Gypsy Invasion

[Arrowfoot]

I went to school with a traveller, primary school this was, Victor his name was. Victor lived on a permanent travellers site just out of town, its still there now. Bullied terribly the poor lad, wish I knew then what I know now and could have done something about it.

Anyhow, the question of course is why was he bullied? He wasn't particulary different to the rest of us, a little scruffy maybe, but nothing out of the ordinary, his behaviour was no different to any of us other 9 year olds. Except of course, Victor wasn't a bully and did not come from the leafy modern middle class housing estate where the rest of us lived. The reason Victor was bullied was of course due to prejudice. Nine year olds are not born with prejudice. Prejudice is taught to us, maybe even inadvertently by our elders. The same elders that to this day write stuff on internet forums which judge a whole subset minority of people based on a single experience of the few... Victor is quite likely to be quite an angry adult by now, and who could blame him?

.. and you wonder why they behave like they do?

Bullying of minorities was across the board in those days. When the blacks started to organise and some good people,within the majority population stepped in, they picked on other minority races who were less organised.They also picked on the meek and vulnerable within our World.

What was interesting in school was when bullies and bigots did their nonsense, their school mates realised that they picked up such behaviour from their parents. We were all curious to see who their parents were.

 

[Dan B]

I never suggested it was right

Well, that's a start at least

I suggested you have no moral grounds for complaint when you break the law and the victim in turn does the same towards you.

I would suggest that if you trespass on someone's land and as a result they set fire to you, then although you might not be starting from the moral high ground you still have some reasonable basis for complaining. Just because both acts are against the law doesn't make them both equally bad

 

[Arrowfoot]

Right, right. You know, "an eye for an eye" was supposed to be a limiton escalatory violence, not as a fricking baseline

If you and I with our families and our caravans decided to make the town common our caravan site, the cops, the council and the locals will make sure we depart pronto. It will be the same for the Patels, the Wongs, the Ballestros, the Merklels, and any other race. If necessary, court orders will done on an urgent basis for the eviction and possible fines for the conduct.

When misguided folks pull out the race card, the authorities get frighten, the locals become overly cautious and all because they they want to be avoided being called a racists and bigots.

This eye for an eye argument wrongly used and fancy words like "escalatory" will not fly in the face of logic.

There cannot be 2 sets of rules. Any exception must have substantive reasons.

 

[Dan B]

And that makes firebombing a reasonable response to an act of trespass? If you don't think it does, perhaps you'd like to explain how anything you posted had any relevance at all to anything in the post you quoted

 

[anothersam]

Obviously the trolley was used to transport the boulder.

A sound hypothesis had not the rock come several years before the cart, crucial information I neglected to provide.

These travellers appeared one day, showing off by squandering hot air like it was free and spilling champagne over the sheep, before hubris brought them down on the same level as us little people. We exchanged escalatories, which is just a fancy word for pleasantries, then they were on their way to their next adventure, paintballing hop pickers.

 

[raised by puffins]

​

FADE IN:

EXT. PASTURE LAND - DAWN

...the head traveller said to him, "Let's have a fight. I win, we stay. You win, we move on." Father in law pretended to think about this, then agreed. As the bloke was taking his jumper off over his head he got punched in the face and knocked out. .

Drango walks back through the dawn mist to his squad car and a shocked rookie.

DRANGO:
"Step on it kid, I fancy a cuppa"​

BEGIN TITLES
...

 

[swansonj]

So just to be clear, is it race or conduct that we are all concerned about? Pick one of the 2 words, no need for a complete sentence.

How would I know what goes on in your subconsciouses?

 

[anothersam]

FADE IN:

EXT. PASTURE LAND - DAWN

Drango walks back through the dawn mist to his squad car and a shocked rookie.

DRANGO:
"Step on it kid, I fancy a cuppa"​

BEGIN TITLES
...

Dibs on Michael Chiklis to cast Drango, transplanted from LA's mean streets to the edgy English countryside.

 

[Drago]

Well, that's a start at least

I would suggest that if you trespass on someone's land and as a result they set fire to you, then although you might not be starting from the moral high ground you still have some reasonable basis for complaining. Just because both acts are against the law doesn't make them both equally bad

Now you really are dreaming. I never suggested a scale of bad ness. I never suggested one would be worse the other. I suggested that when you break the law you have no moral grounds to whittle and bleat when the victim in turn breaks the law towards you. Nothing more. It's pointless you trying to further extrapolate this into things I have neither said not thought.

I bet you're the sort of criminal cuddling lefty who wails in anguish at the injustice of it all when a metal thief has his arms burned to stumps while plying his trade on a railway.

 

[srw]

...and I presume that when a driver knocks down and kills a cyclist without pedal reflectors you let him on his way with a nod and a wink.

 

[Drago]

I'm not quite sure how that is even remotely comparable. Please explain the relevance?

 

[gbb]

The basis of stereotyping people is that you ascribe to them conduct that you have not actually observed of them but which you believe to be typical of other people who share some characteristic with them - race, lifestyle choice, sexual orientation, groupset manufacturer, whatever. It tends to be pretty irrelevant what that characteristic actually is

Very often people stereotype others based on what they HAVE observed.
Isnt it a human condition ?, self protection (whether its your life, property or whatever) based on experience, instinct, occasionally hearsay etc etc. I'd no more trust an unknown gypsy to look after my possessions for instance than i would trust a Nigerian attempting to buy my mobile phone. Both may be perfectly upright citizens, but experience, repute etc etc quite naturally makes you suspicious. Thats what we all do. Well, some apparently not
Of course, once an individual become known and trusted, all that goes out the window. Trust has to be earned, its not a right.

 

[Arrowfoot]

Shooting, firebombing caravans are not a legal or even remotely proportionate response to trespass.

99% of the folks in this forum here will agree. You are stating the obvious. Not need to be overly dramatic and alarmist. The call has been to apply the law.

What gave you the impression that folks in this forum think that shooting and firebombing are legal?

 

[Dan B]

Now you really are dreaming. I never suggested a scale of bad ness. I never suggested one would be worse the other. I suggested that when you break the law you have no moral grounds to whittle and bleat when the victim in turn breaks the law towards you.

I suggest that you're barking mad if you really believe that. I parked slightly outside the white line so I have no basis for complaint if somebody torches my car?

I bet you're the sort of criminal cuddling lefty who wails in anguish at the injustice of it all when a metal thief has his arms burned to stumps while plying his trade on a railway.

If he's made of metal he's not going to burn is he? Idiot

 

[threebikesmcginty]

...If he's made of metal he's not going to burn is he? Idiot

He could be made of magnesium.