|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sat 30 May 23:35
Trump is now changing his tune a little, effecting to distinguish between peaceful protestors and violent ones. Normally his default position is to abuse all protestors unless they are Aryan Fascists. I see that Dr Martin Luther King’s children have been wheeled out to condemn the violence. And been ignored.
Thank goodness for that. The protestors have moved from burning shops in their area, which is counterproductive, to attacking police stations and CNN buildings. This is a more productive energy if people want to change the society they live in. I understand these actions are being downplayed in the UK media where we still have 20,000 US servicemen guarding our freedom, albeit the war ended in 1945. Conversely the pictures from around the USA are possibly being overplayed to me here in Moscow to the delight of the Kremlin.
If the protestors start to attack the banks or call on Black soldiers in military bases to come out with their weapons held high then we will know that a revolt has become a revolution. At the moment it looks like merely a temporary revolt. However whenever a government puts troops on the street the stakes rise alarmingly for both sides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sun 31 May 11:20
The US police seem absolutely insane. I saw a video of a family sat on their porch chanting and a full on squad in body armour opened fire on them. Assume it was soft bullets but it was still ridiculous.
I'm not going to vilify all police officers but it seems like there are a fair few bad eggs in their ranks. Are UK officers like this? They all seem perfectly pleasant in the limited experience I've had of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 31 May 11:39
Ours don't normally carry guns which is generally quite reassuring I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Mon 1 Jun 14:10
Just watched a video of the public catching fully uniform officers smash and spray paint one of their own vehicles....wtf?
Carole Baskin fed Rasta to a tiger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 1 Jun 16:20
Not sure if it's fake, but there's a video of 3 police officers apprehending a black man despite him telling him he's the wrong person. They cuff him whilst he continues to tell them they have the wrong guy. He's calling them a bad word but not in an aggressive way. They pull his ID out. He's FBI...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: widtink
Date: Mon 1 Jun 16:36
Have seen that vid... It's still on YouTube.
Please do not post it to this site.
Admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 1 Jun 16:50
I wasn't going to 😉 I've since found out it's real but from a year ago. May seem irrelevant but it shows how black people get treated. It's an interesting one to see. Why are black people assumed to be guilty whereas someone with fairer skin isn't?
Even in the UK we couldn't cope with a mixed race princess. People say it was down to Megan Markle's attitude but you could see the clear distinction between her and Kate Middleton (noone mentions Kate specifically went to St Andrews to snare William or that she effectively paraded in front of him in a see through dress to get his attention).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Wed 3 Jun 23:39
No only did she specifically go to St Andrew's she waited to see what course he was on and enrolled in the same classes.
In my book that's the actions of a stalker yet everyone ignores the psycho behaviour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 4 Jun 08:11
Exactly. If that were Megan Markle we would see words like "snare" and "hunted" and "bagged". Instead it's like "their eyes met across a room".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Thu 4 Jun 09:50
Can anyone link to any articles expanding on that. Not saying what you claim isn't true just all I can find is daily mail and express gossip pieces.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 4 Jun 16:54
On Kate and Wills? It was widely reported at the time that they met briefly at a party and the next encounter was her modeling lingerie at a fashion show. Again, it was also widely reported that she swapped from Edinburgh Uni to St Andrews. Only she'll know the reasoning but it seems coincidental.
There's various examples that have been provided about Megan Markle Vs Kate Middleton. Just last week we saw the condemnation of Tatler for publishing claims about Middleton. Did we ever see anything said about all the nonsense about Markle? There's some comic example such as Markle being criticised for eating avocado whilst Kate is praised. Some will argue it's to do with personality but this seems suspect. She's clearly being picked on for her race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Thu 4 Jun 16:59
So it was widely reported, quite possibly wrongly, that Kate Middleton changed university and courses and dressed seductively all in an attempt to woo Prince William (who obviously was powerless to resist such temptation). If so I'd suggest that such reports don't paint Kate Middleton in a very positive light.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 4 Jun 18:08
She definitely wore what she wore. There's photographic evidence. Sheer coincidence he was in the front row...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Thu 4 Jun 18:19
Aye Jake89 sheer $275 front seat ticket coincidence :)
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
Post Edited (Fri 05 Jun 08:33)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Thu 4 Jun 19:01
Were any other women wearing revealing dresses at this fashion show?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Fri 5 Jun 00:48
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Thu 4 Jun 09:50
Can anyone link to any articles expanding on that. Not saying what you claim isn't true just all I can find is daily mail and express gossip pieces.
It all came out in a book by the Royal Editor for the Mail on Sunday. Can't remember her name off the top of my head but think she may have also been called Kate.
There were excerpts from the book in the Mail on Sunday over a few weekends at the time which I saw on social media.
Bare in mind Royal correspondents for the press have really good access to the Royal family especially when they work for the more pro royal media. So I have little doubt over the validity of the claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 5 Jun 07:33
Making such claims about the future Queen would hardly make those correspondents pro royal though. It seems like the sort of sensationalist nonsense put inserted into copy to sell books.
The reason I think it is nonsense is because it just doesn't really make sense. It does prove however that being white won't protect an outsider to the Royal family protection from the press.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Fri 5 Jun 12:20
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Thu 4 Jun 16:59
So it was widely reported, quite possibly wrongly, that Kate Middleton changed university and courses and dressed seductively all in an attempt to woo Prince William (who obviously was powerless to resist such temptation). If so I'd suggest that such reports don't paint Kate Middleton in a very positive light.
This is one of the reports:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408581/Kate-Middleton-Duchess-Cambridge-changed-university-close-Prince-William.html
It's actually very neutral in tone and appears to report on a series of factual decisions including Kate's mother having a chat about a potential future marriage. There is no criticism or suggestion of conniving on the part of Kate.
I tend to agree with the guys that if that had been Meghan there is very little chance that the reporting would have been as nice.
In fact this is an Express article on Meghan:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/887134/meghan-markle-prince-harry-latest-royal-wedding-charity-princess-diana-Ninaki-Priddy
The Express article seems to open pleasantly enough then dives into quotes from an old pall saying Harry somehow fallen for her plan and oh and by the way if that wasn't scheming enough she wants to replace Diana and we all know there could only be one Queen of Hearts...
They then take sly digs at the start of her career. What actor/actress didn't say yes to every part they were offered when they were starting out.
Then they say that whoever set them up on a blind date must have known that her charity work would appeal to Harry (imagine good deeds being appealing - what a boot) and generally give the impression that her charity work (which she started well before ever meeting Harry) was all geared towards landing him.
If the Express had applied the same standards (ha I just put that in a sentence! - methodology might have been a better word) reporting on Megan as the Mail did reporting on Kate, none of the speculative stuff from the former best friend or sister would have been in there so why the difference?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 5 Jun 13:18
But is that to do with Megan's race? Now I know by definition nationality can be regarded as race but could it be that any American would be treated differently regardless of the racial parentage of that person?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 5 Jun 14:10
That's the argument people use. So let's look at this another way:
Why would people treat Meghan Markle differently to Kate Middleton?
They're both women of a similar age. They've both made similar demands. They're both married into royalty.
So what's different? Nationality and race are the two main things.
So we're either looking at xenophobia or racism...
But then we have media personalities like Danny Baker suggesting their child is an ape...
Then there's the comments from the public in the mainstream media. These go unmoderated despite making reference to "tainting" royalty.
Let's be honest, even now they've moved to the US there is still regular criticism of Markle. She was criticised for not speaking out on US race relations then criticised for her statement seeming scripted. Can't win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Fri 5 Jun 16:21
How easy you let a potential paedo rapist president off the hook by turning the thread into Hello magazine....
Carole Baskin fed Rasta to a tiger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Fri 5 Jun 17:23
We're still discussing racism and how the UK isn't immune to it but we're comparing the treatment of a white middle class British princess vs the treatment of a foreign non white working class princess in the media.
Everyone knows Trump's views on race. He's never hidden it. Where it is often far less obvious is how the media shape views over a prolonged period of time often through some quite subtle use of language.
While you may disagree, I'd make an argument that the subtle manipulation of views via the media is actually more dangerous to race relations over the long term vs the overt bombastic approach of the likes of Trump.
As TOWK points put there's no certainly no smoking gun in the article I posted but when you look at the reporting over a prolonged period of time you can see a discrepancy in the way reports are published about the two.
I'm maybe reading too much into this line:
"Not so long ago a union between Harry, who is fifth in line to the throne, and a foreigner who is a divorced, former gameshow girl would have been unthinkable"
But there seems to be an amalgamation of things that have actually happened individually in the past (possible exclusion of game show girl but think commoner instead) in terms of royal marriages but then seam to have all been rolled into one and are used slightly disparagingly against MM whilst trying to retain a veneer of impartiality.
They report on her friends derogatory comments and then say it's unlikely it's true so why report those comments? The article then goes on to discuss ways that MM got into fund raising has part of the master plan to snare a prince apparently fulfilling what her mate had said she was trying to do. By the end of the article the line about her mate probably talking shecht is lost. Why?
I don't think discussing those differences changes anyone's views on Trump but TOWK may have some good views on why disagrees with my take on the above and maybe my bias is prejudicing my view on the Express.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 5 Jun 19:09
In fairness to Patel, she does seem to get more criticism than her white counterparts. That said, doesn't help when she's talking about twenty-hundred, three thousand and sixty-eighty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Fri 5 Jun 22:44
Pastels had no worse abuse than any other useless idiot in government. The woman is a collosal c*nt
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 5 Jun 22:56
When I do my daily chore and read the Daily Express and Daily Mail websites it’s clear that Meghan Markle remains on their hit list of public figures. Not quite the full frontal seething hatred reserved for Jeremy Corbyn, Michel Barnier or Vladimir Putin; more a continual stream of negative stories akin to that suffered by Nicola Sturgeon and Angela Merkel. I’ve not a clue whether that is racially motivated or not but it is interesting that royal figures who have been openly rude to the media and been involved in more controversy than Markle- such as Prince Philip, Princess Ann and Prince Andrew- do not get this treatment.
Does this tabloid hero and villain approach actually affect the way people judge public characters? I am not sure it changes opinions so much as consolidates opinions already held. But it must be effective up to a point otherwise the millionaires who own the newspaper media would just cut their immense losses.
Take TOWK’s earlier comment about Jeremy Corbyn being ‘schooled’ at PM Question Time. Corbyn was at heart an activist, a man who collected signatures for good causes but was better at rallying his own support than winning over undecided voters. So it’s easy to accept he was no great performer at the dispatch box. But let’s remember who was supposed to be ‘schooling’ Corbyn: Theresa May! A politician who got stage fright and whose voice broke under pressure. That Theresa May? She was schooling Corbyn? I hardly think so. Not even the Express or Mail went so far as to claim that but it fits their overall narrative of Corbyn being ineffective and is presented as a ‘fact’ by TOWK. Along with his claim Corbyn was calling for a General Election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 5 Jun 23:55
Jeremy Corbyn faced off against three Prime Ministers, Cameron, May and Johnson. I'm confident of stating that as a fact. Obviously any opinion i declare about Corbyns performance can't be a fact because its entirely subjective.
I never claimed he called for an election but he voted along with the government to circumvent the fixed term parliament act. He should have been resisting any attempt to have an early election. The tories were riding high in the polls but were also drowning in a brexit soup and an election victory was going to be their only lifeline. As Napolean famously said, 'never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake'.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sat 6 Jun 00:19
Due to Johnson suspending parliament there were very few PM Question Times on which to draw much of conclusion between him and Corbyn. Cameron was certainly slicker than Corbyn I grant you.
I don't disagree with your logic regarding calling an election with the Tories stalemated, but the reality was slightly different. Johnson brought in a bill to circumvent the Fixed Terms Parliament Act which would have allowed a General Election to be called on a simple majority. The Tories and the SNP understandably welcomed this but for reasons known only to psychiatrists the Lib Dems thought an election would be a good idea as well. They were anticipating being the major party after it!
This meant a General Election bill would pass the House of Commons without a single Labour vote being required. What was Corbyn to do in this situation? Refuse to vote, or vote against? Either of those would have seen him labelled as running scared of an election, an election which he could not prevent anyway. Maybe he had made misjudgements earlier which landed him in this jam, but once the other parties were prepared to vote for a General Election there was little else he could have done but support it. Swinson is the person responsible for bailing out the Tories: not Corbyn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 6 Jun 00:36
Yep you are quite correct that by the time it came to vote in mid October he had already been, if not outmanoeuvred, then certainly put into check. The Conservative strategy had been well telegraphed and like you said Corbyn really should have taken steps to avoid what was an obvious trap. Perhaps the pollsters failings in 2016 and 2017 had given him false hope.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 7 Jun 08:09
The police have backed off from protests in LA and Washington DC and lo and behold those protests are peaceful.
It's almost as if their confrontational attitude made it much worse
#DefundThePolice
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Sun 7 Jun 12:02
The way this is going and the longer that it goes on, the more possible it becomes for Trump, and perhaps his family too, to have their very own Ceausescu moment.
For some time now, I have felt that Trump's presidency will end violently - especially if he loses in November and refuses to go. If he wins, then the odds for an insurrection will be narrowed considerably. There is no way that a sizeable chunk of America will calmly accept four more years of this.
The deadly combination of the insanity in the White House, the US Government's appalling response to Coronavirus, sudden and massive unemployment plus the tensions around the police killings, all point to a tinder box that is just waiting for a single spark to ignite it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sun 7 Jun 21:38
Today there are a few reports of moves to replace both Johnson and Trump coming from within their own parties.
Trump refusing to recognise an election he lost would be entirely in character, but to do so he would need the support of the military which I very much doubt he possesses. Not much point putting the army on the streets if they end up pointing their rifles at the White House. A Head of State who cannot be bothered to offer even the illusion of being a unifying figure can only rule through force and I doubt he has the ability to command such force.
Johnson is still needed to ‘get brexit done’ but by then an enquiry will be reporting on why an island nation, with natural barriers and a few weeks warning, ended up with a death toll 6x that of Germany. In football terms it’s Germany 6 England 0 and cannot be explained away even by the most blinkered brexiteer. Once brexit is finally signed, sealed and delivered I would not anticipate Johnson or Cummings lasting much longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sun 7 Jun 21:42
Correction, it's Germany 6 - 0 UK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sun 7 Jun 23:01
Of course that's right.
I was imagining the headline in The Sun had the death tolls from covid virus been reversed. I think 'England Uber Alles' or 'England 6 Krauts 0' would not have been far off the mark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
