BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 08:59 AM

"When I said 'Guardian' I was of course including the Observer too Steve."


💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 07:12 AM

So, in answer to the question I posed at the start of this part of the discussion - Wonder why this has not been as widely reported in the popular press as when Labour lose a seat? - Your answer is that the media did not think it was newsworthy? Yet it is newsworthy when Labour lose a seat. Can you not see the hypocrisy in that? Does it not underline the point that the media are only interested in discrediting the Labour party and/or Corbyn? As you seem to be?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 06:47 AM

When I said "Guardian" I was of course including the Observer too Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 06:42 AM

I am just the messenger Dave.
It is the Guardian, Mirror and BBC who have dismissed it as not newsworthy.
Well, all the media except the Indy and FT.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 06:36 AM

Nonsense. An increase from 1 to 5 is 5 times as many by anyone's reckoning. . I don't think that has happened elsewhere.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 06:33 AM

"it would just take an anonymous call to the police to get one removed and the perpetrator in a heap of trouble."
From the evidence you have chosen to dishonestly ignore Keith]
"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."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 06:29 AM

Jim,
You are defending the signs by dismissing them as being as rare

No. I am stating a fact that they are not common, and I am not alone in that. I do not defend them and never have or would.

I did not compare their rarity to malarial mosquitos, I made the point that recognising something is rare does not constitute defending them.

Now, if you were not lying again, quote me actually defending those signs.
Good luck with that liar.

Dave, yes you did make the point about coverage.
The fact that even Left Wing papers and broadcasters ignored it suggests they do not think the "massive increase" from 1% to 5% so significant, or "historic."

They were not up against the other parties for a start, so it is a very unusual kind of election.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 05:15 AM

perhaps because so few papers and no broadcasters covered it.

Did I not pose the question as to why it had not been covered? We really do speak a different language.

An increase from 1 to 5 seats is massive increase in anyone's books.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:58 AM

"but he does tell lies."
prove it Keith
I have given you your examples Kewith - now you give me mine
"Jim raised the issue by lying that I had defended the signs."
You are defending the signs by dismissing them as being as rare as Malarial mosquitos and doubting their aexistence "if they exist at all".
You have been given masses of information on them which you simply refuse to respond to or acknowledge
In doing this you are defending them dishonestly
Respond to the evidence Keith or accept you have been exposed as a liar and a bigot
PRODUCE THE LIES YOU SAY I HAVE TOLD OR ADD THIS ACCUSATION TO YOUR OWN LONG LIST OF LIES
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:34 AM

Re local elections in City.
Your link was to Reuters, perhaps because so few papers and no broadcasters covered it.
Just the Indy (on line only) and the Financial Times.
Where was the Mirror and Guardian?

Perhaps this from the Indy adds some perspective to the "historic win."

"The Council has historically been dominated by independent councillors as the main political parties have tended not to field candidates in City elections.
However, Labour routinely contests some wards and in today's election the party increased its representation from one to five.
The remaining 95 seats were taken by independents or candidates with no party description.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-city-of-london-election-vote-independence-jeremy-corbyn-a7649221.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:21 AM

Dave,
apparent contradiction between " I can not call anyone a liar" and "no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar" then?

No contradiction intended. I do not accuse Jim of lying about this, he is just wrong, but he does tell lies.

Anyone could write such a notice anytime so I would not claim none exist, but that could well be the case.
They are illegal so it would just take an anonymous call to the police to get one removed and the perpetrator in a heap of trouble.

I do claim, with great confidence, that they are not "common throughout Britain" or one of us living here would have seen one.
We still haven't Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:02 AM

Wonder why this has not been as widely reported in the popular press as when Labour lose a seat?

Historic win for Britain's Labour in City of London elections


DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 04:01 PM

Right, but just never ask me to stick to the thread topic ever again, Keith. Got my grass cut today. Good drying east wind made it possible. Damned hard work though. I've caught the sun. How daft is that! Lasagne with tomato, rocket and red pepper salad tonight, olive oil and balsamic dressing. Garlic bread. Prosecco and a bottle of aglianico from Vesuvius. As they say oop north, I could quite happily be miserable living like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 01:53 PM

I can accept that it may not say that they do not exist. How are you going to explain away the apparent contradiction between " I can not call anyone a liar" and "no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar" then?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 01:49 PM

Blimey. Remind me to remind Keith of this jolly little diversion next time he tries to force US to stick to the thread topic.

Jim raised the issue by lying that I had defended the signs.
If he would stop making false accusations against me, I would immediately stop rebutting them.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 01:45 PM

Dave,
you and I do not see because it does not affect us

Nonsense! Such a sign would be so outrageously unacceptable and provocative that I would certainly notice it and do something about it, and I do not believe that you or Rag would be any different.

My statements that you quoted, "if such signs exist at all" and "no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar" are not claims that no signs exist, which I do not claim and never have.

I do claim that the signs are not "common throughout Britain" because if they were it would not be just Jim who has ever seen one!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 11:35 AM

Could be fairy ring mushroom if it's on your lawn. If it's Marasmius oreades, it's delicious. Cut the stalks off. If it isn't, you may die.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 11:35 AM

Yet another glorious day out on the Connemara, people sitting in the sunshine in the market square enjoying the warmth and a pint.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 11:30 AM

You guys have Morels over there in Blighty? They're the only ones I dare mess with as its impossible to mistake' em for anything unfortunate.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 11:02 AM

Smallish brown capped mushrooms with thin stems. The tops look a little like chestnut mushrooms but they are too small. Quite a lot of them and in the relative open but sometimes shaded area of the lawn. They don't look anything like the St Georges one.

Cheers

D

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 10:06 AM

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

And there you have the reason why this forum is in the state it currently is.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 09:21 AM

I do consume a number of species of wild fungi, when I'm cast-iron certain of their identity. The only one of any size I can think of at this time of year would be St George's Mushroom, but it's probably a few weeks' too early for that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 08:06 AM

WAnd still you refuse to respond to the articles and statements put up Keith
You have no case until you do
Are they lies?
Have I made them up
Why won't you respond to them?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 07:47 AM

Found mushrooms when I mowed the lawn yesterday, Steve. I don't know enough about them to try eating them but they looked OK. The more I think about the more I am determined to get rid of the damned leylandii and replace when with a trellis and climbers of some sort. Trouble is, there is a whole eco-system of spadgers in there. I think they nest more in next doors privets but they use the leylandii as an extension for guests :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 07:42 AM

Still getting the wrong end of the stick, Keith, and playing the racist card to obfuscate the issue. Purposely I suspect and on your sabbath too. The point I am making is that there are two sides to the story. The one that you and I do not see because it does not affect us and the one that travelers do see all the time because it affects them directly.

I do not claim no single sign exists, so I can not call anyone a liar

Errr, so, what about "if such signs exist at all" and "no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar". Porkies as well as misrepresentation. You will never get though them pearly gates at this rate. Off to church with you and I hope they do confessions!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 07:34 AM

Blimey. Remind me to remind Keith of this jolly little diversion next time he tries to force US to stick to the thread topic.

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!

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: 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: 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: 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: bobad
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 09:48 PM

💩💩💩

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 02:06 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:03 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.