Very wicked guy, who should stay inside until no longer a threat to anyone.
But the crime itself, and the guy's mugshot, both strongly suggest to me some sort of mental or emotional disturbance. I'd like to see his IQ reading and would expect it to be very low.
A proper sensible pro robber would run a mile from a cat like that. They like a peaceful life, robbers.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 29 Jan 15 at 18:22
|
"...until no longer a threat to anyone."
About 30 seconds if I borrow his hammer.
|
|
complete loon, clearly not living on planet sane, should be locked up in broadmoor for life.
|
>> complete loon, clearly not living on planet sane, should be locked up in broadmoor for
>> life.
>>
Trouble with that is, a psychiatrist says he's o.k. in x years time and he can come out again. You need the prison sentence minimum tariff to ensure he's not let out.
I'd agree that the medical facilities would be more humane.
|
|
snip.
Last edited by: R.P. on Thu 29 Jan 15 at 21:11
|
Too far off beam to draw any conclusions.
In general I agree with the ECHR conclusion that even people like Jeremy Bamber who apparently murdered family in cold blood should have some prospect of 'redemption'.
In this case though I suspect there are serious Mental Health issues.
Not getting at Rob as duty mod but it seems that once again it's the challenge to racist views rather than the views themselves that lead to deletions or the application of thread lock.
|
>> In general I agree with the ECHR conclusion that even people like Jeremy Bamber who
>> apparently murdered family in cold blood should have some prospect of 'redemption'.
Some offences are too severe and extreme to consider or offer the prospect of redemption. I think society would generally accept that topping your parents and trying to murder your sister for financial gain is one of them.
|
For the record, I strongly object to the tax I pay being used to keep him alive. He should be with the fishes. And I don't mean my local chippy.
|
Don't look too deep. In addition to his care costs. There will be Legal Aid. NHS costs for the care of his victims who were visitors here (not that under the circumstances you would deny them those costs) and then there will be extensive Criminal Injuries (I presume) for the lady that incurred extensive brain injuries. Throw in an Appeal somewhere down the line and it really stacks up.
Meanwhile the local kids are having funding withdrawn for hire of the all weather playing fields for their evening football training and matches in challenging parts of our city.
|
>> Don't look too deep. In addition to his care costs.....
Ok assuming the bloke is currently a mental health case. We as a society decide that his crime is sufficiently appalling that we top him rather than pay to keep him alive.
We as a society and state have now crossed the line into killing people who are unwell and sick. Its not far off Hitler sending the mentally feeble to the gas chambers.
|
Prison should be used differently.
Firstly, for the vast majority for crimes the penalty should involve something useful, hard and unpleasant - anything from gardening to cleaning graffiti, to working free for victims, to licking roads clean with your tongue, to whatever. There's a million possibilities which make sense more than prison.
Now that means that prison is reserved for those who must be removed from society for society's own safety. Not as punishment or as revenge, but simply for the safety of society. If they do not endanger society, then back to the beginning - find some work for them to do.
Of those we would have in prison, some may have a chance of redemption, of finding their way back. We should work to help them do that.
Then we have a group of people for whom we believe there is no chance of repentance, redemption, change or anything else which will allow them to ever take a place in society.
Now what do you do? Presumably if there is no chance, then by some measure they are "sick", albeit incurable.
Do you kill sick people, or do you lock them up and forget them?
How do you reliably determine whether or not redemption is possible? Do you put a price or money limit on it?
You can see why Daily Mail readers subscribe to the "Hang 'em high" approach - So much simpler. Wrong, but so much simpler and easier for them to understand.
|
>>
>> We as a society and state have now crossed the line into killing people who
>> are unwell and sick. Its not far off Hitler sending the mentally feeble to the
>> gas chambers.
>>
>>
And of course we make ante-natal selections to judge whether to allow the foetus to take its place in the kind of society we want.
|
>> And of course we make ante-natal selections to judge whether to allow the foetus to
>> take its place in the kind of society we want.
do we? Sorry was that a future plan, or your summary of the current situation?
|
>>
>> >> And of course we make ante-natal selections to judge whether to allow the foetus
>> to
>> >> take its place in the kind of society we want.
>> do we? Sorry was that a future plan, or your summary of the current situation?
>>
I think it's a statement of fact.
If the doctors attending a pregnant woman decide that the foetus is damaged, they will have a discussion with the woman explaining the situation, the possible outcome and whether she wants to keep the baby or to have an abortion.
I don't disagree with that, I think that letting every foetus go full term regardless of any potential disability is wrong.
|
|
Spot on, Bromp. It's not like this was MD's first offence, or like he doesn't know what he's doing. It's troll behaviour and has no place here. Grow a collective pair, mods, and get rid of him.
|
>> Spot on, Bromp. It's not like this was MD's first offence, or like he doesn't
>> know what he's doing. It's troll behaviour and has no place here. Grow a collective
>> pair, mods, and get rid of him.
>>
I disagree.
Troll behaviour is when people post things to deliberately cause offence or cause a problem, not when you are posting your genuine opinion.
If MD thinks as he does, he is entitled to do so and post as he sees life.... as you are entitled to disagree with him.
IMO you are not entitled to attempt to stifle his viewpoint however much you disagree with it.
|
>> In general I agree with the ECHR conclusion that even people like Jeremy Bamber who
>> apparently murdered family in cold blood should have some prospect of 'redemption'.
...and I do not. IMO The Jeremy Bambers have so far overstepped the mark that they have far used up any goodwill that there ought to have been in the system and should remain incarcerated for the rest of their lives to protect others. They have something fundamentally wrong with them and we should recognise that... and protect those that they would otherwise prey on
>> Not getting at Rob as duty mod
Well you are.
>> but it seems that once again it's the
>> challenge to racist views rather than the views themselves that lead to deletions or the
>> application of thread lock.
Someone posted a racist view and it got deleted...what's wrong with that?
There was a minor bun fight that went with it, which took away from the original post, so that went as well. Good bit of 'modding' in my book.
|
4 or 5 similar threads in the past year or so wears a bit thin.
It's about as valid as saying "Violent crime is mostly committed by men ergo men should be eradicated/sent back home/castrated"
It has no place on these forums IMO
|
"It's about as valid as saying "Violent crime is mostly committed by men ergo men should be eradicated/sent back home/castrated""
We can't have that approach .......... oh, I see another doctor is being sentenced in Norfolk today ;-)
|
What happened to free speech within the law?
The deletion of the admittedly slightly baited post "Let them in...and this is what happens" was was probably a response to knee jerk complaints but there was valid point to be made, if not a new one.
From the Telegraph: goo.gl/gsIUke
The court heard that, apart from Honc, all the other defendants have long criminal records in their country and Pawlowicz has been convicted in the UK for a raft of offences.
Tychon has a total of 14 convictions in Poland, including four counts of burglary between 2005 and 2012 and one of robbery with a weapon in 2005 for which he served 39 months of a 58-month sentence.
For his part, Tomaszewski has 11 convictions in his country, including four counts of burglary between 2005 and 2006.
And Pawlowicz has seven convictions in Poland including four counts of burglary in 2005 and 2006, beating in 1996, robbery with a weapon in 2002 for which he served two years and violent disorder in 2003 for which he was sentenced to four years.
He was also given a three-month suspended sentence at Birmingham Magistrates' Court for sexual assault in 2006 and was also found in possession of an offensive weapon that year.
The following year he was found guilty of drink-driving and in 2010 he was sentenced at Worcester Crown Court to seven months for affray.
Presumably Britain has no option but to admit criminals such as these? And I mean violent thugs, not Eastern Europeans.
I want to live in a hospitable country, but the more hospitable we make it, the more likely it is that we end up with more than our share of Europe's serious criminals.
An unfortunate corollary to that is that the Express reading GBP will and do impute the blame not to thugs, but foreigners. Excluding criminals like these would contribute to improving "race" relations and attitudes to Europe, and we should be able to do it.
|
>> What happened to free speech within the law?
Lets get that out the way up front. There is no such thing. There is free speech or there is the law. you can't have both.
>> Presumably Britain has no option but to admit criminals such as these? And I mean
>> violent thugs, not Eastern Europeans.
Why does it follow that criminals want to come here rather than other parts of Europe? Detection and conviction rates are much higher here in the UK than in other european countries. You also may not think it but our sentencing and prisons are tougher than some other european countries. There was a a period when we ran a positive balance of payments when exporting criminals.
There isn't a "foreign criminals problem" in the UK, only good DM fodder when it does happen.
Ironically , the bloke that the racist builder wanted to send back came from Harlesdon. A born and bred home grown loon.
|
>> Ironically , the bloke that the racist builder
Can we all have labels then.
What will yours be?
|
>> >> Ironically , the bloke that the racist builder
>>
>> Can we all have labels then.
>>
>> What will yours be?
Me? I am "the bloke that called MD a racist" hows that?
you can be "the bloke that says I have the right to call him a racist"
Happy with that?
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 30 Jan 15 at 08:55
|
>>Ironically , the bloke that the racist builder wanted to send back came from Harlesdon. A born and bred home grown loon.
The subject of this thread, yes. I was referring to the deleted one, that was deleted and I couldn't reply to.
The three who had long criminal records in Poland were presumably not home grown.
>>Why does it follow that criminals want to come here rather than other parts of Europe? Detection and conviction rates are much higher here in the UK than in other european countries.
Criminals don't commit crime on the basis that they might get caught, otherwise they wouldn't do it.
>>There isn't a "foreign criminals problem" in the UK
Tell that to the victim with the black and blue face, broken jaw and eye socket.
Those three should not have been let in, not because they were Polish, but because they were violent career criminals.
|
>> >>Ironically , the bloke that the racist builder wanted to send back came from Harlesdon.
>> A born and bred home grown loon.
>>
>> The subject of this thread, yes. I was referring to the deleted one, that was
>> deleted and I couldn't reply to.
>>
>> The three who had long criminal records in Poland were presumably not home grown.
I am running under some misapprehension then. I don't recall the polish blokes being mentioned in the original deleted post. My mistake if that was the case.
>> Criminals don't commit crime on the basis that they might get caught, otherwise they wouldn't
>> do it.
You are now being deliberately obtuse for the sake of argument. Of course they do, They commit crime where and when there is less chance of getting caught.
>> >>There isn't a "foreign criminals problem" in the UK
>>
>> Tell that to the victim with the black and blue face, broken jaw and eye
>> socket.
They were criminals. What would you have said if they were Scottish? We have more of them than polish ones, what you going to do about them?
>> Those three should not have been let in, not because they were Polish, but because
>> they were violent career criminals.
Yes they were. And now they are in jail.
|
Good grief. How hard is it?
The US probably won't let you in if you have been convicted of possessing illegal drugs, let alone violent crime. They have a point. Is that racist?
|
>> The US probably won't let you in if you have been convicted of possessing illegal
>> drugs, let alone violent crime. They have a point. Is that racist?
But the US is a very different place geographically and culturally. It has only two near neighbours, Mexico and Canada, and few of its own citizens 'do' foreign travel. Europe, by contrast has a long history of relatively free travel across the borders of its many and interlocking nations. Most of us hold passports and cross borders in huge numbers - look at Dover ferryport.
What you are suggesting would imply a need for passport checks and entry visas at every border. The practical implications are massive and unlikely to be worth the gain of stopping a relative handful of foreign crims.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 30 Jan 15 at 09:41
|
>> >> The US probably won't let you in if you have been convicted of possessing
>> illegal
>> >> drugs, let alone violent crime. They have a point. Is that racist?
>>
>> But the US is a very different place geographically and culturally. It has only two
>> near neighbours, Mexico and Canada, and few of its own citizens 'do' foreign travel. Europe,
>> by contrast has a long history of relatively free travel across the borders of its
>> many and interlocking nations. Most of us hold passports and cross borders in huge numbers
>> - look at Dover ferryport.
All that means is that we have a potential for more imported crime than they do.
>>
>> What you are suggesting would imply a need for passport checks and entry visas at
>> every border. The practical implications are massive and unlikely to be worth the gain of
>> stopping a relative handful of foreign crims.
The light is dawning. Many visitors to the UK already need visas. The rest of Europe can do what it wants. There's nothing to stop you combining that with the right to freedom of movement within the EU for the law-abiding.
Incidentally, if you do have to obtain a visa to visit the US, it's at your expense, not theirs, as it is for visitors requiring visas for the UK.
|
I don't really approve of the moderators censoring comments merely because they are racist. People should be allowed to see them and react to them. Racists will agree with them, others will be critical. What's wrong with that? No adult is going to change his/her views as a result of reading such comments.
I don't need to be protected from the nasty racists. Known who they were all my life, used to the carphounds.
And if we're going to have labels, can mine be 'that jumped-up ponce AC' please?
|
I like the idea of labels.
"Boring bloke from Norfolk"
|
|
"Suave Sophisticate from Surrey".
|
|
The issue with racist content AC is that, as well as being unacceptable, it breaches site rules and conditions of use. The condition reflects the legal position vis a vis Race and Equalities legislation and protects the publisher.
|
Yeah, rules are rules and one certainly wouldn't want the site to be suppressed.
Of course there has been comment over the years that was 'closet racist', unpleasant when you read between the lines, that saw the light of day. Personally I want to know who I am talking to, not get a sanitized version.
|
>>I don't really approve of the moderators censoring comments........
Whatever the contentious subject or argument, hiding/deleting the comments takes away the source of the fire. It'll rumble on a bit after that, but it almost always dies out without getting to a crisis level.
And if it does rise up, normally deleting/hiding it a second time will kill it. An exception is where you have a volatile subject and someone unwilling to let it drop. Then it may not go away. So you have to ban someone, which in this forum is not possible, or somehow defuse one or other of the parties.
As a Moderator of a normal discussion forum, then more than anything you simply want the matter to go away - whatever your personal stance on the matter is.
Now I'm not known for letting something drop if I believe strongly that it is wrong. In any part of life. So one way or another I stop when the comment has been removed or thoroughly devalued.
Separately, I worked out some time ago that a racist comment usually doesn't climb over the threshold for attention here. I also worked out that if I reported / complained about it I was [usually] ignored.
In the end I finally worked out that if I abused the racist/bigoted scumbag, mostly by pointing out that they were in fact a racist/bigoted scumbag, then the thread was deleted/hidden almost immediately, since personal abuse is regarded very seriously, much more so than racism and bigotry, and immediately climbs over the threshold.
And If I continue to jump up and down, and in particular insult, abuse and accuse, for as long as the racism or bigotry stands, it is inevitable that removing the thread will defuse the situation where not much else will - its a game of chicken.
And I'm sure you hate my behaviour and think I am a pain and ridiculous, but not as much as I hate bigotry and racism.
So a complaint/report is ineffectual, whereas a spot of abuse achieves the result. I find it strange that an accusation of racism is regarded as so much more serious than an act of racism, but that's the world we live [write] in.
Cause and effect children, cause and effect.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 30 Jan 15 at 13:16
|
>> All that means is that we have a potential for more imported crime than they
>> do.
And they have a very poor record of keeping out imported crime. Firstly it was the irish, then the Italians, the chinese, the cubans, and now they have the latinos.
So clearly its a lot more difficult than you think
>> The light is dawning. Many visitors to the UK already need visas.
Alas the light has just been snuffed out, given that your premier example of fortress america does a poor job.
>> Incidentally, if you do have to obtain a visa to visit the US, it's at
>> your expense, not theirs, as it is for visitors requiring visas for the UK.
Whats that got to do with the price of cheese? Everyone everywhere has to pay for a visa if they need one.
|
>> And they have a very poor record of keeping out imported crime. Firstly it was
>> the irish, then the Italians, the chinese, the cubans, and now they have the latinos.
Straw man. I knew somebody would point out that they have lots of crime anyway - but that's irrelevant, regardless of where you start from, you want less, not more
>> So clearly its a lot more difficult than you think
Clear to you, not me.
>> Whats that got to do with the price of cheese? Everyone everywhere has to pay
>> for a visa if they need one.
Bromp was finding reasons not to do anything, one of which was the cost.
It's just a discussion, I don't have the complete answer or pretend to; and when you start to invent new rules you should know that there will be unintended and unforeseen consequences and that you will rarely get it right first time.
The simple point was that we seem obliged willy nilly to welcome not just any EU citizen but also those proven to be violent career criminals. If we become one state with the rest of Europe then the question is redundant, but supposedly we aren't; so we should be able to refuse them entry.
If that was the point of MD's post then I don't consider it racist. If he meant that Poles should be denied entry because 4 of them committed an atrocious crime, that's a different matter (disregarding the nuance that they are actually the same race as most Britons, more or less).
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 30 Jan 15 at 13:31
|
>> Straw man. I knew somebody would point out that they have lots of crime anyway
>> - but that's irrelevant, regardless of where you start from, you want less, not more
Ok ignore the fact its immigrant crime if you want to, tho i thought that was your point.
>>
>> >> So clearly its a lot more difficult than you think
>>
>> Clear to you, not me.
Yes clearly if you ignore fundamental and relevant factors as above. I could make it clear if I made stuff up.
>> The simple point was that we seem obliged willy nilly to welcome not just any
The simple fact is we don't have a "imported crime wave" None of the crime statistics back that up. We do have a Daily Mail factor where we ignore the majority of crime and make a loud noise about a tiny minority because it panders to xenophobia.
And I am not going to discuss or argue MDs post. I know he is racist, he will admit he is racist and he makes no bones about his posts being anything other than racially motivated.
|
Where do you get this from? I didn't say we had an imported crime wave, only that there is reason to consider who comes here and whether they are bad eggs, as individuals not as members of any particular group.
If somebody had (been in a position to have) said to three of the four attackers "you have multiple convictions for violent crime, you are refused entry" then Paul Kohler would not have been nearly killed in his own home.
You just want an argument. I'm starting to feel that way myself, but I'll cut my losses here.
|
"None of the crime statistics back that up"
Phew - that's a relief ISTR a figure of 92% of ATM crime in London was caused by Romanians? Has anyone got the definitive figure? WP might know how to verify it?
|
>> "None of the crime statistics back that up"
>>
>> Phew - that's a relief ISTR a figure of 92% of ATM crime in London
>> was caused by Romanians? Has anyone got the definitive figure? WP might know how to
>> verify it?
The figure was much discussed without a conclusive outcome.
blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-romanian-crimewave/18207
A policeman suggested such a figure during an interview but seemingly based on 'intelligence' rather than straight fact. Also unclear if it was across all of London or (and I suspect it did) focus on Westminster and surrounding tourist areas.
There seems to have been an enterprising Romanian (or more likely Roma) gang which cornered the market in on particular form of ATM crime - card skimming. Not just in London but across Europe.
|
>> "None of the crime statistics back that up"
>>
>> Phew - that's a relief ISTR a figure of 92% of ATM crime in London
>> was caused by Romanians? Has anyone got the definitive figure? WP might know how to
>> verify it?
So its a newish specialised crime that a small minority have cornered in one particular part of the country.
Its not exactly contributing to a crime wave tho is it, as the total amount of crime has gone down.
|
Romanian crime myth analysed and debunked here:
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04416sl (More or Less)
HW, I'd have thought your scientific training would make you less credulous than some. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt for questioning the 92%.
}:---)
|
"
HW, I'd have thought your scientific training would make you less credulous than some."
Quite - I asked for further information - I had already read the link later supplied by Bro.
Last edited by: Haywain on Fri 30 Jan 15 at 19:10
|
>>The simple point was that we seem obliged willy nilly to welcome not just any EU citizen
>>but also those proven to be violent career criminals.
Either obliged or scared to do something about it for fear of "I don't know what". It seems to come from the same frame of mind which doesn't like competitive school sports.
Though actually doing something about it is quite difficult.
Stopping anybody with a criminal record seems fair and reasonable, but I'd wonder about a few things;
- In the real world, and not that of the Daily Mirror, how many crimes in the UK are actually committed by foreign nationals with a criminal record? And what percentage of foreign nationals with a criminal record actually commit an offence?
- Presumably we'd ignore a speeding offence and stop anybody with a murder conviction. But where in between those two would we draw the line?
- Do we take into account "spent" convictions? i.e. a 50 year old family/business man who got busted with a joint when he was 19? And where do we draw that line?
And that's just the first three which come to mind.
Don't forget we live in a country which campaigns for an illegal immigrant to stay despite the evil Government trying to deport her, even when on benefits because she appeared on X-Factor, but then are shocked that the Government et al is not throwing out every last illegal immigrant on the next boat.
>>and when you start to invent new rules you should know that there will be unintended and unforeseen consequences
Never a truer word.................
If we become one state with the rest of Europe then the question is redundant, but supposedly we aren't; so we should be able to refuse them entry.
|
>> Bromp was finding reasons not to do anything, one of which was the cost.
I never mentioned cost directly, neither was I finding reasons to do nothing. Before a new policy will stand up it should be proven to be necessary, workable and provide benefits in excess of the social (and economic) cost. I don't think visas for European citizens moving witihn the EU European mainland and between it and UK, in or out of the EU, meet that case.
Yes we might stop a few criminals but the determined will still slip through. Visa requirements invite a tit for tat response; we'd likely need visas to holiday or do business in those countries against whom we impose such a requirement. Our own tourist industry would lose out massively, we've lost millions because high spending Chinese need another, costly, visa for here over and above the one for the Schengen countries. I'll bet business would lose out too.
>> It's just a discussion, I don't have the complete answer or pretend to; and when
>> you start to invent new rules you should know that there will be unintended and
>> unforeseen consequences and that you will rarely get it right first time.
Which is the point I'm making above. There are enough examples of consequences (loss of student income, people we need being deterred by hoop jumping) to give some large clues.
>> If that was the point of MD's post then I don't consider it racist. If
>> he meant that Poles should be denied entry because 4 of them committed an atrocious
>> crime, that's a different matter (disregarding the nuance that they are actually the same race
>> as most Britons, more or less).
MD's original post was about a homegrown crim but focussed on his mixed race heritage.
|
>>MD's original post was about a homegrown crim but focussed on his mixed race heritage
You must have missed the thread he started that garnered a thumb and a scowl, then disappeared!
|
>> Do we take into account "spent" convictions? i.e. a 50 year old family/business man who got >> busted with a joint when he was 19? And where do we draw that line?
Indeed. Not just soft drugs either but crimes of violence.
Has anybody here got an assault conviction arising from spilled drink/'you lookin at my bird' type fisticuffs 30yrs ago?
I certainly know a few in real world outside who do.
|
|
I have a trivial one from being caught [by the police I'd called myself] belting crap out of a bloke I found in my Capri trying to steal it or its stereo late one night. That would have been around 82, I think.
|
>> belting crap out of a bloke I found in my Capri
I'd call that a bit stern FMR, seeing the jalopy was a mere Capri.
I found a tramp asleep in the back of my Bentley once, but I didn't even try to belt the crap out of him. As soon as I opened the door he scarpered, looking confused and a bit scared.
Perhaps your problem is that you lack 'natural authority'?
:o}
|
Harvard have an online test for race awareness (amongst other things). It's not of a type I'd seen before and takes about ten minutes.
For what it's worth, it reports me as "Little to no automatic preference between White people and Black people."
I also did the gender awareness one, and got "Slight association of Male with Science and Female with Liberal Arts."
If anyone is interested to do it, or one of the others, then it's all here:
implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/uk/takeatest.html
|
>> implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/uk/takeatest.html
Your data suggests:
Slight automatic preference for Black people compared to White people.
I am surprised.
|
>>
>> >> implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/uk/takeatest.html
>>
>> Your data suggests:
>> Slight automatic preference for Black people compared to White people.
>>
>> I am surprised.
Your data suggests:
Slight automatic preference for Gay People compared to Straight People.
Blimey I am more liberal than I thought.
|
A trainspotter with non-standard sexual proclivities?
Who'da thunk it?
|
Moderate automatic preference for Black people compared to White people.
Strong automatic preference for Gay People compared to Straight People.
I have no idea how it's supposed to work and I'm rather surprised by the result. I think I would prefer to have been found to be colour and orientation blind. But I'm not sure it works, I appear not to like myself very much:)
|
>> Moderate automatic preference for Black people compared to White people.
>>
>> Strong automatic preference for Gay People compared to Straight People.
>>
>> I have no idea how it's supposed to work and I'm rather surprised by the
>> result. I think I would prefer to have been found to be colour and orientation
>> blind. But I'm not sure it works, I appear not to like myself very much:)
I also have a slight automatic preference for the UK compared to the USA. I thought that would have been much larger.
And a slight automatic preference for thin people over fat people.
Clearly slight figures a lot in my preferences
|
|
Zero has a blind spot, the first, and most effective criminals in the land now known as the USA were English racists who wiped out the indigenous population. Or am I mistaken?
|
>> Zero has a blind spot, the first, and most effective criminals in the land now
>> known as the USA were English racists who wiped out the indigenous population. Or am
>> I mistaken?
Didn't need to go that far back.
|
You are pretty much mistaken. The relationships between the early English settlers was mixed with both cooperation and conflict. There were certainly acres of atrocity committed on both sides but nothing like the massacres thqt had occurred of the natives the Spanish settlements of Central and South America.
It is if course difficult to ascribe the word "racist" to events that occurred over 300 years ago. Racism is not a concept that would not have been understood then.
The Indian Wars that occurred in the nineteenth century can hardly be put down to the English.
|
Prison sentence increased - Armel Coussine
