Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Mick Mac Wrote:

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


> The real problem of racism ?

> Since when did the English refer to the Irish as

> white middle class Europeans

>

> No blacks

> No dogs

> No Irish

>

> In that order


To be fair Mick that was a long time ago, things have moved on a lot since then, we even like Louis Walsh.

And I wouldn't give the order too much significance, probably written alphabetically rather than prejudicially.

And I don't agree including nationality as a form of racism as lots of races can make up a nation, but having said that, there is a difference between calling someone a ''lazy cunt'' and a ''lazy Irish cunt'' whilst thumping them...context, innit.

Ok I'll refer you modern day dinosaurs to the United Nations definition:


the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.[22]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> Ok I'll refer you modern day dinosaurs to the

> United Nations definition:

>

> the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any

> distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference

> based on race, colour, descent, or national or

> ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of

> nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment

> or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights

> and fundamental freedoms in the political,

> economic, social, cultural or any other field of

> public life.[22]



'descent' wow! so if for arguments sake you're descended from a family of tall hairy people, under the UN definition it would be discriminatory to be called a "lazy lanky hairy cunt" when being repremanded


Though being punched in the gob, (if they could reach)of course would be assault

The public sector employers, and the BBC most probably, commit racial discrimination all the time since they restrict the employment of white males - it was a standing joke in school that the preferential order of employing someone was, Favourite- black woman, 2nd, black man, white woman on equal footing, and if you were a white man and saw any of the aforementioned waiting to be interviewed you may as well go home.

???? Wrote:

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

> Mick. I am not sure you are clear on the

> difference between being charged with a criminal

> offence and being sued in a private action


True. I shouldnt have in haste used the word crime.


So putting that aside I'm trying to focus the discussion on the current definition of racism, which is very different from the very narrow understanding of it that some people seem to have and is now outdated.

red devil Wrote:

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

> What does that 'definition' actually mean in legal

> terms Mick? Is it just some sort of

> edict/directive, or is it legally binding in some

> way?...


I refer my learned friend to the answer above


I am interested in this case as it will be potentially high profile.


If he's after the money, then it will settle out of court. If he is interested in defending the principle then it will go to court and will be the subject of interesting legal debate.


The basis of the war against racism is that people are treated equally irrespective of "background".


This is putting it in focus.

Here's my guess on this:


Bloke's a bit crap - doesn't do his job very well


Pissed Clarkson lumps him...that's assault and he deserves to be prosecuted


BBC doesn't want any scandal - offer some sweetners, let's for get about this.. all round trying to sweep it under carpet


News leaks out bloke gets death threats etc and things do I want this hassle


Bloke maybe has work drying up with BBC (for being a bit crap possibly - all conjecture) and thinks hang on a minute I've been hard done by here (and to a degree he's right) so takes out this action


The 'racism' is really an irrelevance

Your point was already clear, but conjecture.


The racism angle becomes relevant as it's the basis of the claim. This is indisputable and to state that it's irrelevant is clearly wrong.


His personal reasons for doing it will also be relevant if he can show loss of earnings. This loss of earnings and the impact of the incident on his life will have become more apparent over time and easier to ascertain.


Hence he's perfectly entitled to wait and make the claim now that he knows the full impact on his life.


The racism is not all he has left. He didn't make a previous claim and thetfore has claimed for the asssault and the racism now.


The interesting bit is obviously whether there was or wasn't any racism.

Loz Wrote:

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

> He's been off on full pay until he turned down a

> chance to return to the new Chris Evans version of

> Top Gear, so any claim of lost earnings would be

> surprising.


ah - didn't know that.

Written March 2015


The Top Gear presenter's reported tirade against producer Oisin Tymon is a reminder that anti-Irish prejudice still runs deep


It has been a good week for the Irish in Britain. Or at least this Irishman in Britain. On Wednesday, in a pub in North London, I saw one of our (and the world?s) greatest living poets, Eavan Boland, give a brilliant interview to journalist JP O?Malley covering swathes of Irish identity, gender, art, and politics.


On Friday, I managed to come out of the Cheltenham Gold Cup 50p up , using my time-tested strategy of ?bet on whatever Ruby Walsh is riding?. It?s Saturday morning now, so I?m not going to jinx our rugby and cricket teams by suggesting this enjoyable run will continue. Meanwhile, Saint Patrick?s Day celebrations will take place across Irish diaspora communities in Britain right up until the day itself on Tuesday. The sun is shining in my London Irish neighbourhood, where I can buy every Irish food I can imagine, read every Irish regional paper, and listen to live traditional music in welcoming pubs most nights of the week. I like being Irish in London.


But as always, the silver lining carries its cloud. According to the Daily Mirror this morning, the Jeremy Clarkson controversy at the BBC has escalated considerably. The paper reports that the BBC investigation into Clarkson?s ?fracas? with Top Gear producer Oisin Tymon will be told that: ?[Clarkson] called Oisin a ?lazy, Irish c***? before splitting his lip with a punch that left the 36-year-old with blood running down his face and needing treatment in A&E.?


If this account is true (Clarkson is said to deny it, it should be noted), then this is racially aggravated assault, no different than if Clarkson had abused a black, Asian or Jewish colleague.


This does not seem to deter the hundreds of thousands of Clarkson fans who will, presumably, condone racism as classic banter, just as they have condoned violence.


The queer thing about anti-Irish racism (and its partner, anti-Catholicism), is that a hell of a lot of British people are in denial about its existence (trust me, Irish people are not). It was, certainly, worse during the ?Troubles?, but there is a mistaken belief that the Troubles was the sole reason for anti-Irish feeling.


In truth, of course, it is a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Ireland was one of the first colonies: justification for all colonisation, then as now, is partly found in the dehumanisation of the conquered. The Irish, with their distinct laws, customs and language, were not really fit to rule themselves (how often is that sentiment echoed today?); we were not diligent, we were not to be trusted: they were, as Mr Clarkson would have it, ?lazy Irish cunts?.


Every so often, a well-meaning British liberal friend will either a) declare matily that ?we?re all the same? and what the hell was all that fighting about, eh? or b) inquire archly about whether, considering the decades of quasi-theocracy the Irish republic endured, and the apparent corruption of the political system, was the whole independence thing really worth it?


And every time, you remind them: yes. We were a colony. We were stripped of land, language, identity. We were routinely demonised and patronised.


Of course, there is complexity in this: over 800 years, things are bound to get complicated. People moved back and forth, some colonists became ?more Irish than the Irish themselves?, some Irish people took enthusiastically to Britishness and the British empire. Many more joined the civil service, the police, the army out of simple economic necessity.


But the fight for freedom was worth it, because at least most people in Ireland now have some control of the country?s future. No revolution was ever perfect: the idyllic republic has never been achieved. But at least we can make some attempt to achieve it on our terms.


And it needed to be on our terms because we were not, and never would be viewed as equals by the British establishment. Every Irish person in Britain knows the little nod, the little wink. More often now it is disguised as affection, or indulgence (?Oh, you funny people? is always implied). But the undertones are the same: feckless, violent, drunken. And occasionally, someone like Clarkson, who, as better writers than I have pointed out, is simultaneously at the very heart of the Establishment while feigning to rail against it, will let it all spill out, in full vitriol. And we?re back with an image that easily resonates with Irish people: an English toff assaulting a ?lazy? Irish lackey for not doing his bidding. What we hoped we?d be able to leave behind.

It seems unlikely from the accounts I've heard that the motivation behind the attack was the individual's race. I suspect that they were abused because Clarkson didn't approve of the dinner he was served. It's shameful and pathetic behaviour, but a racially motivated attack?

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> It seems unlikely from the accounts I've heard

> that the motivation behind the attack was the

> individual's race. I suspect that they were abused

> because Clarkson didn't approve of the dinner he

> was served. It's shameful and pathetic behaviour,

> but a racially motivated attack?


Is anyone actually saying it was racially motivated? I thought it was motivated by Clarkson being his usual utterly twattish self with the use of the victim's nationality as an accompanying insult being a racially aggravating factor.


Not aimed at you Rah Rah Rah but I'm always amazed by the fawning over Clarkson in this country and the many apologists for the man who happily used the N word on camera and made a joke about Asians being "slopes". Well done to the producer for putting this kind of stuff on the record - hopefully he will be getting extra cash from the BBC as they tolerated the unfunny, boorish fool's behaviour for way too long. I hope he lightens Clarkson's pocket a fair wedge while he's at it too.

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...