Ban racists from social media, anti-Semitism report says.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

I know the answer, but had hoped you'd actually check something for yourself for once. My question came about because I'm aware of the governments statistics which do not quite agree with your assertion. So may I suggest you search the gov.uk website for facts before you spout rubbish.

Credibility is like virginity - you can only loose both once.

Cheers

Grim

Yet another rude and unhelpful post from you- this does nothing to help your own credibility.

I had hoped that you were entering into a fruitful adult discussion; but it's the usual point scoring belittling attitude that you are so renowned for.

Back to the subject in hand. It looks like review sites are now being scrutinised:

http://www.moneywise.co.uk/news/2015...ntentPromotion

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

No, it was years ago and I don't have the books anymore. As I explained earlier, there was no internet when I took my degree.

I don't know as i've not compared attacks based on race as opposed to disability, but I don't see the relevance. If it is wrong to incite racial hatred, it is wrong to incite hatred towards other minority groups regardless.

It's because there are 83% more racially-based attacks than on other minority groups.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Yet another rude and unhelpful post from you- this does nothing to help your own credibility.

I had hoped that you were entering into a fruitful adult discussion; but it's the usual point scoring belittling attitude that you are so renowned for.

Back to the subject in hand. It looks like review sites are now being scrutinised:

http://www.moneywise.co.uk/news/2015...ntentPromotion

If showing that your 'facts' are wrong is rude and unhelpful well I'm guilty as charged.

I was attempting to discuss with you, but when you won't let us see the source of your assertions any debate falls flat on it's face.

I feel quite flattered to be renowned - first I'd heard of it.

I thought my analogy was quite humorous, but hey ho.

So are you going to give us some sources for your 'facts' so we can have that fruitful adult discussion you want?

Cheers

Grim

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

If showing that your 'facts' are wrong is rude and unhelpful well I'm guilty as charged.

I was attempting to discuss with you, but when you won't let us see the source of your assertions any debate falls flat on it's face.

I feel quite flattered to be renowned - first I'd heard of it.

I thought my analogy was quite humorous, but hey ho.

So are you going to give us some sources for your 'facts' so we can have that fruitful adult discussion you want?

Cheers

Grim

First you've heard of it, everyone knows its grim up north

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

First you've heard of it, everyone knows its grim up north

It's grim oop north, but it's crap dahn sarf.....

[Hom3r]

Trying to ban racists from social media is like stopping people using mobile phones while driving.

7+ years on and I still see people using them.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

If showing that your 'facts' are wrong is rude and unhelpful well I'm guilty as charged.

I was attempting to discuss with you, but when you won't let us see the source of your assertions any debate falls flat on it's face.

I feel quite flattered to be renowned - first I'd heard of it.

I thought my analogy was quite humorous, but hey ho.

So are you going to give us some sources for your 'facts' so we can have that fruitful adult discussion you want?

Cheers

Grim

You weren't trying to discuss the topic at all. Your total contribution (as is usual more often than not with you) has been to purposefully craft posts intended to be antagonistic and rude.

I suspect that your circumstances are at the root of attempting to sabotage proper discussion in threads concerning immigration and racism.

Originally Posted by Russ

It's because there are 83% more racially-based attacks than on other minority groups.

Irrelevant, even if actually true. And no, i'm not going to indulge your childish attempts in being drawn into asking where you obtained your data from to enable you to play tit for tat.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Hugh

It's grim oop north, but it's crap dahn sarf.....

Well we are a bit soft down South compared to you Northern toughies.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

You weren't trying to discuss the topic at all. Your total contribution (as is usual more often than not with you) has been to purposefully craft posts intended to be antagonistic and rude.

I suspect that your circumstances are at the root of attempting to sabotage proper discussion in threads concerning immigration and racism.

Except I was asking you about your claim that 16% of the population was disabled. Nothing to do with immigration or racism, or have I missed something.

Cheers

Grim

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Irrelevant, even if actually true. And no, i'm not going to indulge your childish attempts in being drawn into asking where you obtained your data from to enable you to play tit for tat.

Let's say the figure I quote was correct. Why would it be irrelevant as a response to why anti-racial laws get utilised more?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Russ

Let's say the figure I quote was correct. Why would it be irrelevant as a response to why anti-racial laws get utilised more?

I believe that the % of attacks on people in various minority groups is irrelevant in relation to the right of said individuals to be protected under the law.