BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 09:04 AM

You are saying exactly what I stated here Dave, but of course you will try to wriggle out by the usual twisting and dissembling that you have learned so well from your fellow pack members.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 04:28 PM

Another strange assertion

but hate crimes directed against Muslims are but a fraction of those directed against Jews

Have you the remotest idea how many Muslims have been killed in hate crimes against their religion? How many Shia have been killed in Jihads by Sunnis? How many Sunni Muslims killed by Shias? Just because they believe a different version of the same fairy story. Or, because it is Muslim killing Muslim, is that OK?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 09:10 AM

No cop out at all. You seem to learning form the master of changing the rules to suit. You misrepresented what I said so I have asked you to provide evidence. What is the matter? Do you not think you can?

Tell you what though. I will make a start if you like. Would you care to look up the statement Up until such a time, if they wish to slaughter one another then they'd best restrict their efforts to their own countries and tell us who made it? If you can interpret whatever I said as "most hate crimes etc." that I am pretty sure we have a case to interpret 'if they wish to slaughter each other' as it is OK for them to do as as long as they keep it local.

Now, would you care to provide evidence of where I said "the most anti-Muslim hate crimes being committed today are by Muslims in the Middle East". In Keith's words, good luck with that.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 09:13 AM

So, you misrepresented what I said to suit your agenda. What is new in that?

Off to do something better for the afternoon. Was hoping to come back with tales of a glorious spring day in Haworth but it looks like it is going to piss down. May just make something up instead. Looks like that is what most people do.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 09:15 AM

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 09:53 AM

So lies, damn lies and threadbare statistics! Who's doing the wriggling, boobs? 🤠

Missed the chance to do 1500, Dave, as I was in Bude Morrisons. I note that the firm is steadfastly refusing to put Signature Nero d'Avola back down to its five quid offer price. However, I had a e-voucher giving me 5000 Match 'n' More points if I spent forty quid, in effect a free fiver. Therefore, after some mental creative accounting, I decided to buy six bottles at six quid. My bill thereby crept above the forty quid mark and my points are on the way. That's the way to do it! But come on, Dave, 'ave a word about the Nero d'Avola, will you? 🍷🍷🍷

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 12:21 PM

Steve,
they show that the problem they are supposed to be demonstrating is almost negligible.

Not true Steve.
You made the obvious point that hate crime victims are a tiny proportion of the population, but they unequivocally showed that in the West Jews are more likely to be such victims than any other group, exactly as Bobad claimed.

Jim,
How does the post of mine you quoted support your lie, "You have the evidence of the massive series of human rights abuses carried out by the Israelis and you have h
ve denied every single one without fail
I hope you enjoy your inhumanity as much as I have enjoyed exposing it."

Did I mention the "no Travellers served here" signs you spent weeks defending,

If that is not another lie Jim, QUOTE ME DEFENDING THEM!!

or the three days of rioting in Belfast which you attempted to blame on children,

If you are not lying and I said anything untrue, QUOTE ME SAYING IT!!,

If I said that about any violent march, QUOTE ME SAYING IT!!

As usual Jim, you give up trying to make a case, and start making up lies about me personally instead.
You do it every time!
You might as well hoist a white flag.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 12:49 PM

Piss off Keith
All this is old history - I linkyou to what you actually said, you go on offending it
I don't lie - I don't need to
Your racist and sectarian behaviur makes it unnecesary to do so
Your technique of prolonging these arguments if beginning to look like attention seeking
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 01:03 PM

No wriggling here. I guess he is in the same mold as some others I could mention, Steve. Has his own meaning for everyday words.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

The rain did keep off in Haworth. Lovely drive over the tops. Could not see much from the car but the daffs are out in force everywhere and some of the trees are blossoming. Definitely springlike.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 01:04 PM

So tiny a proportion of the populations of countries mentioned, according to your stats, Keith, that I have to wonder what the song and dance is about. Just about four times more likely to be a Jewish victim of a hate crime than to be struck by lightning. Sounds like a pretty safe country in which to be a Jew to me. You are talking this up in the same way as you talk up the "serious antisemitism problem" in Labour (the one party that has been honest enough to put the issue in the spotlight) in which there have been a few handfuls of mostly unproven cases out of a membership of six hundred thousand. By highlighting and tirelessly publicising what seem to be minor issues, according to your stats at least, it seems to me that you are trying to portray Jews as perpetual victims, thereby putting them more in harm's way. Of course, it may be that you regard the stats as just the tip of the iceberg. If so, you seriously need better stats.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 01:09 PM

Ah - what the hell - I can do this and carry on with the desk work.
No Traveller signs.
I explained I had been part of a photographing campaign that lasted for several years, trying to get the practice of putting these signs up
I linked you to one of these photographs which had been part of the notes to a CD of Travellers we had put out
I provided documented evidence from organisations like The Runnymede Trust, who had documented these signs and produced descriptions of court cases
I even described having visited 2 pubs in the Bristol area which were still displaying those notices at the time of out argument
I provided links to a book entitled 'Gypsies' by prominent civil servant, Sir Angus Fraser, which features a chapter of these signs and points out that they were common because Travelers were not protected under the race- discrimination laws.
After all of this, you still denied that they were common and at several stages, became abusive and called me a liar and a bigot.
If this is not defending these signs, I don;t know what is
These are some of the samples of around 90 postings you made on the 'No Travellers site
I have little doubt that, having denied defending these signs, you will now attempt to reopen the argument and claim they were not around as I said they were.
I thinl 90 postings from you are quite enough - don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 03:16 PM
Jim, you said they were common, I said I had never seen one, and you accused me of lying.
I am no liar, and nor are the others who have never seen one.
You know that they have been illegal here for fourty four years.
Your contention is that the people here are so racist they ignore the law, and the police so racist they allow it.
You are wrong about our people.
Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 03:21 PM
Sorry, illegal for FOURTY SIX YEARS !
Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 02:57 AM
Jim Carroll, you were wrong to state that" "No Travellers Served" is a common notice throughout Britain "
It is not
Most of us have never seen one in our lives, and to say that does not make us liars or racists.
Far from being common, they are extraordinarily rare, and probably do not exist any more.
You were wrong to suggest that the British people are so racist they ignore the laws.
You were wrong to suggest that the British police are so racist they allow it.
You were wrong about us.
You were wrong about me.
Thank you.
keith.
Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 03:38 AM
I have never seen one, and most contributors have not.
That means they are not common.
I am challenging nothing else Jim, but you stated they were common and I disagree.
They are not common.
If they exist at all they are extraordinarily rare.
You were wrong.
Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 03:40 AM
You are in England now right?
Found any?
Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 05:29 AM
You said " "No Travellers Served" is a common notice throughout Britain "
I know from my own experience that it is not.
You said "Because a handful of individuals here have not seen them is no proof whatever that they do not exist in the numbers that have been quoted"
I think it is proof.
How many "individuals" accepted that the notice IS common throughout Britain?
Answer NONE.
You were wrong about us, and about me.
(AGAIN!)

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 06:22 AM
"YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN ACCESS TO HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF OFFICIALLY RESEARCHED AND ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE"
Jim, those of us who live in this country do not need your experts to tell us what it is like.
We live here.
I rate the objectivity of a cross section of Mudcatters way above that of your agenda ridden spokespersons trying to justify their pay-packets.
"No Travellers Served" is NOT a common notice throughout Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 01:52 PM
There are lots of pitches around Hertford.
Just no signs.
Your Glasgow friend said they WERE common once.
None now then.

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 05:19 PM
Are you implying that the poster is lying and not that the notice was taken down so as not to spoil the photograph and frighten the horses?
Yes I am.
He is a troll.
There is nothing on streetview picture either.
If it were a real post I would check further.
Just a troll.

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 31 Aug 12 - 04:10 AM
Jim, are we British "deeply racist" by our genes or are we culturally implanted with it?
Keith has just accused a poster of lying on the basis that a publican wishing to publicise his pub could quite possibly have removed a 'no Traveller' notice before taking a publicity photograph
No Jim.
I was prepared to believe it and began looking in to it.
Then I noticed that the troll had never posted here before.
He was just winding us up, but you could give the place a call or visit them next week.

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 03:33 AM
I just said that the signs are not "common throughout Britain."

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 05:58 AM
Jim, you stated that ""No Travellers Served" is a common notice throughout Britain "
I denied it.
I was right and you were wrong, as usual.
All the evidence you put up was gone through by CS, and found not to be evidence at all.
The first hand evidence of numerous Mudcatters actual experience clearly showed that the signs are NOT common throughout Britain.
You were wrong about that Jim, and that is all I have argued.

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 06:02 AM
Which "two pubs in the Bristol area" Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 08:47 AM
He started this thread in order to challenge the documented abuse of Travellers
No.
It was to find out if "no travellers" signs are common throughout Britain as you claimed.
We found they are not.

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 12 Sep 12 - 05:04 AM
"An ad hominem is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it"
I am not a racist.
The British are not deeply racist.
Those signs are not remotely common throughout Britain.
There are not two pubs in Bristol displaying those signs.
Jim is a shocking liar and a deeply prejudiced bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 03:02 AM
So you have finally stopped trying to defend the ludicrously indefensible Jim.
We have hundreds of Mudcatter years of never seeing one, yet you claim to have found two in less than a week.
If you want to be believed, identify the pubs so someone can discreetly check.
Re the ad hominem thing;
It was not a racist theory because the proponents had impeccable anti-racist credentials and most were Pakistanis.
Certainly not racist to just report it!
The question is not why I came to believe them, but why anyone should imagine they know better.
To be blunt, why would any sentient, rational person dismiss all those lifetimes of experience, and listen to a twat like you?

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 04:21 AM
I sincerely wish you well with your medical troubles Jim.
No-one here would cause any trouble over those pubs if they exist.
We could circulate it by pm and be very discreet, as I said.
I think you made them up Jim, but am prepared to be proved wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 01:20 PM

This – about three nights of rioting that took place in Belfast 2010 which you attempted to prove were the fault of young children and "outside influences"
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 06:48 AM
"All the reports and witnesses refer to that. So many children that the Northern Ireland Children's Commissioner felt the need to make statements about it.
Put up some evidence that there were not large numbers of kids Jim?
You can't because they were there."
As with the "No Traveller" signs – I have no doubt that, having denied you said this, you will now attempt to re-open the argument that children were responsible for three nights of rioting.
Not for me I'm afraid Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 01:42 PM

THis is how you tried to describe the Twelfth of July in a discussion of sectarian rioting
"They described the Twelfth as their St Patrick's Day, a community day out that gives them a chance to celebrate their culture and history."
And lest we forget - this is how you dsescribed the brainwashing of Irish schoolchildren of the 'Potato Blight' thread
"Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive.
Likewise for both of these - no revisiting these disgusting arguments for me
Last time was plenty

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 02:20 PM

Professor, if you not understand the significance of Green, White and Gold and Red, White and Blue in religious terms in Ireland you are utterly, utterly ignorant.

I would suggest you try to learn something about the country but I know it would be a complete waste of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 03:58 PM

Great news: Rima Khalaf, head of that obscure U.N. agency ECSWA, comprised of 18 Arab states, has just resigned under pressure from the U.N. chief to pull a report authored by Richard Falk which condemns Israel for 'apartheid'.

Better news: seems that the U.N. has just deleted from the #ESCWA website the despicable Richard Falk report accusing Israel of 'apartheid'

I hope Carroll can bear his disappointment.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 04:49 PM

to pull a report authored by Richard Falk which condemns Israel for 'apartheid'.

Plenty of other reports, Boo, that definatively document Israel as an apartheid state.

Of course, you could fall back on Trumpist "alternative facts" to dispute reality.....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 07:01 PM

To call Israel an apartheid state is an expression of ignorance, anti-Semitism, and malice. Israel is by far the most racially mixed and tolerant nation in the entire Muslim Middle East. Arabs, who are about 20% of Israel's population, enjoy, without any exception, the same rights and opportunities in all fields as their Jewish fellow citizens. The total equality of all Israelis is assured in Israel's founding document. All non-Jews (which means primarily Muslim Arabs) have full voting rights. At present, seventeen Arabs sit in Israel's Knesset (parliament): Three Arabs are deputy speakers. Arabs are represented in Israel's diplomatic service all over the world. Arab students may and do study in all Israeli universities. All children in Israel are entitled to subsidized education until graduation, without any restrictions based on color or religions. In short, Muslim Arabs and other non-Jews are allowed everything that Jews are allowed, everything that non-Whites were not allowed in apartheid South Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 07:26 PM

Been here many times before, boobs. Israeli Arabs have poorer housing, poorer schooling, poorer pay, poorer job prospects, higher unemployment, have to endure school transport that refuses to pass through their towns, only round the margins, are subject to checkpoints that can hold them up without good reason for days, may well be separated from their families by a concrete wall... I suppose you think it's all their fault, that they're all just lazy, feckless Arabs. Open your eyes. I've documented these facts before.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 08:40 PM

By the way, and you'll probably like this, Dave, we had pork chops for tea tonight, done Delia-style with mushrooms, thyme, lemon and cream, baked in the oven. Glorious. The key fact here is that I'd bought the chops from the Gloucester Services butcher. In fact, the carrier bag had "Tebay Services" on it. It seems bloody ridiculous that I should be singing the praises of a motorway services, but I don't buy my pork from anywhere else these days. Our local butcher used to sell us pork that he got from the farm of Mary Quicke MBE, her of Quicke's cheddar. Unfortunately, he retired and Mrs Quicke stopped doing her amazing whey-fed pigs, so decent pork is impossible to get in Bude these days. Thank God for Gloucester Services! I have pork belly from there in my freezer, as well as a beautiful hunk of boned and rolled shoulder with a mass of crackling. All Gloucester Old Spot, free-range. Life is good.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 02:24 AM

Jim, You accused me of defending "no travellers signs."

You lied. I never would or did.
What I did was deny your ludicrous, lying claim that such signs "are common throughout Britain."

You lie. I do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 02:31 AM

Jim,
or the three days of rioting in Belfast which you attempted to blame on children,

If you are not lying and I said anything untrue, QUOTE ME SAYING IT!!

Your quote of me does not do that.

"Date: 02 Sep 10 - 06:48 AM
"All the reports and witnesses refer to that. So many children that the Northern Ireland Children's Commissioner felt the need to make statements about it.
Put up some evidence that there were not large numbers of kids Jim?
You can't because they were there."

I provided the reports and witness statements.
I quoted the Northern Ireland Children's Commissioner.
It was all true.
You lied. I do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 02:40 AM

Jim,
violent sectarian marches which you tried to pass of as a pleasant day out?

If I said that about any violent march, QUOTE ME SAYING IT!!

You quoted me, ""They described the Twelfth as their St Patrick's Day, a community day out that gives them a chance to celebrate their culture and history."

They did describe it thus, and the parades were overwhelmingly peaceful. Now they all are.
You lie. I do not.

As usual Jim, you give up trying to make a case, and start making up lies about me personally instead.
You do it every time!
You might as well hoist a white flag.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 02:45 AM

"No Travellers signs common??

Never seen one in my life.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 02:45 AM

Steve,
So tiny a proportion of the populations of countries mentioned, according to your stats, Keith, that I have to wonder what the song and dance is about

Hate crime effects a tiny proportion Steve, and so does rape.

It is still a serious issue worthy of serious concern.
You only suggest dismissing it because the main victims are Jews.
You did not make that argument when hate crimes against EU citizens following Brexit were discussed here, or when Islamophobic crimes have been discussed.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 02:55 AM

From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 08 Jan 13 - 07:44 PM

I can only re-iterate what I have said before. In my experience such signs are not common. I have neen in a lot of pubs, all over the country for many years, and the only one I have ever seem in respect of travellers was in the Morning Star, Wardley, Mancheter which said 'Travellers Welcome!'

I have no doubt that you are right, Jim, and to travellers who do see the signs they are more common than they should be. But that is no evidence whatsover to say the signs are common. I know you will never agree but I believe that this is all Keith is trying to put across.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 03:51 AM

Please note that, as ever, I am trying to provide a reasonable answer to why some say one thing and some say another while both are, in part, right. As I said 4 years ago, to the travellers who they affect, the signs are common. To those who are not looking for them, such as us, they are not. Why is it that others cannot see that? Can you, Keith? Jim? It was the same with the cultural implant debacle. My problem is that I am too reasonable. Although I am sure many would disagree :-)

We have a brilliant butcher in the village, Steve, although I must say that I have not tried Tebay pork as a comparison. Should be passing in April so may give it a try. We also have a Booth's supermarket just up the road in Settle. They seem to do the same range as Tebay so may give them a try and risk excommication from Morrisons. Very stormy weather here today so no outdoor activities for me. Pretty much a fair weather hiker nowadays.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 05:22 AM

Dave,
I know you will never agree but I believe that this is all Keith is trying to put across.

It was and I said so. We were in complete agreement on that thread.
What I never did and never would do is "defend" such signs.
Jim lied.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 05:41 AM

More denials and attempts to open up new arguments Keith - just as I predicted
You said you never saw the signs - I say Pat and I worked with travellers for thirty years, we saw hundreds, I photographed dozens as part of a campaign run by a London solicitor who was voluntarily working on behalf of the Travellers, we included one in our CD notes, you were given articles about court cases involving them - presumably you still insist that they are rare and that I have lied which makes you the bigot you are
I don't suppose for one moment you will apologise for any of this -you are a bigot andf your behaviour proves beyind doubt that you have lied
Jim Carroll

This is a tiny sample of reports of these signs - plenty more to choose from and far too numerous to blue clickie
Since John Major repealed the Caravan and Camping act leaving Travellers with no right to stop other than the totally inadequate handful of official stopping places, and since the spitefulness of Dale Farm, things have not improved, if anything, they have deteriorated under governments that favour the wealthy rather than the needy - thanks to bigots like Keith

https://hospitalitylaw.co.uk/large-awards-for-travellers-refused-entry-to-pubs/

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Operators/Other-operators/Pub-manager-sacked-for-no-travelers-sign


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086098/Ice-rink-accused-inciting-racial-hatred-putting-sign-banning-travellers.html

http://travellerstimes.org.uk/Blogs--Features/No-Travellers-No-More-say-lawyers-.aspx

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/jd-wetherspoon-to-pay-travellers-over-refused-service-in-london-1.2872396

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/114652/Racial-warning-for-jeweller-who-banned-gypsies-from-shop

http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/voices/prejudice.shtml

From Wrexham Borough Council document 'Making Links'
10. Prejudice
The Commission for Racial Equality report 'Common Ground' 2006 identified widespread evidence of public hostility in Britain towards Gypsy and Irish Travellers. Examples included:
• Illegal 'No Travellers' signs in shops and pubs;
• Gypsy and Irish Travellers experiencing great difficulty in getting planning permission for private sites;
• Gypsy and Irish Traveller children being bullied and harassed at schools by other pupils; and
• Growing numbers of reports of racist graffiti and attacks.

From
"British Anti-Discrimination Legislation and its Protection for Gypsies and Travellers"
'…Gypsies and Travellers are still experiencing
discrimination of the most overt kind:
'No blacks, no Irish, no dogs' signs
disappeared decades ago, but the 'No Travellers' signs,
used intentionally to exclude Gypsies and Travellers,
are widespread indicating that discrimination against these groups
remains the last 'respectable' form of racism in the UK.'
Legal Action Group (2004)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 06:06 AM

You said you never saw the signs

So did Dave, and every one else on that old thread.
It is a simple lie to claim that they "are common throughout Britain" and a blatant lie to say that I defended such signs.
If it is not a lie, QUOTE ME SAYING IT!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 06:21 AM

You defend the signs by saying tehy are not common
Unless you cross posted you are still defending those signs by saying they are not common
Would you like to comment on the statements you have been offered or do you suggest that those who say they are common are lying?
I claim no deep knowledge of Traveller experience but thirty years gives me an insight you don't have - nor, I suggest, does most people
Why do you continue to insist that they are uncommon when the evidence proves they are not- unless you are a bigot?
Jim Carrroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 07:05 AM

It is a simple lie to claim that they "are common throughout Britain"

It is not a lie, Keith. I said "to travellers who do see the signs they are more common than they should be". What is so difficult to understand? You are right. Jim is right. Maybe I should add different perspectives to my mantra?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 07:18 AM

"Steve,
So tiny a proportion of the populations of countries mentioned, according to your stats, Keith, that I have to wonder what the song and dance is about"

Hate crime effects a tiny proportion Steve, and so does rape.

It is still a serious issue worthy of serious concern.
You only suggest dismissing it because the main victims are Jews.
You did not make that argument when hate crimes against EU citizens following Brexit were discussed here, or when Islamophobic crimes have been discussed.

173,610 victims of rape or sexual assault, US, (2013)

730 victims of hate crime of an anti-Jewish nature, US, (2015)

Would you now care to review your exceptionally ignorant comment about rape? And I haven't "dismissed" anything. I've said at least twice that all hate crime is an abomination. What a disgraceful post, even by your gutter standards.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 07:26 AM

Bit of light relief to brighten your day, Steve. After mentioning Booth's earlier I also realised that we have a farm shop very close by that does lots of good stuff. On that tack I thought I would look up stuff around your area and found https://www.cornwalls.co.uk/food/farmers

They may all be crap and you may have tried them already but for speciality meats and the like would they be worth a try?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 10:54 AM

We use a couple of farm shops round here occasionally. They tend to be uncheap as they cater for the tourist trade a fair bit. We had a good rare breeds farm that sold his own meat but it went years ago. There are some organic farms that sell meat round here but their stuff costs an arm and a leg, and their arms, legs and shoulders can be a bit on the titchy side. I like big hunks of meat only for roasting. Free-range chickens that weigh at least two kilos, shoulders of lamb on the bone no less than six or seven pounds, that sort of thing. Our butcher produces superb lamb and beef on his own farm, not pork unfortunately. I like long, slow cooking except for chickens. I never weigh joints of meat before I cook 'em. After last night's superb chops we're going veggie tonight, chitarra pasta with tomatoes, rocket and chilli. Just off to work on that hole now. Gotta smash up some stuff for hardcore and riddle some chippings to get the soil out. then I'm watching Man City vs Liverpool. I'll have earned a glass or four of that lovely Morrisons Signature Nero d'Avola after all that. Have you 'ad a word yet, Dave? Up the reds!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 11:48 AM

Jim,
You defend the signs by saying tehy are not common

That is not defending them, and it is a fact that they are not common.

Dave said he had only ever in his whole life seen a "travellers welcome" sign (on a pub) and never a "no travellers" sign.

Here he also says that you are "racist" and plain stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 12:24 PM

I can honestly say that I have heard of such things but only ever seen the exact reverse. On the door of the 'Morning Star', Wardley, some 20-30 years back there was a big sign saying 'Travellers Welcome'! There was a temporary camp on the 'Moss' at the side of the Star and the landlord made so much cash during the time it was there he managed to retire early!

All anecdotal and personal experience of couse and, therefore, completely invalid in this so called argument.

What is neither anecdotal nor personal to me is the obvious fact that someone here is a racist. Anyone who can tar the whole Brotish nation as racist based on the acts of a small mimority is applying th every stereotypes he reckons he is so against.

Ironic? No. Just plain stupid.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 11:55 AM

Here he also says that you are "racist" and plain stupid.

Nooooooh, really...............lolololol!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 12:00 PM

Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 02:10 PM

Nobody has proffered the information as to what contact they have had with Travellers, whether they have spoken to any of them, whether they live in the proximity of a Travellers site, whether Travellers move through their area regularly; just that they have not personally seen them - no context, no background information, just that.

Very disingenuous of you Jim. For the record I proffered the information that not only was there a Gypsy site in proximity of the Morning Star but that my Uncle had close dealings with the travelers themselves. But, in case you missed that, I can also update and add to that.

There is a travelers site not 10 minutes walk from where I live - here. and plenty of support for the traveling people from our community. My local is one of the nearest pubs to the site but there at least a dozen or more others in close proximity and not one of them has ever turned a traveler away let alone had such a notice.

Over the years I have traveled the length and breadth of the country myself - Not stopping in a caravan but hotels and B&Bs for my job and I always make sure I visit a local pub and, if possible , try the local ale. I estimate that I must have visited upwards of 500 pubs over the years and never seen such a thing. I can only comment about the proximity to traveling communities where I know, as I have said, but in my mind such notices are not common.

Yet I am still willing to accept the premise that they are more common than they should be and, were I a traveler, I would notice them more. You, however, seem to be working on the basis that if it does not fit with your dogma than it must be wrong. You will not commit to a figure that is agreed as common - 1%? 10%? 20%? What? The only evidence you provide is anecdotal and hearsay and yet everyone that disagrees with you is a racist bigot! Come on, man. Give it up. I know it sticks in your throat but this time Keith is right.

Oh, and you never did supply the responses you promised after my last note.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 12:14 PM

Well good to see the gang are running true to form.

Steve compares the number of sexual offences against ALL women in the US with the number of hate crimes against Jews.....typical idiocy.
I suppose he will plead ignorance and he HAS grounds, but on this occasion I think desperation is nearer the mark.

Dave is just being his twisted trolling self, denying what he himself posted......the creature has no shame.

Don't worry Keith they will never intimidate you while the rest of the forum watches their atrocious behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 12:20 PM

Talking about rare, you make a big thing of hate crime against Jews then say that rape affects only a tiny proportion of people. Rape and sexual assault in the US affects 238 times as many people as hate crime affects Jews. In the light of this, I'm having difficulty getting my head round your concepts of tiny, uncommon and rare. There appears to be a degree of elasticity around them that, shall we say, doesn't exactly inspire one with confidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 12:25 PM

"it is a fact that they are not common."
Then why have documents like The Anti Discrimination Legislation described them not only as common, but still existing as acceptable iscrimination.
I don't give a shit that you or whoever have not seen them - how many of these people have worked with travellers
So far, your entire defence of your bigotry is that you have never seen them - nothing else.
You've had a small section of the large number of links dealing with these signs - you refuse even to acknowledge them
Are you thick enough to believe that one sign on one pub makes me a liar
Perhaps you might address what Dave has written
"It is not a lie, Keith. I said "to travellers who do see the signs they are more common than they should be". What is so difficult to understand? You are right. Jim is right. "
Is he a liar too?
"Here he also says that you are "racist" and plain stupid."
One of your nastiest traits on this forum is to try to set one member against the other - you are a truly appalling individual
That is exactly what makes you the racist and dishonest bigot that you are
You reject other peoples findings because it doesn't fit your bigoted agenda.
I ask you again to have the good manners to address the links put up - are they lying - are they mistaken - did I invent them..... what?
The same with your incredible stupid and arrogant statement about "politics not religion".
You have been given examples of the anti catholic motivation of the "sectarian" marches (the clue is in the title - not left or right, but catholic and protestant) yet you dismiss the fact that the dispute in the North is religion driven.
I have pointed out in the past when discussing Ireland, that I com from an Irish background, I have a lifelong interest in Ireland and I've seen the results of the Catholic/Protestant divide first hand.
I even have family who were driven out of Derry after having their home burnt over their heads because they were the "wrong" religion.
You are a mindless, arrogant and extremely bigoted individual - they most extreme I have ever encountered.
This is over - you stand convicted of your lying bigotry
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 12:37 PM

Absolutely, Keith. Jim and I have had this conversation many a time and always remained on civil terms. I think he understands that when I disagree with him it is only from th epoint of view of my experience and I always accept that the experience of others may be different. I have said, twice now but as you seem to be ignoring it I will try a third time, that to those looking out for them, such as travelers, they will be more common than they should be. Unlike you who insist that they do not exist at all.

In one of the posts you have copied you have emboldened some passages. We all know by now that your understanding of what I intend is flawed at best so your emphasis is entirely driven by your agenda. Whatver that may be. Also, you have not highlighted the following

Yet I am still willing to accept the premise that they are more common than they should be and, were I a traveler, I would notice them more.

This is the reason that you rub people up the wrong way, Keith. You are so insistent that your view is the only one that is right. I have, as you have clearly demonstrated, been willing to listen to others and accept their point of view even when it is outside my experience. On rare occasions even you have some valid points and, when you do, I said so as you demonstrate.

As to anyone being racist, yes, anyone who tars an entire nationality with a particular trait is being racist and I have said the same to Jim many a time. Yet we have remained friendly and civil about it. You may want to ask yourself why. If you like you can ask Jim as well and he will tell you the same.

But I doubt you will.

So much for your 'little gang' theory as well eh?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 12:43 PM

There was a large number of "Traveller" families in our area during the last few decades (West of Scotland). I work extensively throughout the area and never once saw such a sign.

Most of these "travellers" have now taken up residence in Social housing, since the closure of their encampment...which has been discussed here some time ago.

I have never seen a "No Travellers" sign anywhere in Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 12:43 PM

Ake Dave is just being his twisted trolling self, denying what he himself posted......the creature has no shame.

Once again you post stuff that to anyone with half a brain is ludicrous. I suggest you post examples of me denying what I posted or it becomes apparent that you are making it up again. Unless of course it is some sort of demonstration to keep your job as village idiot. In which case, feel free to carry on until you get the thread closed. Again.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 12:45 PM

"Don't worry Keith they will never intimidate you while the rest of the forum watches their atrocious behaviour."
From an extremely safe distance in your case Ake
Have you no courage to back up your claims
Keith chooses to expose himself as a bigot and a liar - perhaps you might help him out rather than cheering him on from the safety and comfort of the sidelines
No?
Thought not
Not your style
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 12:58 PM

Oooh. Jim, Just the man! Would you care to join me in demonstrating how we can disagree without rancour and even have strong words without them leading to a war of attrition?

If I was to say to you that your comments about the British being racist are in themselves a racist statement, how would you react? Oh, and you may want to confirm that this is unplanned, unrehearsed and we have had no private contact.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 02:14 PM

"Would you care to join me in demonstrating how we can disagree without rancour"
Bit difficult with someone who calls you a liar and refuses to respond to facts Dave
Keith Chooses to expose himself to attacks with his obsessive hatred of minorities - don;t know how to deal with that one
"If I was to say to you that your comments about the British being racist are in themselves a racist statement, how would you react"
As I have4 in the past Dave - WITH EVIDENCE
I have attempted to qualify my statement by putting it in both a historical and social context
I believe British Racism stems from out Imperial past when to be foreign was to be inferior and exploitable - I'm old enough to remember this actually taught in schools and used as an excuse to not let go of our colonies - "They aren't ready to govern themselves" was regularly used to oppose independence.
We even sang hymns in school which talked about being foreign as being "in errors chain" (see 'From Greenland's Icy Mountains')
Since then, politicians have used the presence of foreigners to cover up their own failures and more recently, to win elections - Brexit and the U.S. Presidential Election were fought an an anti-foreigner ticket, and Ukip had no policy other than getting out of Europe and stopping immigration (thankfully - that party appears to be dead in the water).
Racism in Britain tends to be largely passive, only surfacing at ties of hardship and recession.
The worrying thing is that racism appears to be hardening, particularly against immigrants
During my lifetime Britain was accepting refugees from Europe who were fleeing Nazism - now many seem happy to see dead refugee children carried from the sea and still refuse to recognise the plight of people that we have helped to cause
You want an immediate example - go look up the sharp rise in racist incidents following Brexit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 02:45 PM

Dave,
Give it up. I know it sticks in your throat but this time Keith is right.

That is what you said at the time, and your meaning was clear.
Yes, one notice is too many, and I abhor them however rare, but it is a lie to state that they are common throughout Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 03:07 PM

I haven't forgotten the lost bingo ball fiasco and those photocopied cards of yours, Dave. We didn't fall out about it, though, did we? Mind you, it was hard not to. Damned hard. Thank God those pensioners in Dewsbury couldn't afford a lawyer...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 03:18 PM

Steve - :-D

Jim - Exactly what I was expecting, and a good answer. Thanks. Your point about imperialism is quite right. However, I am half Polish, class myself as British and I do not think I am particularly racist. Yet I was brought up in suburban Manchester in the 1950s when racism was endemic. Life is not black and white, if you will excuse the expression given the topic! Anyway, my point about not stereotyping a nation as racists, when there are demonstrable exceptions, is also right. So we are both right in different ways.

This is what I have trouble getting across to people like Keith and, although in the past I have put this down to myself, I now know it is not all me. I think, even if we disagree on this point, we are on a much more similar wavelength and can agree to disagree. Something that can never be achieved in certain quarters.

I don't want to get too bogged down in this so I will just make the point that any discussion is as much about attitude and how you treat other people as it is about facts and evidence.

BTW, I do not think the rise in racism is a predominately British thing. The far right seem to be gaining ground all over the world.

Keith - Yes, you were right and I hope after all I said above that you will realise that Jim was also right. But I guess that, sadly, you will try to spin that to your own agenda as well.


DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 03:23 PM

Steve, you attacked my statement, "Hate crime effects a tiny proportion Steve, and so does rape."

You stated, "173,610 victims of rape or sexual assault," (USA)

But, "The FBI is charged under the Hate Crime Statistics Act with compiling statistics on hate crimes. In its most recent report, for 2013, it counted 5,928 incidents resulting in 7,242 victims. That was a decline from 2012, in which the FBI tallied 6,573 incidents. "

Taking the lowest figure, that is only 24 times less, and as rape is a smaller subset of all sexual assaults it is much less than 24 times and broadly comparable with hate crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 03:28 PM

Dave,
Keith - Yes, you were right and I hope after all I said above that you will realise that Jim was also right. But I guess that, sadly, you will try to spin that to your own agenda as well.

No spin.
You said I was right. You certainly did not say that Jim was right!

You said, "but in my mind such notices are not common." contradicting his claim that they are "common all over Britain"!