By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I find it hard to believe that you think all illegal immigrant's are black/brown because the last time I looked Albanians who surprisingly are a big percentage of illegal immigrants are white so what he said wasn't racist .
Sadly , people cannot define racism It’s about how one feels Radcliffe is not racist It’s stimulating to look for racist material
I find it hard to believe that you think all illegal immigrant's are black/brown because the last time I looked Albanians who surprisingly are a big percentage of illegal immigrants are white so what he said wasn't racist .
Doesn’t really matter about colour. Ratcliffe lumped together all immigrants. Which makes his comments racist.
As you know I post a lot on the non football board on here, and I’m pretty sure I’ve never called another poster racist. I don’t use that work lightly.
However, Jim Ratcliffe’s comments were racist
0
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 23:17 - Feb 15 with 892 views
Doesn’t really matter about colour. Ratcliffe lumped together all immigrants. Which makes his comments racist.
As you know I post a lot on the non football board on here, and I’m pretty sure I’ve never called another poster racist. I don’t use that work lightly.
However, Jim Ratcliffe’s comments were racist
Nothing racist about it as much as i detest the man. Apparently we live a democratic society that allegedly allows free speech that shouldnt be restricted by the outraged minority.
4
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 01:06 - Feb 16 with 864 views
Doesn’t really matter about colour. Ratcliffe lumped together all immigrants. Which makes his comments racist.
As you know I post a lot on the non football board on here, and I’m pretty sure I’ve never called another poster racist. I don’t use that work lightly.
However, Jim Ratcliffe’s comments were racist
I want to understand but am trying to see how a collective noun that encompasses multiple social types is racist, remembering the origin of the term "racism" and its claim that humankind is divided into separate physical groups differentiated by phenotype and genetics. One way to analyse how categories are used in language is the idea of membership categorisation devices, collections of categories that cluster together. Immigrant would be part of the category set that includes native (or resident or citizen) and emigrant. I do not see how describing persons arriving on the UK with the intention to settle as "immigrants" rather than listing all the included categories that one might unpack is racist. How does this speech act relate to any claim that races exist in nature and that some races are superior to others? Can you unpack the logic or chain of reasoning?
[Post edited 16 Feb 1:24]
0
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 01:32 - Feb 16 with 850 views
People are calling him a hypocrite because his team is full of immigrants. But his immigrants are skilled. His point is more to do with the unskilled immigrants who come here and sponge for money. Like the ones Tottenham have.
Thought the influx of welcomed refugees greeted at Dover with open arms would solve the shortage of Doctors , engineers and teachers the Uk had sadly lacked by cut backs lately .
Now these most welcome guests are a minefield for a Politican Party to upset their core voters in their upcoming by election , any chance we can defer another top topic please .
Votes for the allegedly Public Servants , corrupt Government included will get the better of any honest voice of reason for the best .
Just who can you trust these days , I despair again
0
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 01:41 - Feb 16 with 846 views
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 01:06 - Feb 16 by AnotherJohn
I want to understand but am trying to see how a collective noun that encompasses multiple social types is racist, remembering the origin of the term "racism" and its claim that humankind is divided into separate physical groups differentiated by phenotype and genetics. One way to analyse how categories are used in language is the idea of membership categorisation devices, collections of categories that cluster together. Immigrant would be part of the category set that includes native (or resident or citizen) and emigrant. I do not see how describing persons arriving on the UK with the intention to settle as "immigrants" rather than listing all the included categories that one might unpack is racist. How does this speech act relate to any claim that races exist in nature and that some races are superior to others? Can you unpack the logic or chain of reasoning?
[Post edited 16 Feb 1:24]
Facts aren't racist.
‘United wishes and good will cannot overcome brute facts, Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is.’ - Winston Churchill
As the saviour of Western civilisation and a lifelong opponent of Bolshevism the rabid, flea-riddled left hate Churchill with passion of course....as do the followers of the paedophile desert warlord..
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia (rabies) in a dog" - Winston Churchill
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall Sir Jim, Rupert Lowe or any other self-made Brit millionaire blowing up kids at a music venue in Manchester of late or organising and facilitating the mass rape of thousands of young girls....?
However, Radcliffe, Rowling, Churchill and Lowe are the sort of terrible people we should be on our guard against in this wonderful diverse nation of ours aren't they...?
Answers on a postcard to Labour HQ, 20 Rushworth Street, Southwark, London, SE1 0RB
[Post edited 16 Feb 2:07]
“Cunnilingus and Psychiatry brought us to this …”
0
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 06:24 - Feb 16 with 789 views
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 01:06 - Feb 16 by AnotherJohn
I want to understand but am trying to see how a collective noun that encompasses multiple social types is racist, remembering the origin of the term "racism" and its claim that humankind is divided into separate physical groups differentiated by phenotype and genetics. One way to analyse how categories are used in language is the idea of membership categorisation devices, collections of categories that cluster together. Immigrant would be part of the category set that includes native (or resident or citizen) and emigrant. I do not see how describing persons arriving on the UK with the intention to settle as "immigrants" rather than listing all the included categories that one might unpack is racist. How does this speech act relate to any claim that races exist in nature and that some races are superior to others? Can you unpack the logic or chain of reasoning?
[Post edited 16 Feb 1:24]
Because that's how it's defined. Perhaps, logically at least, that definition may not appear to be correct but racism is considered to be:-
"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
0
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 09:10 - Feb 16 with 732 views
Because that's how it's defined. Perhaps, logically at least, that definition may not appear to be correct but racism is considered to be:-
"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
Surely you should realise that the definition you put forward is contested. Blair Imani in the video clip link I posted, herself as right-on an anti-racism activist as you will find, flatly contradicted what you are arguing. The controversy is feeding into the government's efforts to draft a definition of Islamophobia, with the formulation they have come up with thought not to satisfy Muslim campaigners.
In any event, your post again fails to explain the exact mechanism whereby Ratcliffe's use of the word "immigrants" can be heard as an expression of racism. It may also be worth getting to grips with the idea of "racialisation" as a concept that underlies racism, and considering the processes that racialisation involves and whether Ratcliffe used any of them (I don't think he did).
I have been explicit about how I come to my understanding of how "immigrants" would be heard by speakers in our language community. Perhaps you could dip into the sociolinguistics literature to explain to me how you or Gwyn arrive at a different hearing of the word
A final thought is that your own favoured definition involves discrimination against a particular group, whereas Gwyn's argument was that the failure to specify a particular group within the category immigrants was itself racist. I'm sorry but I think the logic is all over the place.
Thought the influx of welcomed refugees greeted at Dover with open arms would solve the shortage of Doctors , engineers and teachers the Uk had sadly lacked by cut backs lately .
Now these most welcome guests are a minefield for a Politican Party to upset their core voters in their upcoming by election , any chance we can defer another top topic please .
Votes for the allegedly Public Servants , corrupt Government included will get the better of any honest voice of reason for the best .
Just who can you trust these days , I despair again
Good post that Robbie.
And you're right none of them are trustworthy, none.
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 09:10 - Feb 16 by AnotherJohn
Surely you should realise that the definition you put forward is contested. Blair Imani in the video clip link I posted, herself as right-on an anti-racism activist as you will find, flatly contradicted what you are arguing. The controversy is feeding into the government's efforts to draft a definition of Islamophobia, with the formulation they have come up with thought not to satisfy Muslim campaigners.
In any event, your post again fails to explain the exact mechanism whereby Ratcliffe's use of the word "immigrants" can be heard as an expression of racism. It may also be worth getting to grips with the idea of "racialisation" as a concept that underlies racism, and considering the processes that racialisation involves and whether Ratcliffe used any of them (I don't think he did).
I have been explicit about how I come to my understanding of how "immigrants" would be heard by speakers in our language community. Perhaps you could dip into the sociolinguistics literature to explain to me how you or Gwyn arrive at a different hearing of the word
A final thought is that your own favoured definition involves discrimination against a particular group, whereas Gwyn's argument was that the failure to specify a particular group within the category immigrants was itself racist. I'm sorry but I think the logic is all over the place.
[Post edited 16 Feb 9:28]
It's not my definition it's from the Oxford dictionary and is largely similar in the Equality act. It may be contested but until it's changed Sir Jim's comment was racist.
[Post edited 16 Feb 12:56]
-2
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 12:57 - Feb 16 with 640 views
The country has become a complete and utter joke! £500,000 pay out for having phones taken away! And creepy and obviously "not in their right mind" (normal people do not act like that!) idiots getting kids to send Valentines cards to migrants.
Argus!
2
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 13:27 - Feb 16 with 615 views
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 12:57 - Feb 16 by Wingstandwood
The country has become a complete and utter joke! £500,000 pay out for having phones taken away! And creepy and obviously "not in their right mind" (normal people do not act like that!) idiots getting kids to send Valentines cards to migrants.
Yet we welcome them when we should do the opposite Criminals being cosseted and protected Why?
Yet we welcome them when we should do the opposite Criminals being cosseted and protected Why?
Many are of the opinion that those that rule and pass the laws are more than happy for this to go on, it suits their mindset/agenda's and enriches their pals who belong to the 'legal game'. Many think its one big racket!
Funny ain't it GB News manages to infiltrate people smuggling networking with ease, and British citizens go over to France and start finding and slashing rubber boat after rubber boat, to then face the threat of prosecution for doing so.
Something ain't right here?
Argus!
3
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 15:50 - Feb 16 with 559 views
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 13:41 - Feb 16 by Wingstandwood
Many are of the opinion that those that rule and pass the laws are more than happy for this to go on, it suits their mindset/agenda's and enriches their pals who belong to the 'legal game'. Many think its one big racket!
Funny ain't it GB News manages to infiltrate people smuggling networking with ease, and British citizens go over to France and start finding and slashing rubber boat after rubber boat, to then face the threat of prosecution for doing so.
Something ain't right here?
Migrants are big business There’s many earning a good living out of them , not unlike barristers feeding off the evil of career criminals Funnily enough , many barristers / solicitors are also politicians and they pass statues which give them a living Easy
Migrants are big business There’s many earning a good living out of them , not unlike barristers feeding off the evil of career criminals Funnily enough , many barristers / solicitors are also politicians and they pass statues which give them a living Easy
The U.K has G.C.H.Q, the professionalism, best covert operators in the world, latest eavesdropping technology, along with decades of experience and lessons gained from ‘dirty war’ conflicts, but yet?...... The U.K seems to be struggling to keep up with GB News and U.K citizens, whom have proven themselves to not only being able to infiltrate smuggling gangs, but to find and sabotage hidden/awaiting rubber dinghy’s also.
Now a question could be asked what would a ‘hyper-security-conscious’ country like Israel for example do if it was itself under equal threat from being infiltrated by thousands of unknown and undocumented fighting age men coming from Islamic terrorist hotspots?
My guess it would be a totally different story and outcome, because it would never be allowed to happen imo, and I would think it’s only natural to assume that Israel would have both the ‘will’ and the ‘way’ to actually do something about it.
And I guess Israeli lawyers out there would be way too distracted, hamstrung and hampered by Israeli law/legislation and national security intervention for any mass free for all and feeding frenzy out of the filthy-lucre money trough?
[Post edited 16 Feb 22:53]
Argus!
0
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 19:11 - Feb 16 with 478 views
It's not my definition it's from the Oxford dictionary and is largely similar in the Equality act. It may be contested but until it's changed Sir Jim's comment was racist.
[Post edited 16 Feb 12:56]
Another red herring and failure to grapple with the real issue. From what you say one would assume that "immigrant" is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, when the characteristics defined in law are ones that only some immigrants will have.
You can lead a horse to water but...
0
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 19:15 - Feb 16 with 474 views
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 19:11 - Feb 16 by AnotherJohn
Another red herring and failure to grapple with the real issue. From what you say one would assume that "immigrant" is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, when the characteristics defined in law are ones that only some immigrants will have.
You can lead a horse to water but...
No, ethnicity is.
0
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 23:22 - Feb 16 with 408 views
It's not my definition it's from the Oxford dictionary and is largely similar in the Equality act. It may be contested but until it's changed Sir Jim's comment was racist.
[Post edited 16 Feb 12:56]
Why do you keep looking for things that aren’t there. This twerp is a billionaire business man….you aren’t. I know he’s a tax dodger but in this case that’s not the issue. Take a long hard look at our economy and population status. Are you honestly telling me that there’s not one grain of truth in his comments?
2
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 04:16 - Feb 17 with 371 views
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 19:11 - Feb 16 by AnotherJohn
Another red herring and failure to grapple with the real issue. From what you say one would assume that "immigrant" is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, when the characteristics defined in law are ones that only some immigrants will have.
You can lead a horse to water but...
"You can lead a horse to water but..."
...You can't legally smash it over the head and drown the fecker....Shame as there's a few candidates on here...
[Post edited 17 Feb 4:31]
“Cunnilingus and Psychiatry brought us to this …”
0
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 06:16 - Feb 17 with 359 views
Why do you keep looking for things that aren’t there. This twerp is a billionaire business man….you aren’t. I know he’s a tax dodger but in this case that’s not the issue. Take a long hard look at our economy and population status. Are you honestly telling me that there’s not one grain of truth in his comments?
What isn't there?
Not a grain of truth in his original comments. There is nothing wrong with his following "apology" clarification, in fact I agree with every word.
His comments are probably the most hypocritical and inadvertantly racist thing anyone has said in public for years, they've made him look like an idiot.
-2
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 06:30 - Feb 17 with 351 views
But before going round and round in circles we started with Mr Ratcliffe's actual words and the suggestion that use of the word "immigrants" was in itself racist. Ratcliffe never mentioned ethnicity or race.
0
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 08:17 - Feb 17 with 321 views
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 06:30 - Feb 17 by AnotherJohn
But before going round and round in circles we started with Mr Ratcliffe's actual words and the suggestion that use of the word "immigrants" was in itself racist. Ratcliffe never mentioned ethnicity or race.
We don't ned to go round in circles."Immigrants" was used in a derogatory and demonstrably false way.
They can be a multitude of immigrant races, some of which may have idenitcal physical or social traits as British citizens - those would not "colonise" anywhere, they wouldn't need to becasue they share the same social construct as Brits. Potentially Austrailians, New Zealanders, Americans and even some European immigrants.
All immigrants are of a different ethnicity but to "colonise" you wish to change culture, language, political representation, traditions etc.
Sir Jim claimed this was happening across the UK and he lumped all immigrants in to this group, targetting those of different ethnicity and not race. Perhaps ethnicism would have been a more specific choice of word but the defnition of racism covers both.
0
Sir Jim Ratcliffe on 08:35 - Feb 17 with 306 views
We don't ned to go round in circles."Immigrants" was used in a derogatory and demonstrably false way.
They can be a multitude of immigrant races, some of which may have idenitcal physical or social traits as British citizens - those would not "colonise" anywhere, they wouldn't need to becasue they share the same social construct as Brits. Potentially Austrailians, New Zealanders, Americans and even some European immigrants.
All immigrants are of a different ethnicity but to "colonise" you wish to change culture, language, political representation, traditions etc.
Sir Jim claimed this was happening across the UK and he lumped all immigrants in to this group, targetting those of different ethnicity and not race. Perhaps ethnicism would have been a more specific choice of word but the defnition of racism covers both.
No You thought that Your third paragraph is am own goal Go to Burnley and you will get the drift Keep your eyes open, the chance won’t come again
No You thought that Your third paragraph is am own goal Go to Burnley and you will get the drift Keep your eyes open, the chance won’t come again
Sir Jim said "The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn't it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."
He didn't say Burnley, Bradford or Luton. He said the UK. My eyes are open and he's wrong.
If anything immigrants are under represented in positions of power. Swansea has 75 councillors, just 2 are black. Wales has 60 Senedd members just 2 are members of ethnic minorities. I could walk from my house in north Swansea through the city and down to Mumbles pier (probably 15 miles) I'd walk thorugh one street that comprises a majority of immigrant operated businesses. Just one and I could avoid that.
I've been to Bath, Hereford and Cardiff for weekedn over the past 6 weeks. It's no different ot here.
That isn't colonisation. I'm off to Benidrom this weekend, that could be the biggest example of colonisation in Europe.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
