Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paul
Sorry but I'm of the same opinion as many in this thread. True Romany travellers that get on with their own lifestyle whilst not intruding on the lives of others should be allowed to continue travelling as and how they wish. The ****/ faux-travellers that only use the term "traveller" to try and excuse their behaviour should be dealt with properly and fully by the legal system.
|
Don't apologise. It is an issue that affects many people, and it really doesn't help when there's an ignorant minority that has to make matters worse by making excuses for them.
I'm beginning to think this thread has been hijacked, though. If it wasn't for
this from pop80 uk, you could think that the thread was about nothing to do with pikeys...
---------- Post added at 08:47 ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 ----------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Really, that's amazing - where did you get the link? Oh, that's right - from the BBC news site which was reporting on the ruling - which according to you hadn't happened.
|
The content of the article changed during that time - it was updated after the ruling was made, which was AFTER I'd started this thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
From post number 10 in this very thread "Travellers/gypsies/pikeys/**** - is there a meaningful distinction?"
|
A question that at that time was not answered in a
meanigful way by anyone.
When that caravan/van turns up on the local roundabout during the night, will anyone even for one second think "oh, that might be respectful Romany Gypsies"? NO, everyone will instead think "bloody pikeys!"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
From post number 14 in this very thread " The 'travelling community' is, on the whole, mainly represented by pikeys who have nothing to offer except trouble."
|
As I just said, the experience that most people have of 'travellers' is from pikeys setting up their encampents at the local supermarket, or industrial estate - basically anywhere they don't have to go too far to steal stuff.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
That's fine - an honest self assessment of your feelings toward "pikeys". Mind you, "extreme hatred" is hardly a jackboot in the behind away from bigotry - is it?
|
If you think my assessment was 'honest', then it cannot be bigotry - check your dictionary.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
"As far as I can tell..." won't wash in this situation. Back it up with statistics or facts - otherwise you're just playing to the crowd.
|
You're becoming less coherent all the time. I am entitled to an opinion, and that is that most people hate pikeys - and that is based on the FACT that most people posting in this thread have shown their dislike for them AND it is also based on the FACT that everyone in my street has the same opinion - at least, they did the last time we had pikeys encamped in the local park.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Really Adolf, I think we've arrived at your "bunker scene" here - thanks to you own quote above.
|
I have accurately demonstrated that I have not, in any way, presented a prejudicial attitude in this thread.
Your continued references to nazism and Hitler in particular are, however, much clearer signposts to YOUR particular prejudices. Because you are clearly referring to me in an
unfavourable light,
without knowing anything about me, using the jackboot
stereotype and displaying some
irrational need to challenge ME on this subject, while accepting every other poster's similar views.
YOU are quite obviously prejudiced...
---------- Post added at 08:50 ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 ----------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
So what were they doing on the land which they knew was not theirs?
Isn't that known as breaking the law? Ie illegal, thus making them criminals?
|
Mr Angry doesn't care whether what they did was illegal - since the court documents don't mention illegal occupation of land, then that obviously wasn't the issue.
Thing is, if it wasn't for their illegal occupation of the land, there would never have been any case in court, and we wouldn't be discussing this now.
---------- Post added at 09:16 ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 ----------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
However, you must surely know, even with a modicum of net etiquette and a fundamental grasp of the law, that were you to make a comment worthy of litigation on this forum then it wouldn't be you who would be sued but the "publisher" / "owner" of the site
|
Incorrect. First of all, netiquette doesn't come into it, as the comments are not directed at anyone in this thread. Furthermore, so far nothing has been said that even remotely comes close to being open to litigation - except, possibly, some of the comments YOU have directed at ME.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Let me be straight about a few things;
1: I am not an apologist for illegal behaviour.
|
Then you have been doing a very good impression of being one.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
2: As a recent victim of crime I have no time for "wishy washy" resolutions for anti social or criminal behaviour. I grew up in a "society" policed by paramilitaries who shot people for anti social behaviour (I am referring specifically to anti social / criminal behaviour) and that was the accepted "norm".
|
No wonder there's no pikeys in NI. Those wonderful paramilitaries certainly wouldn't have put up with that, would they?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
3: I am of the opinion that tarring people with the same brush, whether that is because of religion, colour or race is wrong.
|
Good. Even better that we've had none of that in this thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
I have served a foreign country in foreign lands and I have witnessed first hand actions and atrocities borne out of ignorance and a lack of understanding of other cultures and religions committed in the name of democracy - a fickle mistress.
|
Are we supposed to accept that your opinion is better because you have been a mercenary?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
4: I neither bear grudes nor harbour malice, nor do I respect or fear those who do.
|
What do you want, a medal?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
5: I am an advocate of discussion and tolerance - but not at the expense of the rights of third parties.
|
Sure - you are so decent and fair minded that you don't mind a bit of name calling.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
6: I will challenge intolerance, ignorance and bigotry at every turn and wherever they present themselves as fact over hypothesis / opinion - it is my moral responsibility as a human being to do so.
|
The White Knight rides against the dark forces!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
7: I am not perfect - but I also have the ability to recognise that fact.
|
Good getout clause.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
If I have offended anyone, in particular scaredwebwarrior, in this thread I have done so only to provoke meaningful discourse based on facts - nothing more.
|
Indeed you have offended people, and there is no excuse for doing so in order to "provoke meaningful discourse". And your idea of "based on fact" seems to be centred on obscuring the facts by using picking over them in order to talk about the facts, rather than the issue.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Aside from cursory debates / chitter chatter on more menial or general matters I have no agenda in engaging any contributors to these forae other than to counter that and those which fly in the face of mutual respect and understanding.
|
Then you do so with double standards, because you seem to think that in the process you may abandon that "mutual respect and understanding" which you value so highly.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
I am happy to discuss / debate anything, including points of law and modern society, with anyone who wishes to do so - with the provision that an open minded approach is adopted.
|
Everyone here is open to discuss anything they feel like. Having an 'open mind' does not mean that we'll change our mind just because someone says so. Nor does it mean that we have to present a less robust point of view.
---------- Post added at 09:18 ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 ----------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Russ D
Welcome back Graham/Andyl 
(that's a JOKE before anyone says anything - Mr Angry is neither of the above people) |
There was me thinking he was BOTH!
---------- Post added at 09:24 ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 ----------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Incognitas
I still haven't heard any suggestions as to what the solution is and none of the usual rhetoric ranting would be nice...   |
So suggesting that there should be allocated sites for travellers wasn't a constructive suggestion?
The 'usual rhetoric ranting' remains reserved for the excuses for humanity that travel the country like pirates sailing the high seas.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Incognitas
Yes the people you (insert everyone who hates pikeys)are specifically referring to aren't pleasant but what is the way to deal with them?
|
Why not simply come out with it and name names? Who are these
unpleasant people that need
dealing with? Considering that he's only 'specifically referred' to one...
---------- Post added at 09:27 ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 ----------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Great - I see that now we're getting some serious debate on a serious issue, lets keep it up.
|
Whoopee! Now the thread has been completely diverted from the actual topic!
