Race hate

#1
Just been listening to the news on Sky.
They say that since the 7 July bombings, race hate has risen 600%, what they didn't specify, is that White against Muslim? only. Or did thay count the recent Islamic bombings and attempted bombings in these figures?
IMHO those were certainly race hate
Point to ponder
 
#3
Technically, nothing can rise 600%..

And I wouldn't count on those figures, nope! medman said it all.
 
#4
finnjim said:
Just been listening to the news on Sky.
They say that since the 7 July bombings, race hate has risen 600%, what they didn't specify, is that White against Muslim? only. Or did thay count the recent Islamic bombings and attempted bombings in these figures?
IMHO those were certainly race hate
Point to ponder
Isn't it something different to 'race hate' when you indiscriminately murder/maim whoever is unlucky to be on that train/bus? Think again!
 
#6
Radical_Dreamer said:
Technically, nothing can rise 600%..
Yes it can - if it's 100 units and rises to 600 units, it's had a 600% increase.

When discussing salaries, remember that if you've had a 75% pay cut, you then need a 400% pay rise to get back to where you started from
 
#7
On the 7th July there was a rather disproportionate rise in religiously-motivated hate attacks against people of all faiths and none, what with 52 dead and 700 injured.

V!
 
#8
stoatman said:
Radical_Dreamer said:
Technically, nothing can rise 600%..
Yes it can - if it's 100 units and rises to 600 units, it's had a 600% increase.

When discussing salaries, remember that if you've had a 75% pay cut, you then need a 400% pay rise to get back to where you started from
Wrong on both axamples. The common error (even teachers, poluticos) is whether they are interested in the multiplier or the increase. Similar misunderstandings occur with mark-up or profit margin.

the first is an increase of 500% (ie difference)

the second increase would need to be 300% to restore to previous salary.

I should know, I took two Maths A levels and passed three.
 
#10
I agree, that makes four of us.

As for the increase in race hate (ah yes, a return to topic in spite of myselves), few of us were surprised that 'muslim' pretenders used Iraq war as excuse for violence against UK populace. A backlash from 'british' pretenders was inevitable.
 
#11
What a lot of people seem to be unable to grasp is that this is war, baby. The clash between an outdated ideology and the 21st Century. By outdated ideology, I do not mean Islam as a whole, rather the perverted creed of Wahabism that is taking hold amongst some Muslims. It's going to go on for a lot longer and will spread throughout the west.
 
#12
The words of General Perisic* (I think it was him) come to mind.

He was quoted as saying something like "If we don't stop them (the Muslims) at the Vrbas then in 10 years time you will be fighting them on the Thames".

Seems like he was right.....

*Bosnian Serb General I once met during IFOR tour.
 
#13
Steven said:
The words of General Perisic* (I think it was him) come to mind.

He was quoted as saying something like "If we don't stop them (the Muslims) at the Vrbas then in 10 years time you will be fighting them on the Thames".

Seems like he was right.....

*Bosnian Serb General I once met during IFOR tour.
Did he also blather on about how the Serbs were out to avenge 1389 and were only out to restore mother fricken serbia to postion it had been before the 'Turks' had invaded?
 
#14
Steven said:
The words of General Perisic* (I think it was him) come to mind.

He was quoted as saying something like "If we don't stop them (the Muslims) at the Vrbas then in 10 years time you will be fighting them on the Thames".

Seems like he was right.....

*Bosnian Serb General I once met during IFOR tour.
Steven, you appear to have fallen for one of the most grotesque "justifications" that the Serbs came out with for their actions in the Yugoslave civil war.
 
#15
That would be illiberal, un-pc, an incitement to racial something and discrimination....
IR/politics types lurking around here will know of the 'Liberal Dilemma' - that it is impossible to defend Liberalism with wholly liberal means. The (percieved) problem at the moment is the hypocrisy inherent in Western Liberalism. If the pretence is dropped (that liberalism can be effectively protected by asking terrorists, criminals and thugs politely to stop their wee crusade) and people simply accepted that to protect their right to freedom of thought and speech, a terrorist (Islamic, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant - makes no difference how they hide) would have to suffer some discomfort, then so be it.

And besides, a Trident popped 2k's above Mecca might be somewhat counterproductive, not to mention ethically dubious.
Someone mentioned 'quiet deals made in expensive London clubs, and dissappearances at 3 am' - this IMHO, is the only way to deal with these criminals. Keep media attention well away ( to prevent these types becoming 'martyrs' ). Make sure the ops are deniable, and totally untraceable. One day, Muhammad Al-whatever is describing just how he runs a support net for young, gullible fundamentalists on BBC's Newsnight. Strangely enough, when the BBC calls to put him on the next debate a couple of weeks later, theres no sign of him. Bingo. Britain slowly becomes a safer place.
 
#16
Someone mentioned 'quiet deals made in expensive London clubs, and dissappearances at 3 am' - this IMHO, is the only way to deal with these criminals. Keep media attention well away ( to prevent these types becoming 'martyrs' ). Make sure the ops are deniable, and totally untraceable. One day, Muhammad Al-whatever is describing just how he runs a support net for young, gullible fundamentalists on BBC's Newsnight. Strangely enough, when the BBC calls to put him on the next debate a couple of weeks later, theres no sign of him. Bingo. Britain slowly becomes a safer place.
This is the political version of nose-candy. They'd start with a few wholly deserving Islamist nutcases but, before long, start convincing themselves that, er, other opponents are equally justifiable candidates for "Operation Condor."

V!
 
#17
Quick question for you Vegitus, if you would be so kind as to put your copper's hat on for a moment- who gets to decide whether a crime was racially motivated or not?

Granted there are prima facie cases that are pretty cut and dry, but I dare say that there are people out there getting a good pasting because they're considered by the other party to simply be a tw@t, with their ethnicity being merely coincidental.
 
#18
Camp Freddie said:
Pack it in. All this cr@p about math is making my Infantry head hurt.
How does it go - "sweating like a para in a maths test"?
 
#19
crabtastic said:
Quick question for you Vegitus, if you would be so kind as to put your copper's hat on for a moment- who gets to decide whether a crime was racially motivated or not?

Granted there are prima facie cases that are pretty cut and dry, but I dare say that there are people out there getting a good pasting because they're considered by the other party to simply be a tw@t, with their ethnicity being merely coincidental.
CPS

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/racagoff.html

The police may start the ball rolling but the CPS decide the final charge reading.

Beebs
 
#20
who gets to decide whether a crime was racially motivated or not?
The answer to this one is twofold:

1. Anybody can make an allegation that any incident is racially motivated; a passer-by, a friend of the victim, one of the officers involved. If they do, the incident is logged as racially-motivated. This was brought in as part of the Macpherson report. Taken to extremis it can lead to some odd situations, i.e. the victim might not consider the incident racially-motivated but somebody else might. The thinking was why double-guess people when allegations are made; let them express their view, take it into consideration then deal with it during....

....2. The second part is the screening process when an offence is investigated (might be a lone Pc doing it, a Community Support Unit or an enquiry team lead by an SIO depending on the incident). This is amply covered by BBB's post, and nowadays the CPS will usually decide on the appropriate charge after an evidence file is submitted by police. A racially-aggravated offence invites anything up to two years extra onto sentence, and your average scrote is genuinely worried about getting "done for a racial."

V!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top