egafd.com

By the way I can well believe the Met is institutionally racist but I refuse to believe every white man or woman in it is racist.

Lets not forget prejudice within the police force goes both ways as well shall we? As long as they appear not to be prejudiced in their jobs then thats all fine with me

I'll put it simply as some people have taken it wildly off topic.

1. Dizaei gets convicted for corruption
2. Claims it's a racist conspiracy

There is the 'shocker', if he hadn't been corrupt he wouldn't be in prison, not every conviction by the met is done with racist undertones.

Falsely claim expenses = crime = conviction = jail

He clearly isn't that smart to be clutching at straws so wildly.

My comments about the British "indigenous" people were in the context of how Griffin uses the term i.e. the people who were around shortly after the Ice Age.

Forget the Romans, forget the Norman Conquest and forget centuries of migration making Britain such a world trading power and multi-ethnic culture. The BNP fiction that nothing much happened ethnically between the Ice Age and the arrival of Caribbean immigrants in the 1940's says a lot about what passes for political theory in the BNP.

Cheers
D

MP3 wrote: There is the 'shocker', if he hadn't been corrupt he wouldn't be in prison, not every conviction by the met is done with racist undertones.


Ok lets examine the first sentence. You have totally trashed any claim that the police have fitted people up to get a conviction or tampered with evidence to get an advantage on a case to get a conviction which makes you very naive if you beleive that being the enforcers of good that they are prone never to do naughty things of which there is plenty evidence on the net to suggest otherwise.

The second part of your sentence could also be true but again there is many cases over the years that will refute that too.

Furthermore, as a tip i would suggest where you read things from the media that you dont draw conclusions so quickly. I know I have been guilty of that in th epast and been proved wrong or made to think about this by people like David Johnson here on this forum.

Here you wouldnt find someone who is quick to judge on OJ or Michael Jackson, not because of any solidarity in being black but because if the evidence was really there, they would have been convicted of it no matter how much money they spent on their defence but yet somehow people felt the fact they were accused of it must have meant they were guilty and they didnt pull any race cards out of their hat.

So your comments with regards this chap may be right or wrong but you dont know him so how can you be so sure what he is saying is merely pulling the race card without reason?

You could say that if it wasnt that important then why would the media wind you up by drawing your attention to that point?

You and spudface make some good points that I'm not really arguing with. My point, really, was to point out the hypocrisy of ourselves in being less cynical about a Cherokee claiming 'indigenous' status over, say, a Swede's.

I don't think Greer would have retorted with the 'out of Africa' comeback if she'd been debating a Cherokee, that's all, and that like a broken clock that's right twice a day, the abhorrent Nick Griffin did have a point, imo.

"My point, really, was to point out the hypocrisy of ourselves in being less cynical about a Cherokee claiming 'indigenous' status over, say, a Swede's."

I understand your point. Really, I do. Obviously, you speak for yourself. I have no idea who you are referring to in "the hypocrisy of ourselves".

Cheers
D

Society in general, David.

You are all from Africa.

All y'all!