Sheffield Star - attack on school children

[fnkysknky]

Originally posted by Rich

What years were you at Gleadless Valley? I was there 1987-1992, if you were there during that period it's possible I might know you....

 

'92 - '94 and had 2 brothers and a sister go there before me.

[Rich]

Originally posted by fnkysknky

'92 - '94 and had 2 brothers and a sister go there before me.

 

Hmm, I was before your time then.

[Geoff]

Bill, mate, you obviously have not grasped the concept of debating on this forum. You're far too controversial, which comes with having an opinion of your own. Get real, you have to say what 'they' want hear, not what you want them to hear. Stick to these simple guidelines and you should be okay.

 

It took me a while to catch on, I must admit, but I have now realised the following:-

 

I'm white, so I must be racist.

 

I'm male, so I must be sexist.

 

I'm a football supporter so, therefore, I must be a hooligan.

 

Oh yeah, and I didn't go to University, so I must be a total retard who has nothing worthwhile to say anyway.

I like people to respect the terms of use they agreed to by using this forum.

 

I don't like people to use the forum for one-to-one messages (that's what PM and email was invented for).

 

I don't like Houdi talking about his toilet habits when others are trying to discuss Al Qaeda.

 

I don't like users abusing each other and ruining other people's discussions.

 

Therefore I must be a "leftie", Guardian reading, do-gooder... sure, sure... yawn...

 

You attention seekers really need to get over yourselves.

[Sidla]

Originally posted by t020

Agree with that part of your post. It does seem that if one doesn't hold a left wing, socialist, do-gooder position on most issues then one is treated like a lower form of life. Opinions don't seem to be allowed on here - only if they can be backed up with 'cast iron' (manipulated) statistics found on the left wing pages of the Do Gooder, sorry, Guardian. Any personal experiences or generalisations are immediately rendered invalid.

 

As for the second part of your post, Bill is from Crosspool and therefore lives in the Hallam constituency so I'm not sure what you're getting at really. Most of the do-gooders are teachers, and I suspect Max could be married to one but I'm not entirely sure. Either way, this forum is fast becoming a place of censorship and left-only views.

Can you give me an example of when you have been denied of your opinion?

 

I don't believe you need evidence to back opinions up, but if you don't have any evidence you're not going to do a very good job of trying to change my opinion.

 

For example you could say "All people who wear baseball caps are cretins". This might be your opinion (don't know if it is or not BTW, just know it's been discussed before), but if you don't give any reason why it's your opinion, or how that opinion is formed, then I don't see how the opinion is valid.

[Houdi]

Originally posted by Geoff

 

I don't like Houdi talking about his toilet habits when others are trying to discuss Al Qaeda.

 

 

I agree wholheartedly. Anyone wishing to discuss toilet habits should try the 'Why do they have these silly days' thread in General Chit-Chat

[DaBouncer]

Originally posted by Sidla

For example you could say "All people who wear baseball caps are cretins". This might be your opinion (don't know if it is or not BTW, just know it's been discussed before),

I believe that was Max saying that anyone who wears baseball caps other than for sport is stupid or something along those lines.

 

Just wanted to clear that up! You may carry on arguing now!

[max]

Originally posted by DaBouncer

I believe that was Max saying that anyone who wears baseball caps other than for sport is stupid or something along those lines.

 

Just wanted to clear that up! You may carry on arguing now!

If you're going to use my name then at least quote me correctly. What I said was that baseball caps when worn as fashion items are naff. Nothing to do with intelligence. However, if the cap fits (pun intended) DaB, if the cap fits.

[DaBouncer]

Originally posted by max

If you're going to use my name then at least quote me correctly. What I said was that baseball caps when worn as fashion items are naff. Nothing to do with intelligence. However, if the cap fits (pun intended) DaB, if the cap fits.

Pah whatever. Same difference.

 

And I respect your opinion.

And yes my fashion cap fits well thankyou. After all, that's what they are designed for!

[back2basics]

Here we go again. Ok first off just because white kids attack black kids will NOT make it a hate crime in the eyes of the police. So many people in this thread are starting with faulty logic. It happens EVERYDAY in this country a white kid attacking a black kid and it's just not a hate crime or racially motivated. So please don't simplify the law like that, go look up the definition of a hate crime because like peoples opinion of what racism is your starting with faulty facts.

 

Personally i believe we should totally remove the whole concept of hate crimes anyway. Simple as this IMO, all crimes are hate crimes. We should not be giving higher sentences because some angry white guy had a fight and uttered some racial slur. Just because a racial slur is uttered, does not make it racially motivated. It's FAR too hard to prove any crime i racially motivated, personally i believe we should make sentencing for all crimes tougher, as they are all 'hate' crimes (white on white black on black whatever).

 

Once again though we see people making eloquent argument which make sense, but have no bearing to the real world. Yeah Zamo reading your thread i would totally agree with you, but one group of kids of a certain ethnicity attacking another group of another is not viewed in the polices eyes as a racially motivated attack. So your argument breaks down before it even starts. But certainly, if we lived in a world where any attack on another ethnicity is a hate crime then your theory would make sense.

 

And on another note, this was MADE a hate crime by the author of this post. Not max or anybody else after. It's VERY likely this was just a School rivalry thing and yes believe it or not different schools have different ethnic mixes. But ONCE AGAIN certain people have MADE this a race issue, i simply do not understand why, maybe somebody can answer that for me. I mean were these kids should 'honkey' while beating them up? Were they wearing Swastikas and white pointed hats? Or (as i suspect) is this JUST a case of kids fighting who didn't think that because they were Asian their actions could be construed by some people as racially motivated. We have a legal system and we also have a police force dripping in racism. Believe me if there was anyway the police thought they could get this to court and get a conviction as a hate crime THEY WOULD.

 

A brief explanation on how the law works -

 

1) Crime happens.

2) If somebody makes a statement to the police saying they believe it was racially motivated it will be investigated as racially motivated using the Macpherson report definition. Obviously what you people want to believe is that the police have been told it's racially motivated and they are just not looking in to it, which i assume, but am confident is not the case. When an allegation of a hate crime is made it's VERY serious (as i said i believe all crimes are serious and we should level the playing field anyway), more time and effort will be put in to investigate IN DETAIL the accusations. If there was any case this would be happening.

3) IF they believe after INVESTIGATION (not a newspaper report or circumstantial evidence) if they think their is a case and they can get a conviction, it will go to court as a hate crime.

4) Then lawyers get to make a case and a JUDGE makes the decision (not people on message board, who have little or no information).

 

I think the one thing that is shown in this thread is people have no trust in the legal system and trust their own instincts more than a real, detailed investigation. Our legal system is not perfect, but it's better than what some people in this thread seem to think.

 

And here is a good example of that process in work. A white man getting the 'racially motivated' part of the crime dropped, even though he used the word '******'. Because thats simply does not make it a hate crime.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,438720,00.html

[back2basics]

Also there is quiet a bit of talk about not being able to talk about these issues. Could you let me know who is stifling your freedom of speech on this subject and i will take that cause up. I don't see the moderators stopping you and i find that these (and many other) discussions can be freely had in many different places. Everybody's opinions on these threads are equal, and hopefully people will see sense when it is put in front of them. Just because somebody asks questions that you cannot answer or don't have a comeback for doesn't mean somebody is stifling your opinions. If you ideas are strong enough that (hopefully) will show through. There is no national discussion because the only people who are vocal about that do not understand that we have a perfectly good system. We simply do not need debate because each case must be dealt with on an individual basis (using the current system). We either continue to deal with them on a case by case basis or we scrap the whole idea of hate crime. To suggest that we can say any <insert ethnicity, race or religion here> attacking a <insert ethnicity, race or religion here> is a hate crime is simply stupid.