Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Obviously, since you elected to change the original to read "Pikeys" as opposed to "Gypsy" to enable you to vent your spleen.

You are hell-bent on having a go no matter what, aren't you?

It was not my suggestion to change the thread title.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. If you're going to try and be factual in debating this matter then at least have the decency to familiarize yourself with the facts.

I accepted the facts as reported.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

If you could just set aside you blinkered prejudice for a moment or two - and perhaps spend some time reading the appeal judgement - you would realize that this is quite obviously not the case. The occupancy and ownership of the land is not, nor was it ever, in dispute.

Oh yes it was. When the pikeys moved onto that land they decided that the issue of ownership was for them to decide as they saw fit.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

You just couldn't help yourself there, could you? Bye, bye mask.

Oh, come on. You give me another way to look at it.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I did respond to your earlier "question" - I advised you that it wasn't up to me to change your mind.

Yet that is exactly what you appear to have been trying to do in other ways. So wahy not actually come out with some of the 'evidence', as you see it, why I can't label pikeys?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I see that others have since been posting highlighting their unease with how you not only manipulated the original headline to facilitate your agenda but the fact that you are insistant, at every twist and turn, in genreralizing and badmouthing every gypsy, traveller, romany or "pikey" (that terminology in itself shows you up for what you are) as some form of illegal abomination that you consider to be (in your words) lying, thieving, cheating, dirty ****.

Don't start thinking that because one or two people have mentioned making a distinction between pikeys and honorable travellers that they're disagreeing with my definition of pikeys.

I NEVER made a statement that applied any of this to ALL travellers - I clearly singled out the (I'll quote you here) "lying, thieving, cheating, dirty ****" that we commonly refer to as pikeys.

That disctinction has been clearly understood by everyone except you.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Any law abiding right thinking member of society has the right to be offended, and in some cases insulted, by the illegal actions of others. It doesn't give them, or you, the right to misrepresent facts and spout your vitriol on a message board in between polishing your jackboots.

But on the other hand, it does allow you to make allegations of racism and nazism, right?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Sorry Adolf - but you've a lot of learning to do.

And you think I am insulting?

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

You are hell-bent on having a go no matter what, aren't you?

Yes, where there is blatant ignorance and prejudice I will have a go.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

It was not my suggestion to change the thread title.

You just don't get it, do you? I pointed out that you changed the title of the BBC report to facilitate your attack on "pikeys", it's simple.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

I accepted the facts as reported.

No, you didn't. What you did was edit and reproduce the headline of a BBC report - the general jist of which appealed to your own prejudices - with a simple manipulation of the headline's wording. You didn't even bother to read the ruling which they even went to the bother of making available on line.[/quote]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Oh yes it was. When the pikeys moved onto that land they decided that the issue of ownership was for them to decide as they saw fit.

Not according to the ruling and judgement - see my earlier post of part seven thereof where it clearly states (in court documents no less) that the ownership and title of the land was not in question.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Oh, come on. You give me another way to look at it.

Well, you could try opening your eyes before letting your preprejudice expose you.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Yet that is exactly what you appear to have been trying to do in other ways. So wahy not actually come out with some of the 'evidence', as you see it, why I can't label pikeys?

I'm not saying you cant - I'm saying you shouldn't (and, for the record, you started with "pikeys" and then went on to include almost every variation of displaced members of society that you could think of).

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Don't start thinking that because one or two people have mentioned making a distinction between pikeys and honorable travellers that they're disagreeing with my definition of pikeys.

I'm not - go and read your posts again - you have, clearly, grouped all travellers, gypsys and romanys along with your disdain for "pikeys".

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

I NEVER made a statement that applied any of this to ALL travellers - I clearly singled out the (I'll quote you here) "lying, thieving, cheating, dirty ****" that we commonly refer to as pikeys.

Pathetic! Now you're trying to tell me you can't even remember what you posted on a forum over the last two days - go have a read of some of the bile you've been spouting on this thread. Those "descriptions" were used by you - not me.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

That disctinction has been clearly understood by everyone except you. But on the other hand, it does allow you to make allegations of racism and nazism, right?

See my point above - you think of them all as the same - go and re-read your posts. Since you ask, and have a penchant for enquiring after alternatives and proof, then please tell me how else you would suppose anyone might interpret your prejudice?

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

And you think I am insulting?

Yes, moreso to your own integrity than to others.

If you're going to espouse opinions you'd best be prepared for discussion and to take on board the fact that there is no room for your type of prejudice in modern society. It should, and will, be challenged at every opportunity.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

You just don't get it, do you? I pointed out that you changed the title of the BBC report to facilitate your attack on "pikeys", it's simple.

Now you're talking complete cr*p, since you can see on the BBC website it says 'Gypsy'. I didn't hack the BBC website.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

No, you didn't. What you did was edit and reproduce the headline of a BBC report - the general jist of which appealed to your own prejudices - with a simple manipulation of the headline's wording..

So now I'm not entitled to choose my own title for a CF thread?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

You didn't even bother to read the ruling which they even went to the bother of making available on line

There was no ruling at the time of the OP. You're now so far up your own arrse you can't see clearly any more.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Not according to the ruling and judgement - see my earlier post of part seven thereof where it clearly states (in court documents no less) that the ownership and title of the land was not in question.

If that was the case then why did they illegally occupy land they did not own?

BTW - I wasn't referring to the case, but the simple fact that they did question the ownership and title by their own actions.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Well, you could try opening your eyes before letting your preprejudice expose you.

And once again you avoid answering a simple question.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I'm not saying you cant - I'm saying you shouldn't

Excuse me, but when you're calling me a racist, bigot and nazi I thing you're going a little further than saying I shouldn't.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I'm not - go and read your posts again - you have, clearly, grouped all travellers, gypsys and romanys along with your disdain for "pikeys".

I don't have to re-read my posts - I know exactly what I said. Until YOU came along and started calling me racist and twisting my words they were quite clear.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Pathetic! Now you're trying to tell me you can't even remember what you posted on a forum over the last two days - go have a read of some of the bile you've been spouting on this thread. Those "descriptions" were used by you - not me.

Yes, I have used some pretty strong words to describe pikeys. That's because they make the lives of ordinary, decent people a misery.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

See my point above - you think of them all as the same - go and re-read your posts.

YOU have decided that I think they're all the same. I have never said anything to suggest that, except in your tiny mind.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Since you ask, and have a penchant for enquiring after alternatives and proof, then please tell me how else you would suppose anyone might interpret your prejudice?

They can interpret it as extreme hatred for all pikeys that camp illegally, steal, drive illegal stolen cars and then leave a mess when they finally move on. I believe that is a clear interpretation of my 'prejudice'?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

If you're going to espouse opinions you'd best be prepared for discussion and to take on board the fact that there is no room for your type of prejudice in modern society. It should, and will, be challenged at every opportunity.

I don't think you're living in the same society as the rest of us then, because as far as I can tell, my 'prejudice' towards pikeys is shared by the vast majority of the population of England. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, because then we'd see every town in England welcoming them onto their bowling greens for them to camp on.

BTW - a definition of prejudice goes as follows:

a preformed opinion, usually an unfavorable one, based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings, or inaccurate stereotypes

Now we're not dealing with inaccurate stereotypes here - I have SEEN what a pikey encampment looks like.

So it's not insufficient knowledge either - I KNOW what mess they leave behind - I have SEEN it.

Nor are my feelings irrational - it is well known that crime rates increase when pikeys set up camp.

Therefore, my antipathy towards pikeys is NOT prejudicial.

[Xaccers]

I see this is going the same way as the other thread on the subject.
While most people realise that the anti-talk refers to the lying, **** criminals who travel the land setting up illegal camps and leaving trash and destruction in their wake, some people still ignore this and act as though the discussion is supposed to be about the law abiding travelling groups and the thread slips into oblivian of circular aguments while the anti-pikeys try and get the message across to the few like Mr Angry who seem hell bent on defending groups who aren't actually under attack in this thread (ie the law abiding travelling groups).

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I see this is going the same way as the other thread on the subject.

I ought to have ignored him by now, but the personal attacks are why I can't let him get away with it.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

While most people realise that the anti-talk refers to the lying, **** criminals who travel the land setting up illegal camps and leaving trash and destruction in their wake, some people still ignore this and act as though the discussion is supposed to be about the law abiding travelling groups

I believe all but one person actually realise that the distinction IS being taken into account.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

and the thread slips into oblivian of circular aguments while the anti-pikeys try and get the message across to the few like Mr Angry who seem hell bent on defending groups who aren't actually under attack in this thread (ie the law abiding travelling groups).

My suspicion is that he's actually ALSO defending the pikeys...

[basa]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

................ and then went on to include almost every variation of displaced members of society that you could think of.
............

This gives an impression that these people were 'displaced' through no fault of their own, i.e. homeless. This is patently untrue as all 'travellers' have 'no fixed abode' i.e. 'travel' by choice.

In the case of the pikeys under current discussion this is, I suspect, to be conveniently relatively untraceable following whatever misdemeanours they perpetrate on local society.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Now you're talking complete cr*p, since you can see on the BBC website it says 'Gypsy'. I didn't hack the BBC website.
So now I'm not entitled to choose my own title for a CF thread?

Read it again, and this time try to understand it - please.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

There was no ruling at the time of the OP. You're now so far up your own arrse you can't see clearly any more.

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.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

If that was the case then why did they illegally occupy land they did not own?

I don't know - but that is not what was in dispute.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

BTW - I wasn't referring to the case, but the simple fact that they did question the ownership and title by their own actions.

Again, it says QUITE CLEARLY in the court documents that they laid no right or claim to the land.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Excuse me, but when you're calling me a racist, bigot and nazi I thing you're going a little further than saying I shouldn't.

Perhaps then you've learnt a valuable lesson in how other peoples comments can affect individuals.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

I don't have to re-read my posts - I know exactly what I said. Until YOU came along and started calling me racist and twisting my words they were quite clear.

If you know exactly what you said then why are you surprised at the accusations being levelled at you? Oh, that's right, you didn't say them according to your earlier post.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Yes, I have used some pretty strong words to describe pikeys. That's because they make the lives of ordinary, decent people a misery.

YOU have decided that I think they're all the same. I have never said anything to suggest that, except in your tiny mind.

From post number 10 in this very thread "Travellers/gypsies/pikeys/**** - is there a meaningful distinction?"

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."

Any of those look familiar? They should - you typed them.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

They can interpret it as extreme hatred for all pikeys that camp illegally, steal, drive illegal stolen cars and then leave a mess when they finally move on. I believe that is a clear interpretation of my 'prejudice'?

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?

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

I don't think you're living in the same society as the rest of us then, because as far as I can tell, my 'prejudice' towards pikeys is shared by the vast majority of the population of England. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, because then we'd see every town in England welcoming them onto their bowling greens for them to camp on.

"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.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

BTW - a definition of prejudice goes as follows:

Quote:
"a preformed opinion, usually an unfavorable one, based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings, or inaccurate stereotypes"

Now we're not dealing with inaccurate stereotypes here - I have SEEN what a pikey encampment looks like.

So it's not insufficient knowledge either - I KNOW what mess they leave behind - I have SEEN it.

Nor are my feelings irrational - it is well known that crime rates increase when pikeys set up camp.

Therefore, my antipathy towards pikeys is NOT prejudicial.

Really Adolf, I think we've arrived at your "bunker scene" here - thanks to you own quote above.

Your opinion of "pikeys" could hardly be described as anything but unfavourable.

Evidence of insufficient knowledge on the matter can be provided courtesy of your earlier quote ""Travellers/gypsies/pikeys/**** - is there a meaningful distinction?"

I'm pretty sure "extreme hatred" counts pretty high on the irrational feelings scale and, correct me if I'm wrong but "" The 'travelling community' is, on the whole, mainly represented by pikeys who have nothing to offer except trouble." is a corking example of an inaccurate stereotyping.

Cheers.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Again, it says QUITE CLEARLY in the court documents that they laid no right or claim to the land.

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?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Sorry Adolf - but you've a lot of learning to do.

What exactly do you mean by that?

[LemonyBrainAid]

And what the world needs now.. is love.. sweet love...

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I see this is going the same way as the other thread on the subject.
While most people realise that the anti-talk refers to the lying, **** criminals who travel the land setting up illegal camps and leaving trash and destruction in their wake, some people still ignore this and act as though the discussion is supposed to be about the law abiding travelling groups and the thread slips into oblivian of circular aguments while the anti-pikeys try and get the message across to the few like Mr Angry who seem hell bent on defending groups who aren't actually under attack in this thread (ie the law abiding travelling groups).

I agree there are the original gypsies who seem to do little harm to anyone, however these people are a small percentage of the community who live in caravans. Unfortunately these people do get lumped into the same category as the stealing, anti-social group who make up the majority of travellers.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

What exactly do you mean by that?

Rammy the problem here is that certain posters will defend these *******s till the end of the earth. However for those of us that have had these *******s close to there property, And then seen council tax money used to evict them from the land that they have taken without the owners permission its a differant matter all together.I bet that you would have a totaly differant outlook if you had.

I do not care btw if anyone on this forum objects to the word ******* if you dont like it sue me .

Oh come on guys let's not have ANOTHER thread closed because we can't be adults.

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Oh come on guys let's not have ANOTHER thread closed because we can't be adults.

The trouble is as has been shown time and time again some people on here CAN'T behave like adults.

[LemonyBrainAid]

It must upset some people that a thirteen year old can act more mature than they do - eh ?

I love it