[Closed] STWer in chip shop race row shocker

Good for you. Enjoy your chips.

NO YOU HAVE TO CALL THEM OUT WHEREVER AND WHENEVER

Good man.

And, yes, go and apologise for your language tomorrow.

I agree with this. If they think they can say it freely without being called out they'll keep on doing it.

I wouldn't worry about it, over the past few days (with regard to the attacks in france) i have called my boss an ignorant **** racist braindead daily mail reading knuckle dragging retard (apology for the retard comment), in my local Key corner shop they were discussing what should be done with the muslims in this country, apparently they should be all be rounded up and deported so when i eventually got to the counter and pulled them up for this i was told "if you don't like it then ****-off somewhere else", this was a mistake on their part as i had 4 bottles of cobra and a bottle of prosecco in my basket which i tipped upside down on the floor.

Needless to say life in my small rural galloway town (pop 3000) may get interesting over the next few days as i have previous for speaking my mind in public.

Are you a lefty fist shaker?

If it's ok for them to be racist in front of the ladies, it's ok to swear. I know which id rather my kids hear, and it's not blatant racism!! 😈

It makes more of an impression if you can express your view without using foul & abusive language, or indulging in acts of petulant rage.
Otherwise you're just another shouty nutter - but if it makes you feel good..........

If it's ok for them to be racist in front of the ladies, it's ok to swear.

hilldodger : In an ideal world where we are all within a few % points of similar intelligence i would always agree with you, however when you are faced with a yokel with a slack hanging lower jaw I'm afraid you are mistaken, trying to converse or merely using words of more than three syllables will lead to a fright/fight response so it's best to make your point and leave.

They are as entitled to their views as much as you are, and just because you don't like their views doesn't make it ok to be aggressive towards them. After all, free speech is something we all value, isn't it?

Well done sir, won't make a blind bit of difference to the idiot, maybe just make him think before he opens his arse in public again. I do wonder how many of these types actually believe in what they spout, or do they actually think that's what other people believe, and try to fit in.

They are as entitled to their views as much as you are, and just because you don't like their views doesn't make it ok to be aggressive towards them. After all, free speech is something we all value, isn't it?

Tell me you're on the wind up?.

...however when you are faced with a yokel with a slack hanging lower jaw I'm afraid you are mistaken....

Not a position I'm familiar with, my local racists are of the "city gent" variety, better educated but no less ignorant!

I wouldn't have bothered, He'll either get shot or get his head chopped off, that'll teach him!

They are as entitled to their views as much as you are,

There are some very angry keyboard warriors on here.

A lot of BS being spouted as well.

^ satire? or an ignorant example of that which you are objecting to?

They are as entitled to their views as much as you are, and just because you don't like their views doesn't make it ok to be aggressive towards them. After all, free speech is something we all value, isn't it?

I value the free speech to troll and talk shite but dont exercise it liek you do or the racists do.
Never ever let it slide always challenge it

For the triumph of evil all that is necessary is good people do nothing

No, not on the wind up. And I don't like racist behaviour. But I do understand that some people have different points of view and however much I might not like their views, they are entitled. Freedom of speech is about being able to say things that others might not like.

Like **** of you racist **** ?

Freedom of speech is about being able to say things that others might not like.

^ satire? or an ignorant example of that which you are objecting to?

I never know what you are on about. I am not objecting to anything.

I will make myself clearer.

There are a lot of Walter Mitty types on here and some of the things they are saying they have done I do not believe they did.

They may of wanted to but I bet 99% didn't.

Like * of you racist * ?

Including saying how he'd like to kill people because they are ****s?

No, that's making threats to kill. There's a law against that.

And challenging peoples views is great, going off on one isn't.

Good on ya Neil the wheel, wish I had the balls to stand up like that !

Did you have scraps with your fish and chips ?

[quote=centralscrutinizer said]Did you have scraps with your fish and chips ?

[img] [/img]

Did you have scraps with your fish and chips ?

The threatening to run them all over aside.
He shared his opinion which he is entitled to.
As he shared his opinion in public the op was entitled to challenge his opinion in public debate.
Freedom of speech.

A proper racist would have got his chips and put you on your arse he was obviously only playing at it 😉

Possibly from Voltaire- 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,'

Everyone is entitled to their views. Poor education, coupled with difficult circumstances during upbringing may lead to bigoted viewpoints that you or I consider unacceptable. However these views are an entitlement even if you, me, we consider them wrong. Well done for trying to re-educate the bloke, I doubt I would have had the courage to do so.

[quotePossibly from Voltaire

Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

Everyone is entitled to their views.

Cuts both ways: everyone's entitled to challenge them. Losing your cool when you do that is a side issue (but good manners dictates the OP should apologise too the chip shop staff for that.)

Happens to me regularly at work. I've previously made my views on racist language, 'jokes' etc. known, without being confrontational about it. Hasn't stopped it, but at least the people apologise before proceeding! Thing is, the fellas are otherwise just regular guys, and I'm seen as a bit of a Grauniad reading odd-ball.
Can't help but think that when the surface is scratched there is a lot more suppressed bigotry about than one might want to believe.

I often challenge people for making racist remarks, must say that muslims killing innocent people on streets all over the world in the name of religion is beginning to wear a bit thin!
What do we do, just keep saying "it's not all muslims, only a few radicals" , then wait for the next massacre to happen.

Cuts both ways: everyone's entitled to challenge them. Losing your cool when you do that is a side issue (but good manners dictates the OP should apologise too the chip shop staff for that.)

Unless it appears said person happens to be Muslim then they seem to have free reign to say as they please with no fear of a challenge as to challenge would be racist

You should have battered the tosser OP.

What do we do, just keep saying "it's not all muslims, only a few radicals" , then wait for the next massacre to happen.

You're right, we better deport all the Muslims back to Muslamia instead.

Or at least get the security services to start monitoring some of these nutters rather than dicking about in sports cars and speedboats all the time.

Many years ago I used to work in Woking.
Woking ( Surrey ) has a large mosque , and with that a large Muslim community , has had for years, and has its own little underlying areas of racial tension. Although as its british born muslim majority now i don't think its as bad as it was.

Minutes after the 7/7 bombings in London a group of men in traditional muslim garb marched down middle of the road in front of my work cheering and shouting ' Allah Ahkbar' and punching the air. Maybe 10 or 12 of them using their right to free speach and to demonstrate peacefully their veiws.

Nearly lost it , had to physically restrained by my colleague. Made me feel sick to the stomach . If i had been driving a van, on my own I might have made my own demonstration of my veiws on the subject.

Celebrating the killing and maiming of innocent people on their way to work , only a few miles away ,in a country that welcomes immigration and defends the rights of its people to enjoy free health care , free speach, free legal aid, benefit system etc. Im sorry if that made me loose my temper and really very very angry but that is simply beyond wrong.

Don't know what the offending guy said but might also be worth pointing out the obvious here..religion isn't race

Don't know what the offending guy said but might also be worth pointing out the obvious here..religion isn't race

religion isn't race

Groups like the EDL who are clearly racist but hide behind the facade of attacking the religion rather than the ethnicity when , all but their supporters, would accept that they are a racist organisation made up and funded by racists.

Some religions can be both a religion and a race FWIW

In the United Kingdom the landmark legal case Mandla v Dowell-Lee placed a legal definition on ethnic groups with religious ties, which in turn has paved the way for definition of ethnoreligious[8] group. Both Jews[9][10][11] and Sikhs[12][13][14] were determined to be ethnoreligious groups under the Anti-Discrimination (Amendment) Act 1994 (see above).
The Anti-Discrimination (Amendment) Act 1994 made reference to Mandla v Dowell-Lee which defined ethnic groups as:
a long shared history, of which the group is conscious as distinguishing it from other groups, and the memory of which it keeps alive;
a cultural tradition of its own, including family and social customs and manners, often but not necessarily associated with religious observance. In addition to those two essential characteristics the following characteristics are, in my opinion, relevant:
either a common geographical origin, or descent from a small number of common ancestors;
a common language, not necessarily peculiar to the group;
a common literature peculiar to the group;
a common religion different from that of neighbouring groups or from the general community surrounding it;
being a minority or being an oppressed or dominant group within a larger community. For example, a conquered people (say, the inhabitants of England shortly after the Norman conquest) and their conquerors might both be ethnic groups
The significance of this case was that groups like Sikhs and Jews could be protected under the Race Relations Act 1976.[13]

Minutes after the 7/7 bombings in London a group of men in traditional muslim garb marched down middle of the road in front of my work cheering and shouting ' Allah Ahkbar' and punching the air. Maybe 10 or 12 of them using their right to free speach and to demonstrate peacefully their veiws.

I would be very surprised if this was not actually illegal. I imagine the police were somewhat otherwise preoccupied at the time though. Well done on the restraint though. Not sure I would have managed that...

Or at least get the security services to start monitoring some of these nutters rather than dicking about in sports cars and speedboats all the time.

They do monitor as much as possible and would go further if they had the resources. It's be cool if all potential terrorists signed up to a register so that the Int Services knew who to monitor. But they don't and never will. Unfortunately, a lot of that awareness needs to come from monitoring communications - there simply are not enough people to be out on the ground doing the old fashioned HUMINT side alone. Unfortunately, we the British public seem to have a massive bee in our bonnets about phone calls, emails etc being monitored. If we want to be safer, then we should stop being so protective and subject ourselves to monitoring.

As for the OP pulling someone up on having racist views, well done. They may be his views and yes, he does have to right to hold them but that does not make them any less offensive, ignorant and bigoted. Unless someone tries to put forward alternative point of view then he will continue to hold those views and he helps society polarise even more. Brilliant, lets just welcome UKIP into government. If that happens, I will leave Britain out of embarrassment.

Unfortunately, we the British public seem to have a massive bee in our bonnets about phone calls, emails etc being monitored. If we want to be safer, then we should stop being so protective and subject ourselves to monitoring.

It's worse than that - the ****s have given away all our intel secrets to these nutjobs via facilitating Snowden etc. The Guardian editorial yesterday was still trying to justify their actions in publishing the stuff, and still blaming MI5 for 'not wanting a debate'.

I'd be happy to see Rusbridger in the tower of London for what he's helped do. Also, anyone who thinks it's a basic human right to have encrypted secrecy for their inane facebook communications needs to grow up.

And we wonder why politicians tiptoe round the subject, leaving a vacuum for UKIP?

Well done OP for the effort. Education, acceptance and some element integration on all sides is what is required. No idea how you actually deliver it.

we the British public seem to have a massive bee in our bonnets about phone calls, emails etc being monitored. If we want to be safer, then we should stop being so protective and subject ourselves to monitoring.

anyone who thinks it's a basic human right to have encrypted secrecy for their inane facebook communications needs to grow up.

FWIW we dont mind the "rebels " having it in Syria and elsewhere and the US designed TOR for example. We facilitate other people being able to use the internet without the state snooping then want to increasingly snoop on ourselves

We need to have a pragmatic debate. Either we are happy for "the state" to monitor more communications to improve the chances of them catching potential terrorists, and it can be argued that unless you have something to hide you have nothing to fear, OR we preserve our freedoms, such as they are, and accept that there is a greater risk of an attack succeeding, in which case, the media and the public and the bereaved need to MTFU and not have a witch hunt to find out why MI5 failed to protect us.

The price of personal freedom is the increased risk of a terrorist attack happening.

I don't know how much that risk increases by. Miniscule for an individual, progressively greater by family, city, country.

Better to die a free man? Personally, I'd say yes. Better for my son or daughter to die free men, my conviction starts to wobble.

Not trying to give an answer for JY to attack me on, just expressing the options as I see them.

I fail to see the link to race in that case. ethnicity is defined in that case as geographical point or country of origin linked with culture (language). I might be getting too fine with definition but from a scientific view point it is almost non existent as we are all genetically the same. It is the cultures & geography that separates us. Take these away what have you got, people.

@junkyard

Privacy and secrecy two different things. Actions of Snowden have made secrecy quantifiable easier for terrorists. Whilst the professionals already knew how to encrypt etc., the idiot lone wolfs didn't to the same extent, now they know everything, and we are clearly more at risk.

Now that our non elected representatives at Facebook and google have decided to unilaterally encrypt everything, I'm guessing our security services are hamstrung from an intercept perspective. Again, we are more at risk.

All for what? We've never had secrecy as a human right - we give it up to belong to the societal construct we live in, in return for a level of collective security.

You are broadly correct that it is a balancing act to be played between the two positions and as society we need a debate on this

it can be argued that unless you have something to hide you have nothing to fear

I dont know either tbh

we give it up

We need to have a pragmatic debate. Either we are happy for "the state" to monitor more communications to improve the chances of them catching potential terrorists, and it can be argued that unless you have something to hide you have nothing to fear, OR we preserve our freedoms, such as they are, and accept that there is a greater risk of an attack succeeding, in which case, the media and the public and the bereaved need to MTFU and not have a witch hunt to find out why MI5 failed to protect us.

This. What we should not do is expect to be 100% safe, yet bind the hands of those who seek to protect us. That's just nonsensical. Personally, I couldn't care less who sees who I'm sending emails to, calling etc etc and I don't really feel that allowing organisations to see this for the sake of my safety a restriction on my liberties or giving in to those who want to harm us. However, that is just my view and completely accept that others will have a problem with that.

I doubt anyone on here wil post up their name, address, mobile phone number, and place of work for example.

Except allowing the security services to see who you have been sending emails to/calling etc is not the same as releasing this info into the public domain. I think a lot of people are worried that allowing the security services to see this info makes it available to everyone, when it doesn't.

You're right in saying that "the real question is how much should we be allowed to hide from the state spying/snooping/protecting us". Like you, I don't know the answer either.

 

Is the occupation of the driver of any relevance, would it have been so un acceptable if he was wearing a suit and had a ukip badge on.

The chip shop owner was so inflamed at your outburst he went out back and battered some fish.

I once sat in a bar with about 8 random folk. We were waiting for a bus so popped in for a quick pint. F1 was on the telly on a Sunday evening and Lewis was about to win his first world title. Pissed individual was screaming at the telly die you black **** etc etc, if I recall I think there was confusion over whether he'd won initially. At this point said specimen was revelling in the "black ****s" demise.
It was at this point I bit. I went a bit far to be fair but in the ensuing melee it was discovered that Lewis had actually won and no more actions/words were needed.
What galled the most was the barmaid suggested "it's like that all the time in here" 🙄

Nearly two pages and no one has done a 'fish/battered' gag?
I'm not angry, just very, very disappointed.

Edit - just noticed the post at the top of the page - well done, carry on etc......

easygirl - Member
What do we do, just keep saying "it's not all muslims, only a few radicals" , then wait for the next massacre to happen.

Or at least get the security services to start monitoring some of these nutters rather than dicking about in sports cars and speedboats all the time.

I think there are a number of sacred spaces for racist ranting, which include:
chip shops, the regulars side of a locals pub, a black cab, the central line on a boozy Thursday evening.
I have never heard anything remotely racist spoken outside of those spaces.

Or at least get the security services to start monitoring some of these nutters

I think you'll find that resources are the problem with that statement. How can you monitor "everything"? It's not that straight forward, bad guys can hide quite easily. You have TOR, Linux distros like 'Whonix' and 'Tails'. Believe it or not, it's not like the movies.

it can be argued that unless you have something to hide you have nothing to fear

It can, but at best this is a very much an oversimplification, and at worst disingenuous.

Next time you're enjoying some sexytimes with a lady (gentleman, poodle, whatever), can I come round and watch? Maybe do a video for YouTube? If you've nothing to hide...

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I have little doubt that it's a difficult balancing act to get right.

Download the Lightbeam extension to Firefox and you'll see it's the ad-men you need to be afraid of, not the government 😆

There are some very real dangers from the state having access to your private information.
The idea that it is fine and dandy stems from a naive belief in the state's fundamental goodness.
But just a cursory look at the history of the UK (or any) government and its numerous mistakes, some benign, others malignant, should tell you the state is not to be trusted.
Even some traditional conservatives like Max Hastings are calling for greater surveillance powers for the state. It is often in the hysterical reaction to an event that the long-term policy mistakes are made.

it's the ad-men you need to be afraid of,

Damn Tesco and their insidious habit of sending me discounts for things that I actually want to buy.

Damn Tesco and their insidious habit of sending me discounts for things that I actually want to buy.

Yeah! With a bit of luck they might drop them in getaway cars. Is there nothing STW can't fix?

Is the occupation of the driver of any relevance

Speaking as a Bradford local - he's lucky to have made it out alive. The driving standards are legendarily awful.

My wife suggested I should have said "when I lived in Bradford I found the diverse ethnic mix the best thing about the city " rather than " shut up you racist idiot".

neil the wheel - Member
Don't know what the offending guy said but might also be worth pointing out the obvious here..religion isn't race

He said the place was "full of ****s and muslims. I felt like running em all over."
POSTED 3 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST

The thing that surprises me the most about the van driver is that is seems to be news to him that there is a significant population of British Asians in Bradford. So either he had led a very cloistered existence up until then, or he was just a prick doing what pricks do best.

My money is on the latter.

I'm not sure what the solution is

You should have battered the tosser OP.

Yep, and told him that there's a time and a plaice for views like that and he shouldn't have such a chip on his shoulder (applying some cod psychology). I mean, frittering his life away being angry.

Gets coat. Moves towards exit.

It's all freedom of speech, he aired his opinion and you voiced an opposite opinion...a nice robust debate, all good stuff....if no physical contact was made then i dont have a problem with either party involved in this incident.

(the choice language in public is not good however, it makes you both look a bit thick).

Well done to the OP.

7/7 - the alleged perpetrators were more likely just patsies btw.

😆 well you can rest easy knowing that deviant doesn't have a problem with your account of the event

7/7 - the alleged perpetrators were more likely just patsies btw.

Oh FFS. Are you jivehoneybunny in disguise ?

You should have battered the tosser OP.

You should have battered the tosser OP.

7/7 - the alleged perpetrators were more likely just patsies btw.