George Floyd anyone?

The willful blindness is astounding sometimes.

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

The twists and turns these people have to make just boggles the mind. They come out with more tripe than a Scottish haggis.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Dec 2022 10.41pm)

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

Asking the question might be considered impolite by some, but isn't racist. What is, is not accepting the answers and continuing to harass to try and confirm a clear bias. Something Lady Hussey herself has recognised and apologised for, even if others believe she had no need to.

Anybody who murders two children, films the result and then posts it on Facebook has to be deranged in some way. There is no other logical explanation. His skin colour has no bearing on it, other than to those who seek to build divisions between people that ought not be built.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (04 Dec 2022 11.30pm)

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.

I really don't get your point!

Not everyone joins in protests, or protests in the same way. That England does one thing, and Senegal doesn't is entirely their choice.

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.

I'd highlight but the ridiculousness and idiocy is consistent with every word.

It's not about the action, or alleged actions, it's about the narrative and assumed intention surrounding it.

1. 'Not accepting the answer'. The question almost definitely was not inferring that her skin colour did not constitute 'British/Englishness', it was almost certainly regarding her attire which by definition was not English/British. That is barely an anecdote let alone newsworthy. I implore any 'white English/British' person to move to I don't know, Japan, or even better a small village in Africa somewhere, attend an event with their upper class donning a beefeater costume, or England Rugby kit, and then try to sell the story to the media of the horrendous racist ordeal they suffered when asked 'where they were from' when only giving the name of where they currently resided (somewhere in Japan or Africa). Even then, just being white may be enough but it's enough to distinguish you from the majority at said event, and any question of this nature should not be pre-determined in it's motive or even offensive. I was born in Lewisham hospital and spent all my young life there. If, with two Irish parents, I chose to venture out and mingle with royalty et al dressed as a leprechaun, with a died ginger beard, carrying a shillelagh, any inference that I was something other than English would be expected and I would not repeatedly answer 'Lewisham' when questioning arrives due to the nature of my get up, that's common sense, unless of course I was angling for something to fit my narrative no matter how ridiculous.

2. The suggestion that Lady Hussey has any idea or had any intention to apologise is an uninformed assumption at best. To suggest that she was briefed, informed and obliged to as a result of her actions not aligning to the current zeitgeist/narrative is almost guaranteed regardless of her awareness.

3. A person murdering two children on a live streamed event is horrific and said individual is, again by definition, not accepted within society. Whether they have a diagnosable mental illness or are just extremely callous and driven by ulterior motives is yet to be seen however possible. Thank you for the diagnosis of 'deranged' however doctor, the insight you offer into the human mind is revolutionary.

Soooooo, to summarise, thank you for clarifying and providing a textbook example for my initial point from the first post - that the narrative surrounding both instances is racially driven. The first, an extremely mild lack of alignment to the current narrative at best, is a conclusion based upon illogical and bias determined parameters with no movement for further context or explanation as the guilty party is white and the aggrieved is not. This is headline news. The second example however is horrific crime, unimaginable to any decent human being, however as the guilty party is not white, and although the victims were, we must not even entertain the thought it could be racially motivated as this does not align with the current narrative.

Your subscription to this zeitgeist/narrative is the most perfect example of somebody seeking to 'build divisions between people that ought not be built'. It's actually quite staggering. A horrific murder is newsworthy. An awkward, poorly socially navigated interaction is not. The latter is in the news however and the former has no coverage. Any individual regardless any other identifier is able to question and probably answer as to why this is, provided they have 2 brain cells to rub together. Unfortunately, many do not, as you have exhibited.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Clearly thinking on the hoof. I didn’t even Google the meaning; for a change! I just guessed and yes probably remember it from the said posters threads, bless him