dunroving

You seem to assume I have not encountered discrimination, or bad treatment based on the colour of my skin or perceived nationality (as in "Where you from, Boy?").

I have spent plenty of time being in a racial minority, so I am aware of the existence of what you are talking about. I have had my skin colour pointed out to me (as if I didn't know what colour my skin is ....).

From this experience, I'd say it can be simple/indisputable when you experience it, but the scenarios that are being bandied about in the news at the moment? I don't think the situation is as simple as it is being presented.

dunroving

I was referring to Post #19.

TheEmperorIsNaked

You are correct. I did.
It's unpleasant isn't it? I note the utter hypocrisy of so-called 'reverse discrimination'. Hypocritical because the recipients are upset and angry, yet completely fail to allow 'those of darker skins' the right to feel the same way! "It's only a problem if it's a problem for me" syndrome.

The scenario's being bandied about in the news atm? I wonder why that is?
Governments all over the world have instilled fear in the populace for hundreds of years, and thus ensured their obedience, by suggesting that they are under threat.
The people then distrust anyone who differs from them by even a split hair, thence ensuring the Government can behave in an increasingly dominant and undemocratic manner toward those who look different ((DON'T insult my intelligence by telling me this does not occur)- because they are 'protecting us from illegals and terrorists', aren't they?

Those same Governments can invade other countries for the most spurious of reasons-but of course that's OK-it's 'liberation'. That very frequently results in people fleeing to find sanctuary elsewhere, and engenders an increasingly militancy from some notable groups.....
.........and the cycle turns.

Government gets the people to do their dirty work, and the people willingly comply, endorsing what they do, and denying that it is based on anything but the desire to 'protect us'.

Domani.

campervanfan

[QUOTE=TheEmperorIsNaked;10832911]Very interesting. I am always interested in responses to this kind of example. It allows a window to the mindset of posters. Inclusive of myself..

The irony of this increasing invasion of human rights-is the rationalisation that 'if you've done nothing wrong' etc.
This has allowed the inexorable slide of the right to be considered innocent unless proved guilty.

Only a week ago, a programme here highlighted that it was easier to get access to Gitmo then it was to detention centres in Australia. Media is not allowed to access at all.

None of that would bother many of you, because after all they are 'illegals' aren't they?
This is very much the Pastor Neimueller thing:






why did you include the disclaimer "inclusive of myself" ? if you think you're clever enough to deduce any person's whole "mindset" based on their opinion on one subject, all power to you. From your own Mr Angry postings any of us could have guessed you have a personal axe to grind re. some type of racial discrimination. You don't actually know my personal background either, or any discrimination I might have encountered. I,like others ,am simply entitled to my own opinion of how illegal immigration is "policed" . Personally, I'd rather they try to do something about it rather than ignore it. In any country.

holly_1948

Anyway, the point is, profiling or no profiling, it is very un-British to be stopping people on the street going peacefully about their business and demanding (or even "requesting") identification papers.

Unlike entering employment, registering to vote, enrolling at a school, using NHS non-emergency services, getting a driving licence, getting caught speeding, even buying booze, fags or fireworks if you look very young. In those circumstances it is reasonable to demand identification.

I don't want England to drift into being an "un-British" country. Not acceptable, must stop.

TheEmperorIsNaked

[QUOTE=campervanfan;10833421] - For exactly what you've done here!
Expressing an opinion; expressing several of them gives the reader a profile (don't you love that thing: profile? So handy),-an idea of the mindset of the author.
I did not exclude myself from that;-it would have been 'I form an opinion of you; but you must not reciprocate'!...a bit unfair I reckon. It is not difficult to work out how people think...reading what they write.
....or do you think they don't really mean it?

- 'Mr Angry' eh? Love it! I reckon I could make that a username! I certainly intend to use it now! (though it says a tad more about you than me).
As to the rest-we ALL have an axe to grind! Any strongly expressed view could be interpreted thus!!

- Most all of us deal with Effect because we don't want to take the responsibility of Cause (which can go back decades or centuries).
I refuse to do that. I always look at Cause. That was my job; it's a habit!

- You are indeed 'entitled to your own opinion'-so am I. And as is evident for both of us;-we can agree or disagree.

And we have done.

(Hope you like the glorious technicolor! I did it special like).

Mr Angry !

Bud the Wiser

Racial profiling or common sense.

Racial profiling or not having the inside knowledge as to why certain people are stopped and question.

Everything isn't always as it seems. There is a lot goes on behind the scenes that the general public are not privy to.

TheEmperorIsNaked

Tell me: are you assuming I did not know this?
I think? I know this better than you, but it has nothing to do with my culture or otherwise. It has everything to do with a family member and the professional position held at a very senior level. I won't go further than that, except to say that we had some interesting discussions.

(I realise we can manufacture anything we like online, but I's not fibbing!)

Bud the Wiser

What is 'this" you're referring to.

I'm not assuming anything, and certainly not at any individual.

You may have to think again unless you're assuming that is. In which case assume away.

TheEmperorIsNaked

'This' is your post Bud-your post! Sheesh!

Bud the Wiser

Ah, get it now. "This' was my post. Can you tell me where I assumed anything about you, or any other poster for that matter?

My post simply came from personal experience in the first line and listening to the experienced professionals in the later two lines. I can give you examples in all cases, albeit non verifiable, but certainly belivable. (sp)

No personal attacks or insults or dare I say assumptions anywhere.

Dubaiexile

This is a very good report (and also quotes the story of 2 Asian women being stopped)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/tal...3.html#FxGsNvR

TheEmperorIsNaked

'Ah, I get it now'. Me too...

I was just engaging in 'civil discourse'...believe it or not, and responding to your post, but though it is you,- your post, it had to be a 'personal attack'? Surely not?

I didn't see you as that sensitive; bloody smart I'll grant, but not that sensitive.

holly_1948

Maybe.

Stopping someone with probable cause (such as an overheard admission) or lying in wait for a suspect who was identified in advance is proper. I have no objection to that.

But stopping people on the street (just going about their daily business) whether by racial profiling or other profiling of "likely suspects" or even randomly is un-British (and something UKBA does not [yet] have a legal power to do, but they do it nonetheless). One of these, probably ethnicity profiling going by the publicity, was happening in Kensal Green.

Lord Goodman's words to the House of Lords directly addressed this topic and are as true today as they were in 1951 when he said them.

TheEmperorIsNaked

Excellent link thanks!

Agreed. And it is not difficult to distinguish in this age of intelligence gathering.

'We're keeping you safe'; allows an ever increasing invasion of the privacy of a public going about its lawful business.
It is getting worse, and it's unsurprising that it is being increasingly questioned.