Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yesterday at 11:10 you said:


"I've read several times b4 ( This time I do not recall where) that 75% of Mixed-Raced Partnerships fail, I'm afraid."


Now you say:


"MY "75%" figure that I wrongly gave for BRITISH Mixed-Raced children being in BRITISH CARE/FOSTER";


and


"I was referring to Mixed-Raced Children as YOU were referring to a figure giving DIVORCE rates"


No you weren't. Your 75% reference was about relationships failing. And when I dug around on the net, the only reference I could find to it was on Stormfront. So I wondered whether, by way of helping you to "recall", I might be of some assistance.


Shall we end this thread Tony? You are at your very worst when staggering around race issues and you risk offending a lot of people. The assertions you have made have, where falsifiable, been falsified. Your reputation as EDF's rose-tinted codger of choice is becoming increasingly tarnished. And Welling is no longer looking like an attractive option for this particular white man's flight.

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sherwick Wrote:

> Yup it's there: "Problems of Mixed Race Couples"

> number "8) The divorce rate of inter-racial

> marriages is 75%. It is believed that many who

> engage in mixed unions have profound emotional

> problems and/or are drug users. Often they seek

> to

> mock society's norms or are in rebellion against

> their parents."

> Other marvelous 'facts' from this page are: "7)

> The low I.O. of Negroes has been scientifically

> proven to be hereditary. Low-I.Q. people breed

> only more low-I.Q. offspring and usually have

> large numbers of offspring, further

> polluting the White gene pool." and "5) When an

> interracial baby is conceived, a White family

> line, thousands of years old, has instantly ceased

> to exist." Hmmmm.... strange how TLS posted this

> exact (yet false) percentage, but did NOT get it

> from the Stormfront site...

> WHAT A COINCIDENCE! ::o

>

> The fact that somewhere on the Internet there is a

> 75% Stat that relates in some way to Mixed-Race

> people or children?

>

> Do me a favour! lol

>

> p.s My opinion of you sinks further and further

> Sherwick.

>

> You are VERY transparent, I'm afraid.

>

> You quote a lot of disgusting text from a Site

> I've never heard of because it is on the same page

> where a "75%" is mentioned, though THIS 75% figure

> as NOTHING to do with mine,,and then BY

> ASSOCIATION you attempt to UNsubtlety credit me

> with those views from a Site that I have never

> ever seen.

>

> PATHETIC MON AMI!


Pathetic? You said that you read that 75% of mixed race partnerships fail.


Then you deny you said it.


Now that's pathetic.

Ted Max Wrote:

Tony, this is what you said: that 75% of Mixed-Raced Partnerships fail, I'm afraid."

So your 75% stat did relate to partnerships failing. I'm not sure it changes much but you do seem to be getting confused.


Assuming you are right Ted that means that I did not say that 75% of all children in Foster Care are Mixed-Raced which many have accused me of saying?:))


I'm sure I never said BOTH 75% of Mixed-Raced Partnerships faiil" AND "75% of children in Mixed-Raced relationships end up in care"...so are my detractors wrong in accusing me of the latter Ted?

Sherwick Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TLS, I notice you aren't telling us where you got

> the 75% number from.


Look harder SherLOCK I've already answered that, which is more than I can say for many of the questions that I have posed to you, which remain unanswered.

Sherwick Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> no, you answered that you made up all the other

> %ages, e.g. the 99% numbers. so, you're saying that you made up this one as well?


You are just getting silly now Sherwick.


I explained SEVERAL times that my 99% figure WAS CORRECT when I mentioned that 99% of people FROM Britain who fought and died in the last 2 World Wars were White/British which was representative of British Society then ( i.e Back in 1914-18 and 1939-45)


Do you dispute that 99% figure then Sherwick?

Assuming you are right Ted that means that I did not say that 75% of all children in Foster Care are Mixed-Raced which many have accused me of saying?


I'm sure I never said BOTH 75% of Mixed-Raced Partnerships faiil" AND "75% of children in Mixed-Raced relationships end up in care"...so are my detractors wrong in accusing me of the latter Ted?




Tony, I'm going to make this really simple.


Many people have not accused you of saying "75% of children in Mixed-Raced relationships end up in care". In fact nobody has accused you of saying this.


This is a confusion you have created yourself - accidentally I'm sure.


You said two separate things.

1. That there are more mixed race children in care than others.

2. That you had read that 75% of mixed race partnerships fail.


Take a step back and think about this.

Sherwick Wrote:

no, you answered that you made up all the other %ages, e.g. the 99% numbers. so, you're saying that you made up this one as

well?


I'll assist you for the last time M8.


Read my reply at 16.03 and please don't ask again.


Now how about answering some of my questions?

Ted Max Wrote:

Tony, I'm going to make this really simple. Many people have not accused you of saying "75% of children in Mixed-Raced relationships end up in care". In fact nobody has accused you of saying this. This is a confusion you have created yourself - accidentally I'm sure.


You said two separate things. 1. That there are more mixed race children in care than others. 2. That you had read that 75% of mixed race partnerships fail. Take a step back and think about this.


Thank You for bringing some much-needed lucidity on this Ted.


I'm prepared, as I'm not going to trawl through everything, that you are right M8.


Seems a reasonable analysis Ted.


I obviously meant "proportionately" when referring to Mixed-Raced Children in care.


I thought I was accused of saying that I believed that 75% of children in The UK were from Mixed-Raced relationships.

I KNOW I was, wrongly, accused of viewing and taking figures from Stormfront which I am about as "au fait" with as an average other EDF Forumite.


At least I have heard of Stormfront, I have never even heard of "The Truth etc" can I assume that this Site is not Stormfront?

I obviously meant "proportionately" when referring to Mixed-Raced Children in care.


Then you should have said so, or it looks like an after the event justification. It isn't "obvious" in your original post, I'm afraid.


The same goes for the subtle changing of the words on your 99% stat about the army. You changed the emphasis there after the fact as well.


These are emotive issues, and language is powerful. We need to be careful how we use it, is all I would say.


Also, throwing in stats that you can't back up doesn't help.


That's about it, I think.

If you actually bother to read what I have posted (and apparently, to read what YOU have posted), then you'll see that I have anwered all your questions.


Regarding your latest question about ONE of your various '99% figues', this one may be correct, but only to a point.

I say 'only to a point' because your original quote was:

"As you know millions died in the last 2 World Wars fighting for Freedom for Britain and the British people."


This is factually correct.


"99% of them were White/British, which was representative of British Society then."


This is NOT factually correct, because 99% of the millions who died were not white/British. In fact hundreds of thousands of Indians alone died fighting for Freedom for Britain and the British people.


However, I suspect, what you meant to say (but never did) is as follows:

"As you know 1.5 million British died in the last 2 World Wars fighting for Freedom for Britain and the British people. 99% of them were White/British, which was representative of British Society then."


That would have been accurate, but then, that's not what you said.

Ted Max Wrote:

These are emotive issues, and language is powerful. We need to be careful how we use it, is all I would say.

Also, throwing in stats that you can't back up doesn't help. That's about it, I think.


Good synopsis Ted.


Of course the first point applies to both sides of this, er, discussion...


I've been wrongly accused of "promoting White Purity" // "nasty/nasty/nasty" // " jingoism" // Using Stormfront etc...


All of which, are equally emotive comments but point taken.


I've learned from this that I must gain access to stats or stories that I have heard.


For example, Sherwick asked me to back up that "English Woman Suicide" story and its only through fluke that I found it by mixing up a combination of words on Google. So that story would not have benbelieved if I had not found it.


So points taken.

Sherwick Wrote:

Anyway, I don't know why you're telling me about a Black racist site. It's just as bad as a White racist site as far as I'm concerned.


The whole point is that it is NOT a Black racist Site at all!!


It is an everyday Site and easily, the largest in The UK for The Black Community from The UK, with contributions fromother parts of The African Diaspora.


It WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY open you eyes Sherwick.

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sherwick Wrote:

> Anyway, I don't know why you're telling me about a

> Black racist site. It's just as bad as a White

> racist site as far as I'm concerned.

>

> The whole point is that it is NOT a Black racist

> Site at all!!

>

> It is an everyday Site and easily, the largest in

> The UK for The Black Community from The UK, with

> contributions fromother parts of The African

> Diaspora.

>

> It WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY open you eyes Sherwick.


If it allows racist material against whites, browns or any other colour IT IS A RACIST SITE IN MY OPINION.

Just as racist as Stormfront or any of the other racist sites.

Anyone who dreams about 'racial purity' is swimming against the tide of history and of the future.

Apart from this, they are swimming against the tide of natural selection.

It's completely absurd, along the lines that flat-earth theory was absurd.

Didn't stop the majority believing in a flat earth though at the time.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...