he been white, the problem with that being that he was!
Now, be a man for once and address my post....
1) Do YOU think the problem is that many people are questioning whether the authorities would have immediately given the details of the driver had he NOT been White.
I think you're a bit confused bullet with two different situations. In Southport there was no crowd in the vicinity and the crwhen
2) Do you think the authorities would have immediately given details of the driver had he NOT been white?
You are confusing two separate and individual situations, Southport the mob was called up and urged on by those on social media jumping to conclusions that they wanted, whereas in Liverpool the crowd was already there and wanted instant 'justice'
I think BB will realise when he calms down how utter stupid he is being here in his childish attempt to try to justify the unjustifiable. He's utterly missed the point.
Had ANYONE been able to attack the Southport murderer, they would have been well within their rights to do so and should have been applauded for doing so. Even if, by doing so, they'd killed him.
Similarly, the crowd in Liverpool were absolutely within their rights to attack the driver to prevent him from causing any more harm.
So why he brings that into the discussion is anyone's guess.
The point is NOT who did or didn't attack the perpetrators of these offences.
The point is that knuckledraggers last year decided to attack mosques and asylum seekers' hotels, after a non-Muslim, non-immigrant murdered those poor kids.
If BB surprises us all and actually applies his brain to this, he'd realise that a more logical analogy would have been if the response to a business owner driving a car over kids and pensioners in Liverpool would have been for knuckledraggers in Bristol to attack unemployed cyclists.
-
A psychiatrist on the radio summed this up perfectly for me.
We live in an age where some members of society base their response to a crime based not on the victim’s nor the atrocity itself but rather on who the perpetrators are.
For example, the response is different if the crime is committed by a 53 year old ‘native’ white man as opposed to a 25 year old Asian man who’s lived in the UK for 2 years. It feeds their own individual value system.
When we see politicians behave in this manner (as we did last year) it ‘authenticates’ this view and empowers others to share it. Whether they have the correct facts or not.
He also said that you could read into the contents of people’s immediate reaction to a crime or atrocity. For example, you get those people whose first instinct are thoughts for the victims. On the other end of the scale are those whose first reaction is ‘I bet I know the kind of person who did it’.
Something to do with natural empathy apparently…or not as the case may be.
There's definitely a two tier justice system under starmer, just not the one your thinking.
Which part of the psychiatrists view do you disagree with? Which bracket of his explanation do you feel that you fall into?
Let's have a look at the psychiatrist, which radio station was he on? Who was interviewing him, and where does he get his funding from ?
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
Well, when the next one happens, and they don't release the ethnicity of the culprit straight away, we will know who's done it.
Why do some people want to know the ethnicity of criminals? Isn't them being a criminal enough? Or are they more bothered about race than crime?
It's all about a much much bigger picture
Go on, explain.
Bump, still waiting..
Don't need to explain anything to you
Why not, explain something to the whole forum.?
You made a vague statement with no clear meaning nor back up. I challenged you on what you meant.
You either can’t say because you don’t know, I’m which case it was dumb to say in the first place. Or you don’t want to say because you know it might expose you.
I genuinely have no idea which, but f you don’t explain your statements, folks might do exactly what you are seeking to do and jump to conclusions..
If you say so, but I would suggest you open your eyes, take a step back and really look at what's going on.
No, you tell me what you think is going on..
What I can see is a bigger picture where some individuals want to put the blame on certain sections of society, without proof, to further their own motives.
Answer me this: if the police hadn’t revealed the driver’s ethnicity, what would you have assumed it was, based in your “knowledge” of the bigger picture.
Don’t come back with some drivel, just answer the f**king question.
it's about TPTB protetecting and covering up the crimes of a certain section of their society, and prosecuting another section of society when they get rightfully angry about this.
Ask your self why this is
-
A psychiatrist on the radio summed this up perfectly for me.
We live in an age where some members of society base their response to a crime based not on the victim’s nor the atrocity itself but rather on who the perpetrators are.
For example, the response is different if the crime is committed by a 53 year old ‘native’ white man as opposed to a 25 year old Asian man who’s lived in the UK for 2 years. It feeds their own individual value system.
When we see politicians behave in this manner (as we did last year) it ‘authenticates’ this view and empowers others to share it. Whether they have the correct facts or not.
He also said that you could read into the contents of people’s immediate reaction to a crime or atrocity. For example, you get those people whose first instinct are thoughts for the victims. On the other end of the scale are those whose first reaction is ‘I bet I know the kind of person who did it’.
Something to do with natural empathy apparently…or not as the case may be.
There's definitely a two tier justice system under starmer, just not the one your thinking.
Which part of the psychiatrists view do you disagree with? Which bracket of his explanation do you feel that you fall into?
Let's have a look at the psychiatrist, which radio station was he on? Who was interviewing him, and where does he get his funding from ?
Ah….so you’re going down the conspiracy theory route with this?
That tends to happen when someone is uncomfortable answering the question!
With all due respect, on this specific subject I’m more likely to trust the views of a qualified professional than I am of you or anyone else on here.
However, feel free to challenge the view expressed by the psychiatrist. if it helps let’s pretend that it’s my view rather than that if someone who actually does this for a living.
-
A psychiatrist on the radio summed this up perfectly for me.
We live in an age where some members of society base their response to a crime based not on the victim’s nor the atrocity itself but rather on who the perpetrators are.
For example, the response is different if the crime is committed by a 53 year old ‘native’ white man as opposed to a 25 year old Asian man who’s lived in the UK for 2 years. It feeds their own individual value system.
When we see politicians behave in this manner (as we did last year) it ‘authenticates’ this view and empowers others to share it. Whether they have the correct facts or not.
He also said that you could read into the contents of people’s immediate reaction to a crime or atrocity. For example, you get those people whose first instinct are thoughts for the victims. On the other end of the scale are those whose first reaction is ‘I bet I know the kind of person who did it’.
Something to do with natural empathy apparently…or not as the case may be.
There's definitely a two tier justice system under starmer, just not the one your thinking.
You're in such a hole spouting this rubbish Tony, I can see the headlines now 'July 10 2024 Starmer first week in office sends memo to all UK police officers and judges in the UK, implement the Two Tier Plan .............. NOW'
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
Well, when the next one happens, and they don't release the ethnicity of the culprit straight away, we will know who's done it.
Why do some people want to know the ethnicity of criminals? Isn't them being a criminal enough? Or are they more bothered about race than crime?
It's all about a much much bigger picture
Go on, explain.
Bump, still waiting..
Don't need to explain anything to you
Why not, explain something to the whole forum.?
You made a vague statement with no clear meaning nor back up. I challenged you on what you meant.
You either can’t say because you don’t know, I’m which case it was dumb to say in the first place. Or you don’t want to say because you know it might expose you.
I genuinely have no idea which, but f you don’t explain your statements, folks might do exactly what you are seeking to do and jump to conclusions..
If you say so, but I would suggest you open your eyes, take a step back and really look at what's going on.
No, you tell me what you think is going on..
What I can see is a bigger picture where some individuals want to put the blame on certain sections of society, without proof, to further their own motives.
Answer me this: if the police hadn’t revealed the driver’s ethnicity, what would you have assumed it was, based in your “knowledge” of the bigger picture.
Don’t come back with some drivel, just answer the f**king question.
it's about TPTB protetecting and covering up the crimes of a certain section of their society, and prosecuting another section of society when they get rightfully angry about this.
Ask your self why this is
Let's investigate this a bit further.
The Southport atrocity was carried out by a British born non-Muslim.
The "rightful anger" you speak of involved attacking mosques and trying to commit mass murder against recent immigrants.
Do you want to walk us through your logic here?
-
TS, answer me, in clear unambiguous terms, which ethnicity would you have assumed the perpetrator in Liverpool to be, had the police not revealed it.
It’s a simple question, especially when you claimed everyone would have known.
I don’t, and I wouldn’t. I did for a split second think it might have been a disgruntled Man Utd fan with some “problems” which tipped him (or her) over the edge to do this. But then I thought why would that be. But nowt about ethnic background.
So, which is it.? Or are you too chicken to air your predjudices.?
How many times do you need to be asked before you give a straight answer.?
-
Well.i actually thought that it COULD be an islamist terrorist attack simply because it's happened before and it was the perfect place and time to do such a thing.
Difference is I didn't jump in online or in real life until the details were made public.
Doesn't make me right wing or racist for thinking it could possibly have been a terrorist attack.
I always have the memory of my brother being in London when the 7/7 attacks happened and I couldn't get hold of him for hours and hours. I did fear the worst.
Surely there's that bit of doubt that's in your mind when stuff like this happens?
-
My 1st thoughts, it was a crazy Everton fan!
When you see the footage it looks more and more to me like road rage, after people attacked his car, that got out of control.
Mindst you I see it beginning as A white man under the influence of drugs drove into a crowd
Then the headline He is a lovely bloke,I can't believe it
He's a business man lives in a detached house.
Today it's ex Marine Commando appears in court
Wonder what all the headlines would have been if he wasn't white
-
Well.i actually thought that it COULD be an islamist terrorist attack simply because it's happened before and it was the perfect place and time to do such a thing.
Difference is I didn't jump in online or in real life until the details were made public.
Doesn't make me right wing or racist for thinking it could possibly have been a terrorist attack.
I always have the memory of my brother being in London when the 7/7 attacks happened and I couldn't get hold of him for hours and hours. I did fear the worst.
Surely there's that bit of doubt that's in your mind when stuff like this happens?
Nudga.
I don't think anyone would be branded racist for their thoughts of what MIGHT have been the background to either attack.
The truly weird thing is how anyone could watch what went on in the days after the Southport attack and not condemn that without any excuses.
While we are at it, it's telling that Farage beat the drum of two tier policing for days after the Southport attack. This time, he was straight on Twitter saying how he was "horrified" by the Liverpool attack. Until it was clear the perpetrator was white and middle class. After that, not a whisper. I assume he's not horrified any more.
-
Well.i actually thought that it COULD be an islamist terrorist attack simply because it's happened before and it was the perfect place and time to do such a thing.
Difference is I didn't jump in online or in real life until the details were made public.
Doesn't make me right wing or racist for thinking it could possibly have been a terrorist attack.
I always have the memory of my brother being in London when the 7/7 attacks happened and I couldn't get hold of him for hours and hours. I did fear the worst.
Surely there's that bit of doubt that's in your mind when stuff like this happens?
Nudga.
I don't think anyone would be branded racist for their thoughts of what MIGHT have been the background to either attack.
The truly weird thing is how anyone could watch what went on in the days after the Southport attack and not condemn that without any excuses.
While we are at it, it's telling that Farage beat the drum of two tier policing for days after the Southport attack. This time, he was straight on Twitter saying how he was "horrified" by the Liverpool attack. Until it was clear the perpetrator was white and middle class. After that, not a whisper. I assume he's not horrified any more.
That last paragraph is absolute b*llocks and you should be ashamed of yourself for politicising such an event.
I somewhat doubt you will be, though.
-
Once again, BST fails to understand. According to your theory, the Liverpool fans who attacked the driver and his car wouldn't have done so had he been white, the problem with that being that he was!
Now, be a man for once and address my post....
1) Do YOU think the problem is that many people are questioning whether the authorities would have immediately given the details of the driver had he NOT been White.
I think you're a bit confused bullet with two different situations. In Southport there was no crowd in the vicinity and the crwhen
2) Do you think the authorities would have immediately given details of the driver had he NOT been white?
You are confusing two separate and individual situations, Southport the mob was called up and urged on by those on social media jumping to conclusions that they wanted, whereas in Liverpool the crowd was already there and wanted instant 'justice'
I think BB will realise when he calms down how utter stupid he is being here in his childish attempt to try to justify the unjustifiable. He's utterly missed the point.
Had ANYONE been able to attack the Southport murderer, they would have been well within their rights to do so and should have been applauded for doing so. Even if, by doing so, they'd killed him.
Similarly, the crowd in Liverpool were absolutely within their rights to attack the driver to prevent him from causing any more harm.
So why he brings that into the discussion is anyone's guess.
The point is NOT who did or didn't attack the perpetrators of these offences.
The point is that knuckledraggers last year decided to attack mosques and asylum seekers' hotels, after a non-Muslim, non-immigrant murdered those poor kids.
If BB surprises us all and actually applies his brain to this, he'd realise that a more logical analogy would have been if the response to a business owner driving a car over kids and pensioners in Liverpool would have been for knuckledraggers in Bristol to attack unemployed cyclists.
The point is, had the Southport madman been attacked before he got to murdering those kids, you and your ilk would have suggested they were racist and wouldn't have attacked him had he been white British, instead of applauding them.
A good reason why your claim that people are well within their rights to take the law into their own hands is b*llocks is that in the Liverpool incident, it might well turn out that public intervention actually resulted in more casualties.
Oh, and WTF is the quote "If BB surprises us all and actually applies his brain to this", all about?
Since when have you considered a handful of your disciples being "us all?"
Silly sausage.
-
Once again, BST fails to understand. According to your theory, the Liverpool fans who attacked the driver and his car wouldn't have done so had he been white, the problem with that being that he was!
Now, be a man for once and address my post....
1) Do YOU think the problem is that many people are questioning whether the authorities would have immediately given the details of the driver had he NOT been White.
I think you're a bit confused bullet with two different situations. In Southport there was no crowd in the vicinity and the crwhen
2) Do you think the authorities would have immediately given details of the driver had he NOT been white?
You are confusing two separate and individual situations, Southport the mob was called up and urged on by those on social media jumping to conclusions that they wanted, whereas in Liverpool the crowd was already there and wanted instant 'justice'
I think BB will realise when he calms down how utter stupid he is being here in his childish attempt to try to justify the unjustifiable. He's utterly missed the point.
Had ANYONE been able to attack the Southport murderer, they would have been well within their rights to do so and should have been applauded for doing so. Even if, by doing so, they'd killed him.
Similarly, the crowd in Liverpool were absolutely within their rights to attack the driver to prevent him from causing any more harm.
So why he brings that into the discussion is anyone's guess.
The point is NOT who did or didn't attack the perpetrators of these offences.
The point is that knuckledraggers last year decided to attack mosques and asylum seekers' hotels, after a non-Muslim, non-immigrant murdered those poor kids.
If BB surprises us all and actually applies his brain to this, he'd realise that a more logical analogy would have been if the response to a business owner driving a car over kids and pensioners in Liverpool would have been for knuckledraggers in Bristol to attack unemployed cyclists.
The point is, had the Southport madman been attacked before he got to murdering those kids, you and your ilk would have suggested they were racist and wouldn't have attacked him had he been white British, instead of applauding them.
A good reason why your claim that people are well within their rights to take the law into their own hands is b*llocks is that in the Liverpool incident, it might well turn out that public intervention actually resulted in more casualties.
Oh, and WTF is the quote "If BB surprises us all and actually applies his brain to this", all about?
Since when have you considered a handful of your disciples being "us all?"
Silly sausage.
It’s just another of his condescending comments BB.
I was also astonished by that comment about people taking things into their own hands with possible attacks on the Southport killer.
As much as I abhor what that t**t did, we should always allow the law to take its course.
-
Once again, BST fails to understand. According to your theory, the Liverpool fans who attacked the driver and his car wouldn't have done so had he been white, the problem with that being that he was!
Now, be a man for once and address my post....
1) Do YOU think the problem is that many people are questioning whether the authorities would have immediately given the details of the driver had he NOT been White.
I think you're a bit confused bullet with two different situations. In Southport there was no crowd in the vicinity and the crwhen
2) Do you think the authorities would have immediately given details of the driver had he NOT been white?
You are confusing two separate and individual situations, Southport the mob was called up and urged on by those on social media jumping to conclusions that they wanted, whereas in Liverpool the crowd was already there and wanted instant 'justice'
I think BB will realise when he calms down how utter stupid he is being here in his childish attempt to try to justify the unjustifiable. He's utterly missed the point.
Had ANYONE been able to attack the Southport murderer, they would have been well within their rights to do so and should have been applauded for doing so. Even if, by doing so, they'd killed him.
Similarly, the crowd in Liverpool were absolutely within their rights to attack the driver to prevent him from causing any more harm.
So why he brings that into the discussion is anyone's guess.
The point is NOT who did or didn't attack the perpetrators of these offences.
The point is that knuckledraggers last year decided to attack mosques and asylum seekers' hotels, after a non-Muslim, non-immigrant murdered those poor kids.
If BB surprises us all and actually applies his brain to this, he'd realise that a more logical analogy would have been if the response to a business owner driving a car over kids and pensioners in Liverpool would have been for knuckledraggers in Bristol to attack unemployed cyclists.
The point is, had the Southport madman been attacked before he got to murdering those kids, you and your ilk would have suggested they were racist and wouldn't have attacked him had he been white British, instead of applauding them.
A good reason why your claim that people are well within their rights to take the law into their own hands is b*llocks is that in the Liverpool incident, it might well turn out that public intervention actually resulted in more casualties.
Oh, and WTF is the quote "If BB surprises us all and actually applies his brain to this", all about?
Since when have you considered a handful of your disciples being "us all?"
Silly sausage.
But he wasn't was he silly bugle?
-
A psychiatrist on the radio summed this up perfectly for me.
We live in an age where some members of society base their response to a crime based not on the victim’s nor the atrocity itself but rather on who the perpetrators are.
For example, the response is different if the crime is committed by a 53 year old ‘native’ white man as opposed to a 25 year old Asian man who’s lived in the UK for 2 years. It feeds their own individual value system.
When we see politicians behave in this manner (as we did last year) it ‘authenticates’ this view and empowers others to share it. Whether they have the correct facts or not.
He also said that you could read into the contents of people’s immediate reaction to a crime or atrocity. For example, you get those people whose first instinct are thoughts for the victims. On the other end of the scale are those whose first reaction is ‘I bet I know the kind of person who did it’.
Something to do with natural empathy apparently…or not as the case may be.
There's definitely a two tier justice system under starmer, just not the one your thinking.
You're in such a hole spouting this rubbish Tony, I can see the headlines now 'July 10 2024 Starmer first week in office sends memo to all UK police officers and judges in the UK, implement the Two Tier Plan .............. NOW'
Oh, it goes much deeper than anything the current government are doing.
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
Well, when the next one happens, and they don't release the ethnicity of the culprit straight away, we will know who's done it.
Why do some people want to know the ethnicity of criminals? Isn't them being a criminal enough? Or are they more bothered about race than crime?
It's all about a much much bigger picture
Go on, explain.
Bump, still waiting..
Don't need to explain anything to you
Why not, explain something to the whole forum.?
You made a vague statement with no clear meaning nor back up. I challenged you on what you meant.
You either can’t say because you don’t know, I’m which case it was dumb to say in the first place. Or you don’t want to say because you know it might expose you.
I genuinely have no idea which, but f you don’t explain your statements, folks might do exactly what you are seeking to do and jump to conclusions..
If you say so, but I would suggest you open your eyes, take a step back and really look at what's going on.
No, you tell me what you think is going on..
What I can see is a bigger picture where some individuals want to put the blame on certain sections of society, without proof, to further their own motives.
Answer me this: if the police hadn’t revealed the driver’s ethnicity, what would you have assumed it was, based in your “knowledge” of the bigger picture.
Don’t come back with some drivel, just answer the f**king question.
it's about TPTB protetecting and covering up the crimes of a certain section of their society, and prosecuting another section of society when they get rightfully angry about this.
Ask your self why this is
Let's investigate this a bit further.
The Southport atrocity was carried out by a British born non-Muslim.
The "rightful anger" you speak of involved attacking mosques and trying to commit mass murder against recent immigrants.
Do you want to walk us through your logic here?
We're talking about the Liverpool incident.
-
A psychiatrist on the radio summed this up perfectly for me.
We live in an age where some members of society base their response to a crime based not on the victim’s nor the atrocity itself but rather on who the perpetrators are.
For example, the response is different if the crime is committed by a 53 year old ‘native’ white man as opposed to a 25 year old Asian man who’s lived in the UK for 2 years. It feeds their own individual value system.
When we see politicians behave in this manner (as we did last year) it ‘authenticates’ this view and empowers others to share it. Whether they have the correct facts or not.
He also said that you could read into the contents of people’s immediate reaction to a crime or atrocity. For example, you get those people whose first instinct are thoughts for the victims. On the other end of the scale are those whose first reaction is ‘I bet I know the kind of person who did it’.
Something to do with natural empathy apparently…or not as the case may be.
There's definitely a two tier justice system under starmer, just not the one your thinking.
Which part of the psychiatrists view do you disagree with? Which bracket of his explanation do you feel that you fall into?
Let's have a look at the psychiatrist, which radio station was he on? Who was interviewing him, and where does he get his funding from ?
Ah….so you’re going down the conspiracy theory route with this?
That tends to happen when someone is uncomfortable answering the question!
With all due respect, on this specific subject I’m more likely to trust the views of a qualified professional than I am of you or anyone else on here.
However, feel free to challenge the view expressed by the psychiatrist. if it helps let’s pretend that it’s my view rather than that if someone who actually does this for a living.
I'd suggest you take off your blinkers
-
TS, answer me, in clear unambiguous terms, which ethnicity would you have assumed the perpetrator in Liverpool to be, had the police not revealed it.
It’s a simple question, especially when you claimed everyone would have known.
I don’t, and I wouldn’t. I did for a split second think it might have been a disgruntled Man Utd fan with some “problems” which tipped him (or her) over the edge to do this. But then I thought why would that be. But nowt about ethnic background.
So, which is it.? Or are you too chicken to air your predjudices.?
How many times do you need to be asked before you give a straight answer.?
I haven't claimed that everyone would have known.
Your confirmation bias has just assumed I did to suit your agenda
-
Someone has a short memory.
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
Well, when the next one happens, and they don't release the ethnicity of the culprit straight away, we will know who's done it.
And yet still not answering my question..
I’m not the one with an agenda here, it’s you, and you won’t explain it when challenged.
In that case, why don’t you just f**k off and don’t come back.?
-
Compare that statement who is responsible with the time taken over the Southport incident. Why the difference?
Well, when the next one happens, and they don't release the ethnicity of the culprit straight away, we will know who's done it.
Why do some people want to know the ethnicity of criminals? Isn't them being a criminal enough? Or are they more bothered about race than crime?
It's all about a much much bigger picture
Go on, explain.
Bump, still waiting..
Don't need to explain anything to you
Why not, explain something to the whole forum.?
You made a vague statement with no clear meaning nor back up. I challenged you on what you meant.
You either can’t say because you don’t know, I’m which case it was dumb to say in the first place. Or you don’t want to say because you know it might expose you.
I genuinely have no idea which, but f you don’t explain your statements, folks might do exactly what you are seeking to do and jump to conclusions..
If you say so, but I would suggest you open your eyes, take a step back and really look at what's going on.
No, you tell me what you think is going on..
What I can see is a bigger picture where some individuals want to put the blame on certain sections of society, without proof, to further their own motives.
Answer me this: if the police hadn’t revealed the driver’s ethnicity, what would you have assumed it was, based in your “knowledge” of the bigger picture.
Don’t come back with some drivel, just answer the f**king question.
it's about TPTB protetecting and covering up the crimes of a certain section of their society, and prosecuting another section of society when they get rightfully angry about this.
Ask your self why this is
Let's investigate this a bit further.
The Southport atrocity was carried out by a British born non-Muslim.
The "rightful anger" you speak of involved attacking mosques and trying to commit mass murder against recent immigrants.
Do you want to walk us through your logic here?
We're talking about the Liverpool incident.
No. You are not. Your previous post was nothing to do with the Liverpool incident.
What is it about you? Full of angry certainty that you have an insight into what is happening. But when you are asked to be specific, you're as coy as a little girl.
Why not simply say what you actually think. In clear, unambiguous words?
-
A psychiatrist on the radio summed this up perfectly for me.
We live in an age where some members of society base their response to a crime based not on the victim’s nor the atrocity itself but rather on who the perpetrators are.
For example, the response is different if the crime is committed by a 53 year old ‘native’ white man as opposed to a 25 year old Asian man who’s lived in the UK for 2 years. It feeds their own individual value system.
When we see politicians behave in this manner (as we did last year) it ‘authenticates’ this view and empowers others to share it. Whether they have the correct facts or not.
He also said that you could read into the contents of people’s immediate reaction to a crime or atrocity. For example, you get those people whose first instinct are thoughts for the victims. On the other end of the scale are those whose first reaction is ‘I bet I know the kind of person who did it’.
Something to do with natural empathy apparently…or not as the case may be.
There's definitely a two tier justice system under starmer, just not the one your thinking.
Which part of the psychiatrists view do you disagree with? Which bracket of his explanation do you feel that you fall into?
Let's have a look at the psychiatrist, which radio station was he on? Who was interviewing him, and where does he get his funding from ?
Ah….so you’re going down the conspiracy theory route with this?
That tends to happen when someone is uncomfortable answering the question!
With all due respect, on this specific subject I’m more likely to trust the views of a qualified professional than I am of you or anyone else on here.
However, feel free to challenge the view expressed by the psychiatrist. if it helps let’s pretend that it’s my view rather than that if someone who actually does this for a living.
I'd suggest you take off your blinkers
Yep, classic conspiracy theory lunacy “I’m angry but can’t give evidence why”.
-
Still no one to coherently discuss it with me like an adult.
Just the usual suspects that resort to swearing and name calling .
-
Still no one to coherently discuss it with me like an adult.
Just the usual suspects that resort to swearing and name calling .
I'm neither swearing nor name calling. I've asked you to explain what this "rightful anger" is that you brought up, and how it pertains to this discussion.
The fact that you refuse to do so speaks louder than any of your words.
-
Still no one to coherently discuss it with me like an adult.
Just the usual suspects that resort to swearing and name calling .
I'm neither swearing nor name calling. I've asked you to explain what this "rightful anger" is that you brought up, and how it pertains to this discussion.
The fact that you refuse to do so speaks louder than any of your words.
I've already explained, but for some reason, I'm hounded further.
It's like you want me to say something controversial, just you you can attack me further.
But I'm not going to, I've said my piece, and it's triggered the usual xtreme leftists on here which was predictable to be honest.
-
You haven’t clarified anything, that’s the point. And despite repeated asking you still refuse to do so. That’s why folks react angrily to you.
I’m not left wing extremist.
I ask again TS: had the police not revealed the ethnicity of the perpetrator in Liverpool, what would you have said it was.?
How on earth that’s not engaging in an adult way is beyond me. It’s a clear question repeatedly asked but never answered.
-
TS
No. You haven't.
You haven't explained ANYTHING on what you mean by this "righteous anger".
I really don't understand why you are so coy in doing so. You clearly feel it very passionately. YOU brought up the concept. Yet when asked what you mean by it, you clam up.
And now YOU are throwing insults around, responding to my post by going on about "triggered xtreme (sic) leftists" who are "hounding" you.
Really? Are you really that sensitive that you call an invitation to discuss something you passionately believe, "hounding" you? Isn't that how liberal snowflakes are meant to behave?
-
More than a week later, and TS has still not clarified which ethnicity he would say “we” would know had committed the events in Liverpool, had the police not already done so.
Blaming an ethnic group for crimes, without evidence, is what he would have done, according to his claim. How sad we still have that attitude in our society.