Mackem00
Striker
Took me until she was (spoiler) about to get shot before i worked that out tbh.Snoop has not got a chuckie.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Took me until she was (spoiler) about to get shot before i worked that out tbh.Snoop has not got a chuckie.
Nothing apart from it's what Letwin said. There's other stuff like him ignoring a huge number of key factors that would trash his thesis, and the rather odd view that grinding poverty and terrible conditions are fine and need no attention, it's simply a case of finding some poor people who are docile and uncomplaining. Also the suggestion that white people have never had crime and disorder in areas of deprivation is total bollocks. Apart from that, you know, the fact that his main claims are completely unsupported by the facts and that he's left out 90% of the reasons why there has been unrest in ghettos in history ever, he was spot on.
I'm curious though, if you agree with him that black people are less moral and more criminal than white people, why you don't just come out and say so instead of pussy footing around?
Isn't she revolting ?Abbott shows Labours true colours;
You must be logged on to see external links
Isn't she revolting ?
I know he looks like a bag of shite, but how could even he give that one .Jezza doesn't think so.
You lot are good at insider dealing though.I had a little bet with myself this morning and won![]()
.........30 years ago
FFS![]()
You lot are good at insider dealing though.
Oliver Letwin thirty years ago:
"Riots, criminality and social disintegration are caused solely by individual characters and attitudes. So long as bad moral attitudes remain, all efforts to improve the inner cities will founder."
David Cameron, talking about riots four years ago:
“Let’s be clear. These riots were not about race … These riots were not about government cuts … And these riots were not about poverty … No, this was about behaviour. People showing indifference to right and wrong. People with a twisted moral code. People with a complete absence of self-restraint.”
US lot. Who is us lot. Be very carefulYou lot are good at insider dealing though.
Oliver Letwin thirty years ago:
"Riots, criminality and social disintegration are caused solely by individual characters and attitudes. So long as bad moral attitudes remain, all efforts to improve the inner cities will founder."
David Cameron, talking about riots four years ago:
“Let’s be clear. These riots were not about race … These riots were not about government cuts … And these riots were not about poverty … No, this was about behaviour. People showing indifference to right and wrong. People with a twisted moral code. People with a complete absence of self-restraint.”
US lot. Who is us lot. Be very careful
US lot. Who is us lot. Be very careful
When you look back at how the Miners were spoken about by Thatcher and her lot, treating communities of people as 'The enemy', then this attitude is no surprise to me.Nothing apart from it's what Letwin said. There's other stuff like him ignoring a huge number of key factors that would trash his thesis, and the rather odd view that grinding poverty and terrible conditions are fine and need no attention, it's simply a case of finding some poor people who are docile and uncomplaining. Also the suggestion that white people have never had crime and disorder in areas of deprivation is total bollocks. Apart from that, you know, the fact that his main claims are completely unsupported by the facts and that he's left out 90% of the reasons why there has been unrest in ghettos in history ever, he was spot on.
I'm curious though, if you agree with him that black people are less moral and more criminal than white people, why you don't just come out and say so instead of pussy footing around?
When you look back at how the Miners were spoken about by Thatcher and her lot, treating communities of people as 'The enemy', then this attitude is no surprise to me.Nothing apart from it's what Letwin said. There's other stuff like him ignoring a huge number of key factors that would trash his thesis, and the rather odd view that grinding poverty and terrible conditions are fine and need no attention, it's simply a case of finding some poor people who are docile and uncomplaining. Also the suggestion that white people have never had crime and disorder in areas of deprivation is total bollocks. Apart from that, you know, the fact that his main claims are completely unsupported by the facts and that he's left out 90% of the reasons why there has been unrest in ghettos in history ever, he was spot on.
I'm curious though, if you agree with him that black people are less moral and more criminal than white people, why you don't just come out and say so instead of pussy footing around?
He's au fait with the law.... He'll know insider trading is a criminal offence.You need a "watch your letterbox" on the end of that.
You lot are good at insider dealing though.
Oliver Letwin thirty years ago:
"Riots, criminality and social disintegration are caused solely by individual characters and attitudes. So long as bad moral attitudes remain, all efforts to improve the inner cities will founder."
David Cameron, talking about riots four years ago:
“Let’s be clear. These riots were not about race … These riots were not about government cuts … And these riots were not about poverty … No, this was about behaviour. People showing indifference to right and wrong. People with a twisted moral code. People with a complete absence of self-restraint.”
Cameron was correct then by the way!!
Was he? Something else sparked the riots (Duggan), but there are many more ongoing problems which are underlying the whole situation. Without the cuts, without the persistent poverty, without being treated differently just because of the colour of their skin, would they have rioted? Unlikely.
Was he? Something else sparked the riots (Duggan), but there are many more ongoing problems which are underlying the whole situation. Without the cuts, without the persistent poverty, without being treated differently just because of the colour of their skin, would they have rioted? Unlikely.
When you look back at how the Miners were spoken about by Thatcher and her lot, treating communities of people as 'The enemy', then this attitude is no surprise to me.
There was institutional racism and not much done to tackle poverty and deprivation of areas. Pointing fingers and blaming was far easier than doing their job properly in supporting communities and tackling the reasons why areas were impoverished and felt disaffected from the mainstream of society.
When you look back at how the Miners were spoken about by Thatcher and her lot, treating communities of people as 'The enemy', then this attitude is no surprise to me.
There was institutional racism and not much done to tackle poverty and deprivation of areas. Pointing fingers and blaming was far easier than doing their job properly in supporting communities and tackling the reasons why areas were impoverished and felt disaffected from the mainstream of society.
Erm so a known criminal is shot dead by the police and 1000s of people believe the correct response is to riot and loot, mug people and beat them senseless ??? Ok so tell me again why this wasnt about behaviour and morals!?!?!?
Jesus what is it with people these days just wanting to be outraged about people speaking the truth??
Im no conservative or Cameron lover but no one can deny the bloke was spot on what he said !!!
You made a statemet regarding education, he doesnt mention education at all. He does make a passing reference to training which is very different to education. My main point is that it was a comment made 30 years ago. With hindsight it MIGHT be incorrect, but we are all brilliant with hindsight.
Let me ask you a question rather than your implications that i beleive black people are less moral, which i don't believe at all. Ive not mentioned race, just areas. Do you think those in the areas mentioned, at the time, had a level of morality that we would generally agree is acceptable?
Same shit, different people. Up here we were the enemy within, down there the inner city estates was where they sent the people they didn't want. Then people who've had nothing but advantages demonise people who've had to fight for what little they have.
So Letwin was spot on with what he said, but you want to wriggle out of the massively racist bit of what he said. (And ignore all the facts he left out and made up)
Yet again youve replied with an accusation, unrelated to anything ive said and choosen not to respond with a reasoned argument. Your debating skills are poor. Youre just looking for outrage. Stay cool hipster....
No, you've completely ducked out of the central argument that what Letwin has said is racist. He was, it is argued, specifically saying that black people are less moral, more criminal and more likely to riot than white people, and furthermore giving them any form of assistance towards jobs or other types of support would only lead to more criminal behaviour. You haven't said anything to suggest that Letwin has been misinterpreted, you've just said you agree with him. You can see, surely how that might be difficult to interpret?