Hate Speech

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Hate Speech

Page 3 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Invalid user 2019 01 Sep 19 6.34pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle "Abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation." So you prefer that people have the freedom to abuse or threaten people because of their prejudices against others? Not just express rational, reasoned arguments! Abuse or threaten! It is not be sufficient for someone to simply feel offended. It is necessary to prove abuse or threats. Is that really what we want in our society? Well, as stated I don't believe that people should be able to issue threats. Abuse is a very different matter. We shouldn't have police knocking on people's doors over racist tweets and so on. That's a waste of both time and resources as these platforms and the tools they offer to both block and report users should be enough. We don't need to run to the authorities over obnoxious or crudely stated communications. As for 'the real world', if someone in a workplace is reeling off slurs at fellow employees they may find themselves out of a job before long. Hateful behaviour at others within a social circle may result in a reconfiguration of it. In none of these cases do we need a 'bobby on the beat' or authorities to step in. Society is by on large self policing, because the majority of people engage in cooperation and reciprocation with others. There's very little in life that we truly need to turn to government for, and when we believe otherwise our reliance on them sooner or later comes at a cost. Edited by dollardays (01 Sep 2019 7.17pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Invalid user 2019

01 Sep 19 6.34pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

"Abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

So you prefer that people have the freedom to abuse or threaten people because of their prejudices against others?

Not just express rational, reasoned arguments! Abuse or threaten! It is not be sufficient for someone to simply feel offended. It is necessary to prove abuse or threats.

Is that really what we want in our society?

Well, as stated I don't believe that people should be able to issue threats. Abuse is a very different matter. We shouldn't have police knocking on people's doors over racist tweets and so on. That's a waste of both time and resources as these platforms and the tools they offer to both block and report users should be enough. We don't need to run to the authorities over obnoxious or crudely stated communications.

As for 'the real world', if someone in a workplace is reeling off slurs at fellow employees they may find themselves out of a job before long. Hateful behaviour at others within a social circle may result in a reconfiguration of it. In none of these cases do we need a 'bobby on the beat' or authorities to step in. Society is by on large self policing, because the majority of people engage in cooperation and reciprocation with others. There's very little in life that we truly need to turn to government for, and when we believe otherwise our reliance on them sooner or later comes at a cost.

Edited by dollardays (01 Sep 2019 7.17pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Sep 19 7.34pm
Originally posted by dollardays Well, as stated I don't believe that people should be able to issue threats. Abuse is a very different matter. We shouldn't have police knocking on people's doors over racist tweets and so on. That's a waste of both time and resources as these platforms and the tools they offer to block should be enough. We don't need to run to the authorities over obnoxious or crudely stated communications. As for 'the real world', if someone in a workplace is reeling off slurs at fellow employees they may find themselves out of a job before long. Hateful behaviour at others within a social circle may result in a reconfiguration of it. In none of these cases do we need a 'bobby on the beat' or authorities to step in. Society is by on large self policing, because the majority of people engage in cooperation and reciprocation with others. There's very little in life that we truly need to turn to government for, and when we forget that our reliance on them sooner or later comes at a cost. Edited by dollardays (01 Sep 2019 6.35pm) So threats ought to be banned but abuse is OK? It's surely not down to the "bobby on the beat" but a Court to decide if an offence has been committed. The Police will only investigate and prosecute if there is something really serious and persistent happening. They won't get involved with anything minor or petty. They have far too much else to do. We cannot rely on society self policing, or the social media platforms themselves. It's our own responsibility to set limits and guidelines so everyone knows where they stand. One workplace may indeed sack those who mistreat others whilst another will tolerate it. "May be dealt with" isn't good enough. That's why we have laws. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 01 Sep 19 7.34pm

Originally posted by dollardays

Well, as stated I don't believe that people should be able to issue threats. Abuse is a very different matter. We shouldn't have police knocking on people's doors over racist tweets and so on. That's a waste of both time and resources as these platforms and the tools they offer to block should be enough. We don't need to run to the authorities over obnoxious or crudely stated communications.

As for 'the real world', if someone in a workplace is reeling off slurs at fellow employees they may find themselves out of a job before long. Hateful behaviour at others within a social circle may result in a reconfiguration of it. In none of these cases do we need a 'bobby on the beat' or authorities to step in. Society is by on large self policing, because the majority of people engage in cooperation and reciprocation with others. There's very little in life that we truly need to turn to government for, and when we forget that our reliance on them sooner or later comes at a cost.

Edited by dollardays (01 Sep 2019 6.35pm)

So threats ought to be banned but abuse is OK?

It's surely not down to the "bobby on the beat" but a Court to decide if an offence has been committed. The Police will only investigate and prosecute if there is something really serious and persistent happening. They won't get involved with anything minor or petty. They have far too much else to do.

We cannot rely on society self policing, or the social media platforms themselves. It's our own responsibility to set limits and guidelines so everyone knows where they stand. One workplace may indeed sack those who mistreat others whilst another will tolerate it. "May be dealt with" isn't good enough.

That's why we have laws.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Invalid user 2019 01 Sep 19 7.46pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle So threats ought to be banned but abuse is OK? It's surely not down to the "bobby on the beat" but a Court to decide if an offence has been committed. The Police will only investigate and prosecute if there is something really serious and persistent happening. They won't get involved with anything minor or petty. They have far too much else to do. We cannot rely on society self policing, or the social media platforms themselves. It's our own responsibility to set limits and guidelines so everyone knows where they stand. One workplace may indeed sack those who mistreat others whilst another will tolerate it. "May be dealt with" isn't good enough. That's why we have laws. I do appreciate that my view may well align me with some that aren't honest actors. As in some people with a dislike of certain demographics, who would use government against these groups at the drop of a hat given the chance. But that's the price of viewing society in a more holistic, workable and stable sense really. And to me that is a reason to enshrine freedoms of speech and expression, rather than tailoring them around the politics of the day. People having more reliance and accountability to one another, with a healthy suspicion of government, is preferable to a society where people are at loggerheads and attempt to use the government to embody their own ideology writ large. The latter is good when the going's good, but political tides always turn, so the former approach makes more sense to me.
Alert a moderator to this post

Invalid user 2019

01 Sep 19 7.46pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

So threats ought to be banned but abuse is OK?

We cannot rely on society self policing, or the social media platforms themselves. It's our own responsibility to set limits and guidelines so everyone knows where they stand. One workplace may indeed sack those who mistreat others whilst another will tolerate it. "May be dealt with" isn't good enough.

That's why we have laws.

I do appreciate that my view may well align me with some that aren't honest actors. As in some people with a dislike of certain demographics, who would use government against these groups at the drop of a hat given the chance. But that's the price of viewing society in a more holistic, workable and stable sense really. And to me that is a reason to enshrine freedoms of speech and expression, rather than tailoring them around the politics of the day.

People having more reliance and accountability to one another, with a healthy suspicion of government, is preferable to a society where people are at loggerheads and attempt to use the government to embody their own ideology writ large. The latter is good when the going's good, but political tides always turn, so the former approach makes more sense to me.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Sep 19 10.30pm
Originally posted by dollardays I do appreciate that my view may well align me with some that aren't honest actors. As in some people with a dislike of certain demographics, who would use government against these groups at the drop of a hat given the chance. But that's the price of viewing society in a more holistic, workable and stable sense really. And to me that is a reason to enshrine freedoms of speech and expression, rather than tailoring them around the politics of the day. People having more reliance and accountability to one another, with a healthy suspicion of government, is preferable to a society where people are at loggerheads and attempt to use the government to embody their own ideology writ large. The latter is good when the going's good, but political tides always turn, so the former approach makes more sense to me. All sensible stuff and, despite the rather ridiculous claims of some posters, is actually what normally really happens. The law exists as a framework but most cases either go unreported or are dealt with outside of the Courts. 76% of hate crime relates to race and there was a clear spike in reported cases at the time of the referendum. You can draw whatever conclusion you wish from that. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 01 Sep 19 10.30pm

Originally posted by dollardays

All sensible stuff and, despite the rather ridiculous claims of some posters, is actually what normally really happens.

The law exists as a framework but most cases either go unreported or are dealt with outside of the Courts. 76% of hate crime relates to race and there was a clear spike in reported cases at the time of the referendum.

You can draw whatever conclusion you wish from that.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Invalid user 2019 01 Sep 19 11.16pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle All sensible stuff and, despite the rather ridiculous claims of some posters, is actually what normally really happens. The law exists as a framework but most cases either go unreported or are dealt with outside of the Courts. 76% of hate crime relates to race and there was a clear spike in reported cases at the time of the referendum. You can draw whatever conclusion you wish from that. Certainly there are those backward enough to let skin colour interfere with them relating to others, but they're few and far between. Though let's also remember that racism can ultimately affect people of absolutely all races, black, white, asian depending on the demographics of their area. If we're to relate it to Brexit though I don't personally think that the vast, vast majority of voters in either direction tick such a box. Crime figures will ebb and flow for various reasons, but I'd much rather know exactly what people think and are all about than have them silenced by government fear of stating their view. No matter who's on the receiving end, all forms of bigotry and cruelty look increasingly ludicrous the more light is shone upon them. Never deprive people of their time on the soapbox because most of the population regardless of their politics are sensible, considerate and decent and will react accordingly. Don't let outliers or the hyper politicised make you think otherwise. Edited by dollardays (01 Sep 2019 11.32pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Invalid user 2019

01 Sep 19 11.16pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

All sensible stuff and, despite the rather ridiculous claims of some posters, is actually what normally really happens.

You can draw whatever conclusion you wish from that.

Certainly there are those backward enough to let skin colour interfere with them relating to others, but they're few and far between. Though let's also remember that racism can ultimately affect people of absolutely all races, black, white, asian depending on the demographics of their area. If we're to relate it to Brexit though I don't personally think that the vast, vast majority of voters in either direction tick such a box.

Crime figures will ebb and flow for various reasons, but I'd much rather know exactly what people think and are all about than have them silenced by government fear of stating their view. No matter who's on the receiving end, all forms of bigotry and cruelty look increasingly ludicrous the more light is shone upon them. Never deprive people of their time on the soapbox because most of the population regardless of their politics are sensible, considerate and decent and will react accordingly. Don't let outliers or the hyper politicised make you think otherwise.

Edited by dollardays (01 Sep 2019 11.32pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 02 Sep 19 1.10am
Some old fashioned offence: And warning....some of these jokes in the second link I personally found offensive so for some their heads might explode. [Link] [Link] Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Sep 2019 1.22am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

02 Sep 19 1.10am

Some old fashioned offence:

And warning....some of these jokes in the second link I personally found offensive so for some their heads might explode.

[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Sep 2019 1.22am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

W12 02 Sep 19 11.52am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle All sensible stuff and, despite the rather ridiculous claims of some posters, is actually what normally really happens. The law exists as a framework but most cases either go unreported or are dealt with outside of the Courts. 76% of hate crime relates to race and there was a clear spike in reported cases at the time of the referendum. You can draw whatever conclusion you wish from that. "Hate crime" has always been manipulative and insidious since it was introduced. There have been laws against discrimination for years. It's a way of suppressing the negative effects of mass immigration and large scale social engineering (e.g. the continued assault on the traditional family unit). The definition of "hate" and the way these statistics are collected can be changed at will to suit whatever narrative you want. People fall for this because they are not rational beings but believe what they are told. Very few are even prepared top read below a headline these days let alone check on the facts behind what they are being told. I know as that used to be me. Realizing you were being conned all of your life is not a pleasant experience but a necessary one. Look up "Gated Institutional Narrative" if you want to know more. [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

W12 02 Sep 19 11.52am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

All sensible stuff and, despite the rather ridiculous claims of some posters, is actually what normally really happens.

You can draw whatever conclusion you wish from that.

"Hate crime" has always been manipulative and insidious since it was introduced. There have been laws against discrimination for years. It's a way of suppressing the negative effects of mass immigration and large scale social engineering (e.g. the continued assault on the traditional family unit). The definition of "hate" and the way these statistics are collected can be changed at will to suit whatever narrative you want.

People fall for this because they are not rational beings but believe what they are told. Very few are even prepared top read below a headline these days let alone check on the facts behind what they are being told.

I know as that used to be me. Realizing you were being conned all of your life is not a pleasant experience but a necessary one.

Look up "Gated Institutional Narrative" if you want to know more.

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 02 Sep 19 12.04pm
Originally posted by W12 "Hate crime" has always been manipulative and insidious since it was introduced. There have been laws against discrimination for years. It's a way of suppressing the negative effects of mass immigration and large scale social engineering (e.g. the continued assault on the traditional family unit). The definition of "hate" and the way these statistics are collected can be changed at will to suit whatever narrative you want. People fall for this because they are not rational beings but believe what they are told. Very few are even prepared top read below a headline these days let alone check on the facts behind what they are being told. I know as that used to be me. Realizing you were being conned all of your life is not a pleasant experience but a necessary one. Look up "Gated Institutional Narrative" if you want to know more. [Link] Just read that articled well argued. It sums up how I feel as I am on the right of centre of politics but I do not like being lumped in with the far right. Just because I oppose open door immigration does not make me a racist. Some people rarely bother to listen further that I am in favour of controlled immigration based on job skills, no they have already decided I am against immigration full stop. Edited by Badger11 (02 Sep 2019 12.05pm) One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 02 Sep 19 12.04pm

Originally posted by W12

I know as that used to be me. Realizing you were being conned all of your life is not a pleasant experience but a necessary one.

Look up "Gated Institutional Narrative" if you want to know more.

[Link]

Just read that articled well argued. It sums up how I feel as I am on the right of centre of politics but I do not like being lumped in with the far right. Just because I oppose open door immigration does not make me a racist. Some people rarely bother to listen further that I am in favour of controlled immigration based on job skills, no they have already decided I am against immigration full stop.

Edited by Badger11 (02 Sep 2019 12.05pm)

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyboy1978 02 Sep 19 1.06pm
Originally posted by Badger11 Just read that articled well argued. It sums up how I feel as I am on the right of centre of politics but I do not like being lumped in with the far right. Just because I oppose open door immigration does not make me a racist. Some people rarely bother to listen further that I am in favour of controlled immigration based on job skills, no they have already decided I am against immigration full stop. Edited by Badger11 (02 Sep 2019 12.05pm) Well put. Basically to much of a good thing is not good for anyone. The left don't understand this and go straight for the "your just a rascist "
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyboy1978

02 Sep 19 1.06pm

Originally posted by Badger11

Edited by Badger11 (02 Sep 2019 12.05pm)

Well put. Basically to much of a good thing is not good for anyone. The left don't understand this and go straight for the "your just a rascist "

Alert a moderator to this post

W12 02 Sep 19 1.34pm
Originally posted by Badger11 Just read that articled well argued. It sums up how I feel as I am on the right of centre of politics but I do not like being lumped in with the far right. Just because I oppose open door immigration does not make me a racist. Some people rarely bother to listen further that I am in favour of controlled immigration based on job skills, no they have already decided I am against immigration full stop. Edited by Badger11 (02 Sep 2019 12.05pm) On the subject of immigration it's just complete taboo to even discuss this in either the MSM or even in daily life. You are immediately in trouble with the thought police twitter mob, headline writers, femi-nazi presenters etc. I don't want to subvert this thread but nobody can seem to answer the relevant questions related to this. 1. What happens to those immigrants when the welfare state collapses or are you expecting the tax burden or public borrowing just to increase forever? 2. Are you happy to import people only to be used as wage slaves in the gig economy? 3. What happens when these jobs are automated (they are low hanging fruit for this). 4. Are you happy to import people from the 3rd world that have skills that are important in their country of origin (e.g. doctors and nurses, engineers). 5. How is mass immigration help with your current perceived environment/emissions crisis? Bearing in mind people from the 3rd world will have a carbon footprint at least 10x on average less and earn possibly 20x of what they do in their country of origin just sitting on UK welfare. 6. What does "diversity is our strength" mean? We are not and never were a "nation of immigrants". By the way, ignore the figures because categorizing an immigrant as an EU citizen no longer means they ride a bicycle and are called Pierre. If you use your own eyes in our major cities you can see where these people are coming from. The statistics are cooked, the social and economic impact is ignored and actively surpressed and like the EU (Maastricht, Lisbon) nobody ever voted for it.
Alert a moderator to this post

W12 02 Sep 19 1.34pm

Originally posted by Badger11

Edited by Badger11 (02 Sep 2019 12.05pm)

On the subject of immigration it's just complete taboo to even discuss this in either the MSM or even in daily life. You are immediately in trouble with the thought police twitter mob, headline writers, femi-nazi presenters etc.

I don't want to subvert this thread but nobody can seem to answer the relevant questions related to this.

1. What happens to those immigrants when the welfare state collapses or are you expecting the tax burden or public borrowing just to increase forever?

2. Are you happy to import people only to be used as wage slaves in the gig economy?

3. What happens when these jobs are automated (they are low hanging fruit for this).

4. Are you happy to import people from the 3rd world that have skills that are important in their country of origin (e.g. doctors and nurses, engineers).

5. How is mass immigration help with your current perceived environment/emissions crisis? Bearing in mind people from the 3rd world will have a carbon footprint at least 10x on average less and earn possibly 20x of what they do in their country of origin just sitting on UK welfare.

6. What does "diversity is our strength" mean? We are not and never were a "nation of immigrants".

By the way, ignore the figures because categorizing an immigrant as an EU citizen no longer means they ride a bicycle and are called Pierre. If you use your own eyes in our major cities you can see where these people are coming from.

The statistics are cooked, the social and economic impact is ignored and actively surpressed and like the EU (Maastricht, Lisbon) nobody ever voted for it.

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 02 Sep 19 2.40pm
Originally posted by W12 On the subject of immigration it's just complete taboo to even discuss this in either the MSM or even in daily life. You are immediately in trouble with the thought police twitter mob, headline writers, femi-nazi presenters etc. I don't want to subvert this thread but nobody can seem to answer the relevant questions related to this. 1. What happens to those immigrants when the welfare state collapses or are you expecting the tax burden or public borrowing just to increase forever? 2. Are you happy to import people only to be used as wage slaves in the gig economy? 3. What happens when these jobs are automated (they are low hanging fruit for this). 4. Are you happy to import people from the 3rd world that have skills that are important in their country of origin (e.g. doctors and nurses, engineers). 5. How is mass immigration help with your current perceived environment/emissions crisis? Bearing in mind people from the 3rd world will have a carbon footprint at least 10x on average less and earn possibly 20x of what they do in their country of origin just sitting on UK welfare. 6. What does "diversity is our strength" mean? We are not and never were a "nation of immigrants". By the way, ignore the figures because categorizing an immigrant as an EU citizen no longer means they ride a bicycle and are called Pierre. If you use your own eyes in our major cities you can see where these people are coming from. The statistics are cooked, the social and economic impact is ignored and actively surpressed and like the EU (Maastricht, Lisbon) nobody ever voted for it. One of my current concerns. I am happy to invite high skilled workers to the UK although as you correctly say we are robbing other countries. Low skilled workers are not what we need we have enough of our own and as automation kicks in they are going to be out of a job. However I am not dogmatic about this if sectors of the economy can show that they need foreign workers and that they are prepared to financially support them rather than the taxpayer I would be okay with that. I don't believe that the taxpayer should be subsiding McCoffee jobs just so those companies can make a big profits which they book in the Cayman Islands. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 02 Sep 19 2.40pm

Originally posted by W12

I don't want to subvert this thread but nobody can seem to answer the relevant questions related to this.

1. What happens to those immigrants when the welfare state collapses or are you expecting the tax burden or public borrowing just to increase forever?

2. Are you happy to import people only to be used as wage slaves in the gig economy?

3. What happens when these jobs are automated (they are low hanging fruit for this).

4. Are you happy to import people from the 3rd world that have skills that are important in their country of origin (e.g. doctors and nurses, engineers).

6. What does "diversity is our strength" mean? We are not and never were a "nation of immigrants".

The statistics are cooked, the social and economic impact is ignored and actively surpressed and like the EU (Maastricht, Lisbon) nobody ever voted for it.

One of my current concerns. I am happy to invite high skilled workers to the UK although as you correctly say we are robbing other countries. Low skilled workers are not what we need we have enough of our own and as automation kicks in they are going to be out of a job.

However I am not dogmatic about this if sectors of the economy can show that they need foreign workers and that they are prepared to financially support them rather than the taxpayer I would be okay with that. I don't believe that the taxpayer should be subsiding McCoffee jobs just so those companies can make a big profits which they book in the Cayman Islands.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 02 Sep 19 3.41pm
Originally posted by Badger11 Just read that articled well argued. It sums up how I feel as I am on the right of centre of politics but I do not like being lumped in with the far right. Just because I oppose open door immigration does not make me a racist. Some people rarely bother to listen further that I am in favour of controlled immigration based on job skills, no they have already decided I am against immigration full stop. Edited by Badger11 (02 Sep 2019 12.05pm) What do you regard as 'racist'? Self interest isn't 'racist'....That's the language and thought processes of the left, which exist nowhere else in the world. 'Controlled immigration' ends up with the same result with just a bit more delay built in. Unless you have an immigration policy like Japan's.....Which essentially refuses citizenship to foreigners.....Then all you are doing is waving goodbye to European hegemony within European lands with an egg timer attached.....Powell was right. A hundred years ago Japan looked Japanese....Now it looks Japanese. In another hundred years it will still be Japanese.....No external based terror attacks or 'feminism' or concerns about 'racism'......You know why....the communists were sidelined in Japan after the war...rather violently as it happens and their pro immigration stance has meant they have never made headway. It's the 'controlled immigration' myths which have already done for this country.....The birth rates and previous immigration rates have already set replacement in stone. In the meantime you don't like being called a 'racist'. I'm sure your great grandchildren will really be concerned about that one. Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Sep 2019 3.49pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

02 Sep 19 3.41pm

Originally posted by Badger11

Edited by Badger11 (02 Sep 2019 12.05pm)

What do you regard as 'racist'? Self interest isn't 'racist'....That's the language and thought processes of the left, which exist nowhere else in the world.

'Controlled immigration' ends up with the same result with just a bit more delay built in.

Unless you have an immigration policy like Japan's.....Which essentially refuses citizenship to foreigners.....Then all you are doing is waving goodbye to European hegemony within European lands with an egg timer attached.....Powell was right.

A hundred years ago Japan looked Japanese....Now it looks Japanese. In another hundred years it will still be Japanese.....No external based terror attacks or 'feminism' or concerns about 'racism'......You know why....the communists were sidelined in Japan after the war...rather violently as it happens and their pro immigration stance has meant they have never made headway.

It's the 'controlled immigration' myths which have already done for this country.....The birth rates and previous immigration rates have already set replacement in stone.

In the meantime you don't like being called a 'racist'.

I'm sure your great grandchildren will really be concerned about that one.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Sep 2019 3.49pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 3 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Hate Speech

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors