9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Correct. The study is complete nonsense. It clearly began with the intended conclusion and worked backwards from there to achieve it. 

 

 

I don't need a study by the Pro-rain society to tell me it's wet in the middle of a thunderstorm either. The facts speak for themselves. I've provided plenty of examples of the 2 tier sentencing. It's now official. Rubber stamped in black and white on the official website. Link already provided. 

 

"I know what I know". I'll only accept studies which support my viewpoint.

 

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The only prejudice here is your prejudice against right leaning indigenous British people. Especially if they dare to be patriotic and working class. 

 

My prejudice is against people who believe those who are not indigenous or right-wing are not patriots.

 

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

You clearly think the answer to perceived historical racism is equal and opposite official racism. I disagree. A racist policy is a racist policy. Anyone recommending, supporting or justifying it is by definition a racist. Like Lammy.    

 

 

 

If you bothered to read posts properly you will see that I stated earlier in this thread that, "I'm not sure that positive discrimination is the answer". 

 

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

If you bothered to read posts properly you will see that I stated earlier in this thread that, "I'm not sure that positive discrimination is the answer". 

 

"I'm not sure that positive discrimination is the answer" is a typical mealy mouthed reply.

 

It's not "positive discrimination". Discrimination is never positive, certainly not when it's based on race. It has a name. Racism. Stop trying to justify/excuse/enable it. 

43 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

"I'm not sure that positive discrimination is the answer" is a typical mealy mouthed reply.

 

It's not "positive discrimination". Discrimination is never positive, certainly not when it's based on race. It has a name. Racism. Stop trying to justify/excuse/enable it. 

 

Unfortunately, your prejudice is so plain to see that these attempts to deflect attention from them are futile.

Who on earth would become a military pilot knowing they could be prosecuted later for actually killing people?

Dangerous careers need support from the higher ups giving the orders.

9 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Serious question. I'm intrigued. How has the UK justice system discriminated against you personally?

 

Again, seriously, I will understand if you don't want to discuss this matter on a public forum.

I would discuss it with you but it hasn't affected me personally.

How about this though.

Under which rock have you living under for the past six months?

Struth 

4 hours ago, Purdey said:

Who on earth would become a military pilot knowing they could be prosecuted later for actually killing people?

Dangerous careers need support from the higher ups giving the orders.

It is not the higher ranks of the military that are the problem.

 

It is, and always has been the politicians who send the troops out to do all the killing and the dirty work. They stay safe making sure that their hands never get dirty, and then abandon those same troops when the crap hits the fan and the mess comes their way.

2 hours ago, sherwood said:

I would discuss it with you but it hasn't affected me personally.

How about this though.

Under which rock have you living under for the past six months?

Struth 

 

Then think yourself lucky that you haven't had any problems up to now because if you're a white, heterosexual, indigenous UK male then the current UK government hates you and is coming for you. Everybody knows this; it's a fact🤦

10 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Then think yourself lucky that you haven't had any problems up to now because if you're a white, heterosexual, indigenous UK male then the current UK government hates you and is coming for you. Everybody knows this; it's a fact🤦

Sorry, I misunderstood where you were coming from and I fully agree with you.

 

10 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Then think yourself lucky that you haven't had any problems up to now because if you're a white, heterosexual, indigenous UK male then the current UK government hates you and is coming for you. Everybody knows this; it's a fact🤦

 

If you actually read the guidelines, you would see that your poor attempt at sarcasm is actually pretty accurate.

 

White middle aged Christian males are pretty much the only group excluded from the need for a PSR.

 

2 tier rules based on sex, race and religion. Right there on the official website for all to see (or deny in your case 😄). 

 

15 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

If you actually read the guidelines, you would see that your poor attempt at sarcasm is actually pretty accurate.

 

White middle aged Christian males are pretty much the only group excluded from the need for a PSR.

 

2 tier rules based on sex, race and religion. Right there on the official website for all to see (or deny in your case 😄). 

 

 

Your sense of grievance and victimhood knows no bounds.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

 

Your sense of grievance and victimhood knows no bounds.

 

Are you copy/pasting from Chomps again? 😄 I think the term he/she uses is "self stroked grievance" if you want extra brownie points. 

 

Look, if you want to defend 2 tier racist sentencing guidelines that is your perogative. I am simply highlighting their existence (with links) and voicing my opposition to them because I am not a racist. But we all have our own stance on discrimination based on race and religion. Some of us oppose it, some of us support, justify and enable it.

 

I am more than happy with my position.

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Are you copy/pasting from Chomps again? 😄 I think the term he/she uses is "self stroked grievance" if you want extra brownie points. 

 

Look, if you want to defend 2 tier racist sentencing guidelines that is your perogative. I am simply highlighting their existence (with links) and voicing my opposition to them because I am not a racist. But we all have our own stance on discrimination based on race and religion. Some of us oppose it, some of us support, justify and enable it.

 

I am more than happy with my position.

 

Wrong again. All my own work.

 

Look, trying to attribute statements to me which I haven't made isn't going to work and only highlights the weaknesses of your own argument.

 

I have stated more than once that I am against the Guidance issued by the Sentencing Council, and will continue to do so each and every time you bring up the lie that I support it.

 

Definition of a racist: "characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." (Maybe we need a new term and/or an update to this definition to include religion).

 

I'm pleased for you that you are happy with your position.

Blud, Judging by this documentaries and that, our chaps knew all about their rights and sh!t. Standard.

 

1 hour ago, RayC said:

Definition of a racist: "characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." (Maybe we need a new term and/or an update to this definition to include religion).

 

Which proves my point. That pretty much sums up these new guidelines 😄.

 

Just as I said. Racist (not to mention sexist and Christianophobic). 

 

 

You really seem to have some cognitive dissonance on the issue. On the one hand you defend DEI and what you claim is "positive" discrimination (an oxymoron if ever there was one) but on the other hand you claim to be against racism and claim to oppose these racist sentencing guidelines which are clearly discriminatory to anyone who does not fall into these groups (which is basically white Christian males since everyone else is covered by them).

 

Anyway, good luck squaring that circle. I've led you to water but I can't make you drink. 

You don't need skill - you simply need to be anything other that a straight, white, male.
Well - according to the RAF and friends.

27 minutes ago, connda said:

You don't need skill - you simply need to be anything other that a straight, white, male.
Well - according to the RAF and friends.

 

 

What a load of rubbish.

 

Of course you need skills and qualifications.

 

That is why prospective RAF aircrew go to RAF Biggin Hill for aptitude tests before they are even considered to be allowed to loin the RAF.

On 3/11/2025 at 7:24 AM, phetphet said:

Perhaps many people are not willing to put their lives on the line and fight for a country they no longer recognise as their own. I suspect the UK government will have recruiting problems for all the UK armed forces.

 

Still. They have a large pool of "boat experts" they can tap for the Navy.

The UK Airforce rejected white men as they wanted to be seen to be diverse, now they are paying the price for their stupidity.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Which proves my point. That pretty much sums up these new guidelines 😄.

 

Just as I said. Racist (not to mention sexist and Christianophobic). 

 

 

You really seem to have some cognitive dissonance on the issue. On the one hand you defend DEI and what you claim is "positive" discrimination (an oxymoron if ever there was one) but on the other hand you claim to be against racism and claim to oppose these racist sentencing guidelines which are clearly discriminatory to anyone who does not fall into these groups (which is basically white Christian males since everyone else is covered by them).

 

Anyway, good luck squaring that circle. I've led you to water but I can't make you drink. 

 

Dearie me,  are you so deeply deluded that you genuinely believe your self-deception to be true? You casually alter reality to suit your perception of the world.

 

Here are the facts (visible to anyone who can be bothered to read from the start of this thread)

 

1. You believe that the government tacitly supports the Sentencing Guidelines. They do NOT. It is clear from quotes from government ministers contained in the very link which you posted!

 

2. You refuse to accept that I too do NOT support the Sentencing Guidelines despite me stating this categorically on more than one occasion. I will repeat it again here: I DO NOT SUPPORT THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

 

3. BAME convicts receive longer sentences than their white counterparts. (The reasons for this are unproven). You refuse to acknowledge this fact.

 

4. You claim that I " ..defend .. positive discrimination.." when what I actually said was, "I am not sure that positive discrimination is the answer". Very few people would interpret that as a defence.

 

5. In between all your delusional lies, you actually happened to stumble upon a fact: Yes, I do believe in DEI when it is defined as, ".... organizational frameworks that seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people" (Source: Wikipedia). That you seemingly don't, says it all.

 

Anyway, I'll leave you to wallow in your self-pity about having had the misfortune of being born a white male in the 5th/6th most prosperous nation on earth with the option of returning there any time you like. Oh, how fortune has forsaken you.

23 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Correct. The study is complete nonsense. It clearly began with the intended conclusion and worked backwards from there to achieve it. 

 

 

I don't need a study by the Pro-rain society to tell me it's wet in the middle of a thunderstorm either. The facts speak for themselves. I've provided plenty of examples of the 2 tier sentencing. It's now official. Rubber stamped in black and white on the official website. Link already provided. 

 

 

The only prejudice here is your prejudice against right leaning indigenous British people. Especially if they dare to be patriotic and working class. 

 

You clearly think the answer to perceived historical racism is equal and opposite official racism. I disagree. A racist policy is a racist policy. Anyone recommending, supporting or justifying it is by definition a racist. Like Lammy.    

 

 

I agree two wrongs don't make a right.

So this anti white male govt policy, which we were assured was nonsense, a right wing talking point and a "conspiracy theory" was a real thing after all? Most confusing.