BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 02:31 PM

Rag, if that was really what you and Dave wanted to discuss you would be on the "Spring Is Here" thread.

You just want to prevent debates you can't win.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 02:42 PM

Can we get one thing straight here Keith
I don't tell lies - I have told no lies on this forum ye you ahve accused me of doing so many dozens of times
You have never caught me out in a lie - you have dishonestly resorted to responding to everything you ahve no answer to as claiming it to be a lie - that is the spineless little creep you ar.
If you call me a liar again I will trawl through this forum (the way I did with Teribus''s insults) and I will put them up - every time you have denied not saying something than had it put up again and have gone on to defend it - you lie consistently by denying things then you prove yourself a liar by defending it all over again

This is typical of your lying behaviour
I have mut up masses of documented evidence of the Traveller signs - from civil rights groups, from councils, from writes writing about Travellers, from groups like The Runnymede Trust..... dozens and dozens of examples of these signs - even to the Weatherspoons case - and still you write
"How can they be common if no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar?"
What about all the people whose evidence I put up.
You are the liar here Keith - you have now become a habitual liar
DO NOT CALL ME A LIAR AGAIN - I DO NOT TELL LIES
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 02:45 PM

And before you ask me for an example of your lying - I've just given it
Explain that one away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 02:45 PM

And before you ask me for an example of your lying - I've just given it
Explain that one away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: MikeL2
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 03:39 PM

Hi Dave

<" That wasn't snow, Mike. It was t'fallout from t'tripeworks...">.

LOL......oh so that's what it were; I thought it were snow cos it weren't half slippy to walk on.

If I'd known it were tripe I would have taken some home. My old mum loved tripe and onions,,,,tripe cooked in milk.

It pissed down all day yesterday so I put out a jug....thought it might be raining Robinsons' Mild...

Cheers

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 04:32 PM

My mate Mike used to work near the tripe works in Monton. When I asked him how he coped with the smell he said it was Ok and he was down to only throwing up twice a day - Honestly!

I love tripe too - the real stuff, not what you get on these threads :-) Mrs G does in in milk with onions as well. She has also been known to cut it in strips then batter and fry it - Also very nice but very messy to do. Not had Robbies mild for yonks. I was never keen on the light but the Robbies dark in the Queens Head in New Mills was to die for.

Keith - You do it to try to stifle debate that does not suit you.
It is just a ploy, and an increasingly frantic and desperate one.

No I don't. That is an unsubstantiated allegation.:-D As to You just want to prevent debates you can't win. Well, firstly, don't kid yourself that I would want to debate with you but, if I did, it would not be on here. As has been pointed out this is not a debating forum, it is a discussion forum. Debates have rules and you break every one of them. If it were a debating forum you would have been banned years ago.

We just try to bring a little cheer to your otherwise mundane and tedious threads and you even complain about that. Sad.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 04:44 PM

Read my lips and an awful lot of other people's lips once and for all, Keith. WE. WILL. DISCUSS. WHAT. THE. HELL. WE. LIKE. IN. ANY. BS. THREAD. WE. LIKE. You do not get to dictate what we chime in with and I suggest you don't even suggest it. If you don't like it, complain to the mods and see where it gets you. The reason we do what we do is that your postings are in turns boring, repetitive, one-sided, hectoring, tedious, negative, lying, pointless and interminable. There is no end to any of it, Keith, and it poisons the air around here. We are leavening the bread, Keith. You simply steamroller the flatbread even flatter.

Yes------WE!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 05:05 PM

💩💩💩

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 05:50 AM

Jim,
Can we get one thing straight here Keith
I don't tell lies

You do, and usually about me.
Just recently you stated that I "defended" signs barring travellers.
I do not, never have and never would. You lied. You did not and could not quote me doing it.
They are not common, and I am glad of that.

This is typical of your lying behaviour
I have mut up masses of documented evidence of the Traveller signs - from civil rights groups, from councils, from writes writing about Travellers, from groups like The Runnymede Trust..... dozens and dozens of examples of these signs - even to the Weatherspoons case - and still you write
"How can they be common if no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar?"

Not lying Jim. You can not expect me to deny the evidence of my own eyes to believe your claims. You don't even live here.
In my life I have never seen one, nor has any Mudcatter except you, so they can not be "common throughout Britain."
You are wrong about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 05:58 AM

Dave,

Keith - You do it to try to stifle debate that does not suit you.
It is just a ploy, and an increasingly frantic and desperate one.

No I don't. That is an unsubstantiated allegation.:-D

It was substantiated by Steve who admitted that it was a ploy to stop discussion.

Steve,
WE. WILL. DISCUSS. WHAT. THE. HELL. WE. LIKE. IN. ANY. BS. THREAD. WE. LIKE.

Sadly, no-one can stop you, but I will criticise your behaviour as much as I like and will not be bullied into silence by you and your little gang.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 06:11 AM

Keith - How on earth does Steve saying that he does something confirm that I do it for the same reason? You really have lost the plot here.

BTW - I have an apology for you. When I said I would not want to debate with you it came across as quite harsh. Sorry if I offended you. I would be more than happy to discuss wild flowers, weather, holidays and all manner of things with you. Just not religion or politics.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 06:50 AM

Dave, much as I love those things, they do not make for stimulating discussion.
If I did want to talk about them I would not do it on a completely unrelated thread just to impede that discussion.
Do explain why you need to do that if not for the reason Steve does it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 07:13 AM

"You do, and usually about me.You do, and usually about me."
Prove it Keith - produce those lies - any moron can make such an accusation
Each time I have called you dishonest I have specified what you are being dishonest about
I've just given you an example
Ypou said I am yhe only person holding the view on Traveller signs yet I have given yuo massive documented proof that they are common and wides pread
What is that if it is not a lie
It dowesn't matter two farts which of the handful of Mudcatters hasn't seen the signs - I have and so havve thiose who wrote and campaigned on the issue - are we/they all liard because half a dozen people who have had no dealings whatever haven't seen the signs
A stupid, dishonest and very agenda-driven response on your part
The person who did see a sign, you dismissed as a troll and a liar because by the time you googled the pub it had been removed -- as happens with these signs when travellers move on.
"You don't even live here."
This is a mind-numbingly stupid, response to something that has detrimentally affected an entire community
I have lived in three of Britain's major cities and I have worked with Travellers in six - and in smaller towns - I saw the signs, I experienced our being refused servive in pubs - I even included a photograph of the sign in the notes to our CD
I do not lie - if I have, produce your examples.
The same with your claim that prominent people backed up your claimn of a cultural transplant - a hundredfold lie on your part
You have never produced a quote of anybody doing so, you have refused to link to the examples you claim you have put up, and when I sak you nowm, you will refuse to do so again
PLEASE LINK ME TO ANYBODY WHO HAS CLAIMED THAT MUSLIM CULTURE HAS IMPLANTED THE TENDENCY FOR ALL MALES TO DESIRE UNDERAGE SEX
Failure to respond to this request will confirm that the many dozens of times that you have made this claim have all been lies.
You have lied and distorted throughout aour arguments, the reason being that your aim has never been to share ideas and experiences, but to win arguments - I once counted up the number of times you have claimed to have "won" or we have "lost.
You are apparently the only individual on this forum who does that.
Now - let's have those "implant"quotes, if you have not been telling lies.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 07:38 AM

Do explain why you need to do that if not for the reason Steve does it.

I already have, Keith, on a number of occasions. I suspect that you do not read my posts properly. It is to lift the mood of the thread. And I do not need to do it. I want to do it. Please be more careful in your choice of words.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 10:45 AM

So Dave, you take it on yourself to choose what the mood of the thread should be, and then disrupt the discussion by swamping it with off topic posts.
I find that deplorable.
I would criticise such dictatorial behaviour from anyone.

Jim, a recent example of you lying was your claim that I defended the signs when I do not and never have. You lied.

Did I say "Ypou said I am yhe only person holding the view on Traveller signs." ?
The only person in the country or the world? I can not claim to know that and I do not believe I claimed it. Please quote me.

I did say that on or off Mudcat I have never found anyone else who has seen one, and that is proof that they are not "common throughout Britain" whatever you claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 10:55 AM

I find that deplorable.
I would criticise such dictatorial behaviour from anyone.

That's fine. You are entitled to your opinions. I am entitled to not really give a shit about them.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 01:48 PM

"your claim that I defended the signs when I do not and never have. You lied."
To deny them and to claim I made them up and to refuse to exept the documented evidence of their widespread nature is to defend them - as I said, you lied.
"How can they be common if no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar?"
I take it as you are going to ignore my request to be linked to your "implant" witnesses, you are accepting that you lied about that one too??
That'll do nicely, thank you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 03:57 PM

It's been another glorious day out here on the Connemara. Last night the music was superb with my mate and his grandson on Melodeon. The young lad is just 15 an a fantastic box player just like his Grandad. It was a VERY late night, or a very early morning, not sure which and far too much Guinness ........... if there is such a thing!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 04:18 PM

"The young lad is just 15 "
Plenty of time to grow out of the melodeon and take up a real instrument then!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 05:25 PM

Jim,
To deny them and to claim I made them up and to refuse to exept the documented evidence of their widespread nature is to defend them - as I said, you lied.

I do not defend them. I am glad that they are extraordinarily rare if they exist at all.
Malarial mosquitos are not common here either, and I do not defend them either. You lied.

I take it as you are going to ignore my request to be linked to your "implant" witnesses, you are accepting that you lied about that one too??

No Jim.
I did not and do not lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 06:27 PM

if they exist at all

You may note, although not really care, that never in my argument with Jim on this did I ever say that they did not exist. I have no reason to doubt that you have never seen them, Keith, as I have not either, but I have no reason to doubt Jim either. He has seen them and spoken to many people affected by them. Why can you both just not accept that both are telling the truth and both are right from their own point of view? Is it so difficult?

Maybe we should just stick to music. Although, Jim, looks like you have declared war on melodeon players :-)

What do you call perfect pitch? Tossing a bodhran in a skip without it touching the sides.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:50 AM

I made my position clear on the old 2013 thread.

"I do not claim there is not a single one.
That would be silly.
Someone could go out with a pad of Post It notes anytime.
But, the signs are not "common throughout Britain."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 03:54 AM

But you did just question whether they do exist, Keith

if they exist at all


If you do not claim there is not a single one, why question why they exist? Just wondering like!

Glorious weather here today. Downside is it means I will have to now the lawn.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 03:57 AM

""I do not claim there is not a single one."
You called my a liar and you said I had invented them
You lied and you continue to refuse to respond to the reports from charities I have put up
"I do not defend them. I am glad that they are extraordinarily rare if they exist at all."
And you continue to do so, despite those reports - comparing them to malarial mosquitoes is lying when you have been given full information of their existence.
That is straightforward lying Keith, whichever way you paint it and doing so is defending one of the most common and widespread prejudices - ostracisation - against Travellers today - as one of the reports say, "the last acceptable form of racism in Britain"
So there we have it - you have lied about not defending these signs and you continue to lie about your invisible army of "implant" experts.
THere seems very little need for me to look out any more examples of your dishonesty - that lot is enough to sink the Titanic
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 05:11 AM

I have not claimed they do not exist, just that they are not "common throughout Britain."

If they exist, they are very rare indeed or we would have seen one.

Jim, I said you lied about me and you did.
You claimed I defended the signs when I do not and never have.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 06:56 AM

"If they exist, they are very rare indeed or we would have seen one."
The fact thay you have not seen one meas SFA
The fact that you call into question their ecxistence and choose to ignore the information putt before you makes you both bigoted and dishonest
Why won't you address the information that has been put up (rhetorical question - it is because if contradicts your bigoted opinion and stops you from winning points)
And still no "implant" quotes
Are you happy with the examples of your dishonesty you requested?
Suppose not!!
Go away Keith - I think we're well and truely done here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 10:03 AM

I remember such signs in Manchester in my youth,nowadays they read things like "NO HOBBY CARAVANS" this is because of the prevelance of Hobby Caravans amongst the travelling community. People cannot stick up signs saying "NO TRAVELLERS" without risking sanction but in saying "NO HOBBY CARAVANS" they do not run that risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 10:22 AM

Pardon the ignorance of a Yank, but what on earth is a "HOBBY CARAVAN"??

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 10:28 AM

Incidentally I have just got back from a drive out this morning. Glorious sunshine once again, my good lady took a photograph of the temperature gauge in the car it read 25 degrees !!

The Broom in full blossom, gorgeous shades of yellow and orange, lambs abound, the loughs and the sea a stunning variety of blues, azures and greens. Fabulous, utterly fabulous.

We collected some coral and shells so I can make some jewellry tomorrow.

Music again tonight, it will be another late one, I might leave the bar early .............. at 3am !!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 11:06 AM

The fact thay you have not seen one meas SFA

Of course it does.
Unlike you I live here and always have.
If they really were common throughout Britain I would have seen one.
So would Dave.

The fact that we, and everyone else, have not seen one means they are not common throughout Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 11:29 AM

"Of course it does."
How does it - and your spiteful reference to where I live means nothing but that you are a spiteful little man who is running out of excuses for his bigotry
We worked with Travelers for thirty years - in London, in Birmingham, in Norfolk, in Liverpool, in Bristol and in Manchester - to name just some cities - not in a small town in the arsehole of rural England
The bulk of Travellers nowadays are city dwellers
You are quit happy to spend your as much of your life persecuting Travellers as you are Muslims - anybody who can't hit back is the motto of people like you
Squalid, squalid, squalid little man
And please stop using another member of this forum to back your nasty little campaign - it shows you as even nastier
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 11:53 AM

Jim, I really think you should take a break from Mudcat, your posts are full of anger and not good for the health of a senior citizen.

You are beginning to become obsessed by personality rather than the issues....your last post addressed to Keith is a typical example and I am sorry to say your arguments are becoming more and more incoherent. No one here thinks these signs were "common" I have never met anyone who has seen one and I live in an area where "travellers" are relatively common.

You showed the same incoherence in your support of the conspiracy theory, that housing agencies were deliberately making their tenants the target of violence and verbal abuse.......why on earth would such agencies invite attacks on their properties or their govt supported tenants?

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

Hobby are a German built, top quality caravan, the Rolls Royce of Caravans and as such are much desired by the Travelling community.

It is very rare to see "No Traveller" signs in this day and age but at one time such signs were commonplace. Watch documentries regarding the 50's and 60's for confirmation.

Due to some advance in our society, but more I suspect because of wishing to avoid prosecution, such signs are no longer displayed.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 12:27 PM

"Jim, I really think you should take a break from Mudcat, your posts are full of anger a"
And your spinelessly spiteful hit-'n- run posts are full of dishonesty
Min=d your own business if you are not going to take part in this
Keith is a racist - I though all socalists hate racism and oppose it whenever it shows its head - you seem happy to support it
Piss or get off the pot - Keith is capable of trying to apply his own censorship
I assume that you are referring to your support for making refugees wear yellow-star like identification long after the world had recognised it as a dangerous and degrading practice.
Your deliberate distortion of my objecttopn of this raciist programm,e is trpical of the distorted world you live in
I did not at any time claim "hat housing agencies were deliberately making their tenants the target of violence and verbal abuse" - that is a blatant and rather stupid lie. I said that the violence and vernal abuse (THAT WAS TAKING PLACE, INCIDENTALLY
) was the end result of adopting such an obscene scheme
oNLY RACIST SCUM WOULD SUPPORT SUCH A MOVE AFTER IT HAD BEEN SHOWN AS BEING DANGEROUS
jIM cARROLL

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 12:38 PM

"t is very rare to see "No Traveller" signs in this day and age "
Not you too, for crying out loud Raggy
We were photographing them into the 1990s and those photographs are arhived with the rest of our collection
Thet were still common in London and Bristol up to the point we stopped recording Travellers in 2005 and were still to be seen in the latter a feew years ago when Pat and I had to search the suburns of Bristo when we visited a group of Travellers
Family members of Travellers we recorded that we are still in touch with are still reporting them as common in Cities like Bristol and London and organisations like Runnymede Trust and anti racist groups are still trying to get them removed
This becomes ludicrous - do you have any grounds for claiming they are no longer common other than you haven't seen them?
How many Travellers have you people associated with to make such a claim?
Madness
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:05 PM

So would Dave.

The main reason that neither you nor I would see them Keith is that we would not be looking for them. We are not travelers. It does not affect us. You may be different but I tend to forget things that are irrelevant.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:06 PM

BTW Jim - The same would go for Raggy. He is not a traveler either so the signs would mean nothing to him. Callous it may be but that is how people work. Well, it is how I work anyway. There are too many things that demand my attention anyway without taking on more!

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:12 PM

Jim, I am of the opinion that there are no "racists" among the registered membership here.....we are all reasonably intelligent, most of us are capable of submitting and attempting to defend our views....I have come to know Keith quite well over the years and he is certainly not a racist. You have fallen into the trap of labelling people with whom you disagree as evil, to excuse yourself for the lack of a plausible argument.

If you wish to be taken seriously by people like Keith or Teribus, ranting and raving does your cause no good at all.

Calm down and you may be able to find common ground.....I know that I have done so in the past by refraining from nasty insults and personal abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:28 PM

If you wish to be taken seriously by people like Keith or Teribus

Why the fuck would anyone wish that on themselves?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:36 PM

"Jim, I am of the opinion that there are no "racists" among the registered membership here."
THen you exlain Keith's claim taht all make Pakistani Muslims are implanted culturally to have underage sex
Is that not racist in your book?
You have yet to explain your own persistence in suggesting that forcing asylum seekers to wear identificatoion tags after it has been foung to de dettrimental to their safety
Is that not racist?
Don;t know how much evidence you fellers want to prove signs barring travelers from being served in pubs and shops
Here's a sample from 2004 to the present day, if you don't wish to take my personal experience as evidence

Jim Carroll


"Commission fro Racial equality examines treatment of gypsies
The chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality has visited two gypsy sites as it launched a review of how travelling communities are treated.
The CRE is investigating how local authorities respond to their needs and what facilities have been set up.
Trevor Phillips was at east London sites in Hackney and Newham.
The review was launched after Gypsy and travellers' groups complained about councils' treatment, especially in planning, site provision and eviction.
Mr Phillips recently said: "Great Britain is still like the American deep south for black people (was) in the 1950s.
"Discrimination against gypsies and travellers appears to be the last 'respectable' form of racism.
"It is still considered acceptable to put up 'No traveller' signs in pubs and shops and to make blatantly prejudiced remarks about Gypsies and travellers. "
A CRE spokesman said: "Many public bodies, including local authorities have a legal obligation to eliminate discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and good race relations.
"This applies to all racial groups. CRE is keen to establish the extent to which local authorities are meeting these obligations in relation to gypsies and Irish travellers.
The organisation said the information from the scrutiny exercise will be used to produce guidance for local authorities.
It will set out what they should be doing in relation to gypsies and Irish travellers, to meet their statutory race equality obligations, and giving good practice examples
2004

The ASA took advice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) who had undertaken specific work into the issues affecting Gypsy and Traveller communities.
2014
The EHRC said research had shown that Gypsies and Travellers (which was the appropriate term when referring to those groups) were often subject to suspicion and disapproval because of negative public perceptions which in turn led to members of the community experiencing prejudice and harassment. They said, although racism from members of the public towards most ethnic minority groups was now widely viewed as unacceptable, it remained persistent and common towards Gypsies and Travellers and was generally seen as justified and the last "respectable" form of racism. The EHRC said they continued to receive complaints about 'No Travellers' signs.

Mark Willers QC (2016)
Ethnic Romani Gypsies, Irish Travellers, Scottish and Welsh Gypsy Travellers are all entitled to protection from discrimination under our equality legislation. However, despite the fact that such legislation has been in force for decades and has developed considerably to protect against increasingly subtle forms of discrimination, Romani Gypsies and Travellers still experience discrimination of the most overt kind. By way of example,
2012
"Bosses apologise at 'no travellers' sign at Blackburn Ice Arena"


2012
Conn Mac Gabhann is the Manager of the traveller project at the Irish Chaplaincy in Britain.
When my mother came to England in the 1950s to work as a nurse, the signs on the boarding houses said 'No Blacks, No Irish.' She described it as normal.
You couldn't get away with putting up signs like that now.
That's what I thought. Or really, what I thought was that nobody, even if they were racist, would be stupid enough to erect signs like that and attract the attention of the police.
I was wrong. And I was wrong on two counts. Firstly, because there are people stupid enough to put up the signs. Secondly, because I assumed that the police and the CPS would pursue these people under race relations legislation.
Before Christmas, I was walking up through a back street in north London when I noticed a pub that had a sign that read 'Travellers strictly by appointment only.'
I thought it was a mistake, so the next day I went back to the pub with my colleague Joe. The signs were there alright – three of them making it clear that Travellers weren't wanted.
Even though I've heard a lot of racism towards Travellers, I was surprised that in multi-cultural London a sign like that could remain in the open for some time. We took photos and reported the sign to the police, who promised they would investigate.
I went to the police station and made a long statement, stressing the seriousness of the crime. I made the point that such racist incidences prevent Travellers from getting legal work and getting on with their lives.
I stated that when there are signs like that it's not surprising that many Travellers in prison point to discrimination in schools and society as one factor that put them on the path to offending.
I stressed that, like everybody else, Travellers have a responsibility for their own actions. But I added that whenever Travellers as a group are singled out for unfair treatment it just means this section of society feel unjustly treated. Then everybody loses.
It is in the interests of the police and society that they pursue these cases of discrimination, otherwise Travellers will rightly feel aggrieved and disconnected.
Yesterday, I received a phone call from Islington Police Station. The CPS have decided not to pursue any action against the pub.

Hackney 2010
"Yes. Like going to pubs you see the sign "No Travellers", if you're having a wedding they won't give you a function room if they find out you're a Traveller. When you're walking on the street sometimes you get racist remarks". "Sometimes. Like the other day my children were being called trailer trash, but what's interesting to me was the week after the programme on Traveller's weddings on television they got some status in school. It's interesting how people can change their point of view if they're given enough information". "Sometimes. I suppose it's like every group, some people do look down on you. When you have to tick the box I used to put "other" and then write Traveller in but it's good to see they've got a "Traveller" box now, I always tick that…I have to make a point of ticking it 'cause that's who I am". "Yes and no…sometimes when you read the papers it puts you down so low…it's hard …but in Hackney in my day to day life no I don't". "Some place will have "Travellers By Appointment", so they cover their own backs without saying "No Travellers"
"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:38 PM

Dave,
The main reason that neither you nor I would see them Keith is that we would not be looking for them.

But you said you did see a travellers welcome sign in Britain.

"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!'"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 03:56 PM

"But you said you did see a travellers welcome sign in Britain."
Desperate nonsense - one pub welcomes them - we knew dozens that did over thirty years - largely the run-down ones that didn't get muchg custom elsewhere.
One particular pub in the Eat End welcomed them because the elderly Jewish couple who ran it said they recognised the discrimination against Travellers as similar to their own experiences.Resdpond to what has been put up - lies, made up by me (as you have already claimed) - what?
You have documented proof and all you ahve to offer is that you haven't seen one
Pathetic and racist
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 07:13 PM

I did, Keith, and there was a good reason for that. Somehow you failed to mention one other thing I mentioned in respect of that occasion. my Uncle had close dealings with the travelers themselves I wonder why you omitted that relevant fact this time when you had posted it before? You are so selective with your memory of these things and it is blatantly obvious. Dishonest is the best word to describe it.

Mowed the lawn and trimmed the hedge earlier. Lovely day for it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 09:14 PM

I drove the 270 miles from Richmond in west London back to Bude non-stop this evening. At my age I shouldn't be doing things like that, but, though I was totally knackered before we we'd even set off, and got caught in the mother and father of a snarl-up in the roadworks around Kew Bridge, just for once my eyelids didn't droop treacherously once the whole way. We got home at 10.15 and we've had salted almonds, crostini crackers, cherry tomatoes and manzanilla olives with lemon and coriander, washed down with Grillo (white) and Nero d'Avola (red) from Sicily. We have a gorgeous grandson in Richmond and we are deliriously happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 09:48 PM

💩💩💩

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 04:08 AM

Dave,
So now you claim not to notice such signs because you are not a Traveller!
No doubt you would also drink in blissful ignorance beneath a "no blacks" sign because you are white.
You would be oblivious to no Jews or Irish signs.

That would be shocking if it were true, but of course it is not.
A sign barring any ethnic minority would be so out of place that no-one could fail to notice it, and a man like you would do something about it too.

You have sacrificed your honesty to support another member of your little leftie clique.
A different, and grubby morality.

You were telling the truth earlier.
If those signs were really "common throughout Britain" one of us would have seen one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 04:35 AM

Yes, I was telling the truth earlier and, as before, you are ignoring the relevant section of what I said

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.

Why do you keep missing that bit out I wonder? As to 'supporting another member of your little leftie clique.' I point you to the next bit of that same quote

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.

So, how does that support Jim? If you look at the two parts together you will see that I am giving both sides of the argument and both are only part of the picture. You are dishonest with your selective quotes and as long as you keep doing do, I shall keep pointing it out.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 04:41 AM

Looks like a lovely day here again. Not got as long a journey as Steve but popping over to Manchester to see Mother. 80 and bit miles round trip. Been asked for tea by son number 2. Well, Mrs G has seeing as she is his Mum but I am sure he will feed me too :-) Chance to see the grandsons as well. May even get back in a bit of light seeing as the clocks have done strange things this morning!

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 04:52 AM

I'm curious Keith
Exactly why do you refuse to respond to the masses of information that has been put pup rather than moronially repeating W"they can't be common because I haven't seen one"?
Do you really hate Travellers and have a disregard for their rights that much?
Do you think the people who wrote those articles were lying?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 07:17 AM

Dave, you stated,
The main reason that neither you nor I would see them Keith is that we would not be looking for them. We are not travelers. It does not affect us.

You would have to read it to know it barred Travellers.
It would affect you if it barred people of Polish descent, but if it just barred Travellers or blacks you would ignore it and move on, THEN FORGET YOU HAD EVEN SEEN IT!

Tacit acceptance of racism. That would make you a bigot, and you suggest Rag is the same.

I do not claim no single sign exists, so I can not call anyone a liar, but if they were really common throughout Britain one of us would have seen one.
And remembered it!