Life Is A Long Time - It Should Be.

I said...if you could just get your head out of your arse for one minute. That I lost it a little whilst Krizon was typing that post. I didn’t feel any need to apologise to the mods for the "idiot" remark, just for using some foul language.

I am not apologising to YOU at all, and you can report your "threat" if that’s what you want to call it, to who the **** you like, fool.
 
Originally posted by Dave G@Dec 2 2005, 12:01 PM
The young man killed was coloured. His murderers were white.
Click to expand...
Just because the victim was black that does not mean it was a racialy provoked attack. in Anthony Walkers case im 99% sure it was racially motivated.

The white police woman who was murdered, would anyone call that a racist attack? afterall her murderers were black........
 
Originally posted by krizon@Dec 2 2005, 01:21 PM
Right, calm down, please. If you can't get back to the issue, then stop lowering the tone of it. A young boy's life was lost in the most dreadful circumstances. A mother witnessed her son dying with an axe stuck into his brain. Our little squabbles are just that beside such a scenario.
Click to expand...
I thought the topic of this thread was about the sentence handed out to the convicted duo, not a thread of condolence to the victim's family.

Tout Seul started the topic, he got some agreement from forum members, I disagreed with some of the views he posted and was branded an idiot for doing so (albeit by a mindless, loud-mouth thug).

Walker, if "one day...." is not a threat, then what is it? Take your threats and brainless laughable argumentative skills and vanish from here. You have no place among peaceful civilians, you hate-filled violent ape.
 
Originally posted by Phil Waters@Dec 2 2005, 01:38 PM


Some might think your comment - the young man killed was coloured - was extremely racist, by referring to him as "coloured", which fails to distinguish what "colour" he actually was. This could be taken that you believe there to be two types of race - white and coloured - which puts all those who are not White (and there are many different races out there) in the same category - i.e. Not White.

Are these your views, Dave? Come on, explain yourself.
Click to expand...
Tell you what Phil, you find me someone, anyone on here who either A. Finds that remark racist ( seeing as all I am pointing out is the truth ), or failing that, B.
someone who thinks I'm racist ( I am actually 1/2 English, 1/4 Welsh and 1/4 Chinese, so I would find that a bit amusing ). You do this, and I'll bow out of here for good.

JFT, the judge was satisfied that the attack was ratially motivated. Hence the extra years on the sentences.
 
How dare you suggest that Anthony Walkers murder was for any other reason than the colour of his skin. Them evil bastads killed him because he was black, nothing else.

As for the police officer, had it of been a black/asian or any other police officer in the country, they would have still shot. That to me says it was not a racist killing.

Were do you people come from? You baffle me with your denial that racism is a propblem, resulting to the same old "well blacks kill whites" everytime we have a racist killing.
 
Dave, the point is, you do see how making the statement you made could be interpreted as a racist comment? That is different to accusing you of being racist. Merlin once used the phrase "coloured" and was accused of being racist on here by a few for doing so. Finding people on this forum who might think it was racist would be easy, but entirely beside the point so I won't bother.
 
I didn’t find it racist, but I do think you should take Phil’s reply on board that referring to anyone who is not white as coloured could offend some people because it basically says their are two groups, white and coloured, which as PW points out, their are not.
 
No Phil I don't see the point. I simply stated facts in what is widely regarded as a racist killing. You asked me if they were my views, they are not, and never will be.
 
Originally posted by Phil Waters@Dec 2 2005, 01:24 PM
I know people don't share the same views, and I can live with that.

Why can't other people live with that?
Click to expand...
Because generally people are convinced that their way is correct and are prepared to brook no argument on the matter. Or listen to reasonable arguments as to why their case may be wrong. They've been doing it for thousands of years and I can't see it stopping anytime soon.

As for this particular point, I disagree with you, and particularly of the way in which it appears that the jury is at fault in your argument. It seems fairly evident to me that if two people describe a situation to someone and that person is asked which one he believes, it is deeply unfair to blame the (jury), but rather blame should lie at the door of those who deliberately misled that person. It is not the jury system which is at fault, if anything is, it is those who deliberately pervert that system to their own ends.

I would rather see 1000 guilty locked up with the innocent man than see them roaming the streets committing crimes. We'll all be acting like Phillistines if we let that happen for any length of time.
 
ok can we calm down a bit on this thread please, or I'll have to close it. Let's stick to discussing the topic rather than attacking each other.
 
Interestingly on the point of "coloureds". I have it on very good authority that British people are referred to as "whiteskins" in Bombay, even by those who have liberal attitudes towards their former conquerors. Make of that what you will.
 
Singo, I'm not having a go at the jury, I'm saying that people call convicted persons "evil" etc just because they are that - convicted. There should be more to someone's views other than what a jury decides. If the 17 year old had been set free with a not guilty verdict, would those who call him "evil" still do so?
 
I'm not concerned. I was merely pointing out to Dave that referring to the victim as being "coloured" might be interpreted by someone as racist as it does not distinguish him from any other "non-whites". I understood that Dave was questioning my own position on race, so as a comeback I thought I'd point out the shaky ground he, himself, had just walked upon.

My own view is that I would not refer to someone who is Chinese as "coloured", or someone who is African or Indian. Not because I feel doing so would be deemed as thinking they were inferior to me and distiniguishing between each of their respective race backgrounds was meaningless, but rather because I see someone who is Chinese as being Chinese and not African etc.
 
Black

People with roots in Africa or the Caribbean generally prefer this word to describe themselves (though some older people may not). Of course they are not really black like shoes can be black, but then 'white' people are not really white, are they? One of the reasons the word 'black' is preferred is that in the past people were often taught that black = bad or evil, and many people now want to say that there is nothing bad or evil about dark skin and that they are proud of it. As long ago as the 1960s black people in the USA summed this up in the phrase 'black is beautiful'. Some people with Asian roots call themselves 'black' but most don't.

African-Caribbean

This is the term people with roots in the Caribbean tend to prefer, as an alternative to 'black'. They prefer it to what they used to be called, which was 'West Indian'.

Asian

This is the most general word for people with roots or family connections in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. You aren't likely to annoy anyone by using it.

Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, Chinese etc.

If you know someone has roots or family connections in one of these places then one of these words is fine, though people can be touchy if you kind of suggest they are not really British when they think they are. If you had a friend with an Italian name because her Italian grandparents moved to Britain in 1950, would you call her Italian or British? Perhaps you would not be sure, perhaps it might depend on whether she felt a bit Italian herself, spoke Italian, went to an Italian-speaking Catholic church?

Roots or family connections in...

This is a useful expression. Taking India as an example, some people in Britain came here from India in the past few years (not many, actually); some people have been here forty years, others (almost everyone under the age of 25) were born here. In this mixture some have Indian passports, most have British passports and most know no other home other than Britain. They are British, but they have roots or family connections in India.

Ethnic minorities

This is a funny phrase because it's often used in quite a vague way. Actually, you will find that people often use it when they mean black and Asian people, though ethnic has nothing to do with colour. The Irish in Britain are a minority ethnic group. You could say Welsh people are an ethnic group.

Muslim, Sikh, Hindu etc.

Sometimes a person's religion is more important to them than their family's roots, so it is sometimes better to describe them as a Sikh (for example) than as an Indian.

So would you put all of the above into ONE category?
 
Originally posted by Walker@Dec 2 2005, 01:36 PM
How dare you suggest that Anthony Walkers murder was for any other reason than the colour of his skin. Them evil bastads killed him because he was black, nothing else.

As for the police officer, had it of been a black/asian or any other police officer in the country, they would have still shot. That to me says it was not a racist killing.

Were do you people come from? You baffle me with your denial that racism is a propblem, resulting to the same old "well blacks kill whites" everytime we have a racist killing.
Click to expand...
walker i fail to see where i suggested it wasnt racially motivated. maybe it was because i said im 99% certain i t was racially motivated. th eohter 1% accounts fo rme no tbeing there and witnessign the attack in person. no one can 100% agree it was racially motivated, unless you were there to see it with your own eyes. all we know is what is printed in the papers & produced on the T.V. we all know that the media can corrupt our opinions of an event.
 
And bang goes the serious debate,. Thanks, Merlin. I still stand by my opinion and I am with simmo here that I would prefer 1000 guilty men locked up together with 1 innocent man rather than them all free. Civilised society and the rule of law dictate that those who have broken the law must be punished (often by imprisonment)

To allow anarchy to take the place (which is what would happen were the 1000 guilty men let off) is not the way forward at all.

The 17 year old who got 17 years and 8 months for murder might be innocent (and remember, he didn't actually carry out the attack that ended the poor guy's life - he has been convicted of murder under recent changes to the interpretation of the offence - basically meaning, if you are in a house and someone commits murder right next to you and you do not report it, you could be tried for murder along with the person who actually carried out the attack)
Click to expand...

Rather simplistic and slightly facetious point there, Phil. Michael Barton was involved, not merely a bystander. He fetched the axe after all. Why? Firewood? he may not have delivered the killing blow but shares culpability and I for one would have liked the sentences to be equal.

As for coloured? That is hardly the most important part of the debate. When a person uses the phrase, it is not done out of racism. There are far better insults for ethnic minorities than that. It is done to differentiate and no more.

I live my life without feeling hatred towards these people, but I do feel disgusted and appalled at their actions and I would imagine all but the sickest people would feel the same.
 
Back
Top