oldcopper

I should have mentioned that it had an engrailed edge, so was an original, but though of even colour, it didn't quite seem to have the chocolate richness of Soho bronzing. So to see that it was suddenly ex-Boulton after I sold it (and I had an idea of whom subsequently bought it and thus I was less surprised at this "marketing technique") was a reach to say the least.

So you haven't got any specific data on my previous request, I'm not surprised and I've called your bluff on this - what you said was rubbish - it clearly didn't say that black people get convicted 6x more often than white people for the same offence , it said 6x more blacks than whites go to prison for "drug offenses". Which is a completely different meaning. You don't realize that? But, like Peckers, just shoot the messenger - that'll hide the embarrassment. Every one of the convoluted points you've made so far can be dismissed in seconds, as I have done. The sad thing is you're so desperate to prove it's white racism, but you can't make that charge stick. Why are you so desperate to prove that narrative, can't you think for yourself?

Well, if you can't see the lies you're being fed, that's your lookout. I thought this would happen with you, as I've backed you into a corner of having to discuss my point which lets the police off. So it's flounce off time. That's a shame. All my statistics are official government statistics, and I've drawn the correct conclusions from them. So a bit of thinking and reasoned argument would have been appreciated, but i don't think you had any. I remember you tried this faux-outrage when I pointed out BAME voting patterns. Then when I showed it was in a BBC report, you went a bit quiet. Anyway, this is where your dogma has now got you - you support an organisation that wants to defund the police, and the consequences of that mean losing the entire justice system, the prisons, the lot, because the police are the foundation and enforcement of all that of course. So no rule of law - who should be looking in the mirror, now?

Where's the information about blacks being 5 times more likely to be imprisoned for "the same offence"? What it says is that blacks are almost 6x more likely to be imprisoned for "drug charges". And the same proportions of blacks and whites use drugs. Not the same thing. "Drug offenses" mentioned in the next paragraph is similarly not just "drug use" but presumably more serious drug offenses as well. The obvious explanation is there is a much higher proportion of drug dealers among blacks. Recreational use of a drug is the lowest level of drug crime; dealing and distribution are higher: the offenders will more likely have a much greater quantity of a drug as well when arrested. And it will also depend on how hard the drugs are - is there a different profile of popular drugs in both communities? A small amount of recreational cannabis is probably overlooked, but heroin will be treated differently. You might have some more specific figures, if so let us know, but on the above, you can't tell anything as they are not comparing like to like. Nasty diseases picked up in prison, we won't go into the reasons. Whites have a higher mortality rate in prisons than blacks or Hispanics apparently - if it was the other way round, there would no doubt be a fuss about it. That's sad about the criminal record information, but blacks are overwhelmingly over-represented in all violent crime and theft, so I can understand if an employer is going to be wary about that. The trouble is it's a chicken and egg scenario, which will be difficult to break.

For crying out loud, how many times do I have to say: The big fraud is that they aren't factoring in the relative crime rates of the two demographics. The last article is a perfect example. I don't even need to look at the first two, because they will undoubtedly be doing the same thing. Now, from the relative prison populations, blacks are 5 times more likely than whites to commit crimes. Thus their interactions with police will be 5 times higher than their demographic ratio would suggest. Police aren't shooting at random members of the public or locking up random members of the public are they. They're shooting mainly at criminals or taking criminals into police custody. Hence to get an accurate perspective, we should not only be basing the numbers on the demographic, which will increase the black number by a factor of 4.5. We should also be basing it on the extent of the criminality for each demographic, which will then lower the black number by a factor of 5. Got it?

Actually, the figures are from Washington Post data, which is taken from official data. Pop "465 white 234 black police shootings" into Google and it should come up with "Law-Enforcement - Perpetrated Homicides: Accidents to Murder" click on that and it will give you p68 where the figures are for the last few years. I saw these figures elsewhere which is why I've got 2016 data, but the other years' ratios are pretty similar.

The figures are FBI figures from 2015/2016 I think. I will check, though they are definitely government figures. Interesting, so the statistic that blacks are responsible for 50% of US gun crime, despite being 14% of the population, is a myth? And your statistic, if it exists, is obviously legal gun owners, which I would expect to be predominantly white. So in the UK, compare the percentage of whites owning gun licences with the demographic of gun crime. Do you think these figures are going to be proportional? I don't think so, what a silly argument.

No, you said that black suffering was mostly caused by whites, I was showing you that in fact, both in terms of magnitude and brutality, it is mainly caused by other blacks. Where was the falseness in any of my examples? I'd love to know. As for "deflecting blame" form the slave trade I was showing you that other parties who were actively involved in the slave trade and placed no value on African lives, were both African and Arab. And it continues today - apparently a slave in Libya costs ~$200, so I've read. I know nothing must interfere with the narrative of purely white evil against others without original sin. You are obviously absolutely not bothered by the easily understandable fact that the whole argument of over-representation with the police is a lie. I watched YouTube Christo Foufas on Talk Radio smugly try and dismiss a woman who dared support the "white lives matter" banner with his oh so unchallengeable "police stats form the US show they are over-represented. I know the statistics". If only she'd known the truth! Luckily there didn't seem to be any comments that stood up for him. But no-one has spotted the big lie in the comments, or perhaps they had - you'll be glad to know I've posted these facts on 2 youtube channels, but guess what, the posts had mysteriously been removed next time I've checked. I bet you still haven't tried to understand it, have you?

You've had a good sleep, perhaps you can engage with my points. Of course it's all cultural Marxism, because all the examples you give are of the white oppression/black victimhood type. Let's take the blood bath that's been post-Colonial Africa, for one. Rhodesia, at the time known as the breadbasket of Africa and one of the most affluent sub-Saharan countries. The Liberal West was only interested in getting rid of the white ruling class, who funnily enough had the ability to run a good economy and a productive farm system. They must have thought - we know what to do, let's stick a tin-pot Marxist psychopath in charge instead, but that doesn't matter, because he's....black and lots of blacks support him, apparently, well those from his own tribe anyway. Problem solved, nasty white racists not in charge any more. Byeeeee! Another moral victory. Result: tribal war, mass murders, 4000 plus white farmers murdered plus hundreds of thousands of blacks. Farms were given to soldiers form Mugabe's army who had no idea how to run them, after dispatching the original inhabitants, and Zimbabwe quickly turned into a failed state, life expectancy had decreased by about 15 years at one stage and it had become one of the poorest and most brutal countries in Africa with massive abject poverty. What a hellhole and what a tragedy. Who's to blame? So the Ruandan genocide (800K +), the incredible violence in South African, also turning also into a failed state with some politicians singing and talking about murdering Boers, and I haven't even mentioned the Congo yet, Uganda or Somalia etc etc. Apparently vigilante necklace killings in SA are still happening, maybe several hundred a year. Winnie Mandela was a firm advocate. One was caught on film in 1986 of an African woman, whom, after being burnt alive, had her head caved in with rocks, and glass shards were then put to use in a sexual mutilation. And I expect a certain chunk of the local townsfolk would have been looking on, taking in the spectacle. So it's all relative, isn't it. Anyway, Peckris avers that African suffering has mainly been caused by whites - well, firstly we have no idea of the body counts when African tribes displaced others, a common enough occurrence and judging from modern Africa, extremely brutal and also involving brutalising the women and children, Add the massive slave trade to the Middle East as well as ours and this all implies that the local rulers weren't swayed very much by Liberal ideals. I think Britain probably killed far less black people than at least Belgium or Germany, who were much more brutal, but overall, it is all completely dwarfed by the titanic black on black carnage. So I don't think whites are mainly to blame for African suffering. And this is the same in the US. You're only interested in a couple of cop murders of blacks because they might fit your agenda, but the 7000 black on black murders every year you ignore. As I said, the agenda of compassion, the agenda of outrage.

The figures I've seen for armed shooting and unarmed shooting are ~ 2:1 white to black (465:234 armed) and unarmed 20:9, latest Washington Post data 25:14 white to black. Where are you getting your figures from? To be fairly representative, the ratio should be circa 1:1 based on the relative criminal populations of both demographics. Or with Hispanics, 37b to 32w to 22h, if I remember rightly from one year's prison statistics. So the ratio of black and Hispanic incidents with police to white incidents with police should be 59:32 if there is a fair representation. But I'm still waiting for someone to attempt or want to engage with the argument, maybe because that simple factor of criminal proportionality destroys the agenda of racial victimhood being peddled here. I have understood what you've said and I haven't disagreed with you on the brutality. I will say it can't be a picnic policing a high number of armed criminals and in some areas there must be a concentration of extremely dangerous people, so mistakes and over-reaction are bound to happen, though fortunately the US has quite a good justice system, so if police are found out to have acted unlawfully, then they will be facing the music. No-one's got a problem with that. But I have said, and you can't dispute this, that the marches mainly have the agenda of race, which I've shown is completely bogus as there is effectively a 1:1 ratio of black to white criminals, extrapolating from the prison populations. If you disagree with that comment, look at the argument and tell me why. I've have asked you before and I'm still waiting. I wonder if this lauding of the dishonest BLM and their narrative is an establishment approved tactic to guilt-trip the resident population into accepting millions of African migrants via the UN Global Migration Pact by 2050. Hopefully I'm wrong there, but it's strange that no-one's questioning the uniform and easy-to-spot deception here.

So how come there's a pretty similar over-representation in the UK - see "Crime in London" Wikipedia and go to the section on race. I've given you that link before, but you obviously haven't read it. So I think it's a red herring.

Peckers, yes, yes I have, and we're talking about the police here. It 's just you haven't, like 1949, read or understood what I've written. Police interactions adversely affect whites by the original numerical ratio of circa 2:1, because the demographic effect (timesing the black figure by 4.5) is cancelled out by the 5:1 greater proportion of black criminals per capita, which is revealed in the relative prison populations of each demographic. But, don't worry, you won't understand that either. It's just that funnily enough, the media and everyone else is forgetting to factor in the last bit. And do I have to give you lot a maths lesson every time? "White privilege" implies we have an unearned superior status due to our ancestors oppressing BAME people's ancestors. It affects all whites, You're right, all Germans aren't Nazis, but "white privilege" is a universal property of white people, however rich or poor, hard working or otherwise deserving. And here's a couple of comments from Van Jones, a black CNN pundit, talking about racism: Even the most liberal and well-intentioned white person has a virus in his or her brain that can be activated in an instant and: White people are always innocent and that innocence constitutes their crime. Now, those words may possibly have been a quote or taken out of context. I've seen the clips, but he hasn't been censured in any way for saying these things, so these views are allowable and unchallenged. So this white privilege or racism sounds pretty intrinsic to white people wouldn't you say. And do you not see where all this now "justified" envy of a whole race might lead? There is a certain parallel from the past. Your last list perfectly sums up the weirdly selective cultural marxism of your world view. It's the left's agenda of outrage and agenda of compassion. These emotions can only be felt provided the politics of the situation fit in with the left wing narrative. Otherwise it's crickets and tumbleweed. I'll expand on this tomorrow if you want! But guess what ideology has been responsible for more deaths and suffering than any other? I'll leave you with that one to ponder.

Fair point on Brooks, if police procedure was not to shoot someone fleeing, he's a goner, but if it is, that may be different, and we do have the luxury of being armchair policemen. You did describe George Floyd's death as "not solely a race issue" which implies you thought part of it was. I have shown that in fact, the racial injustice is the other way round, but of course no-one's interested in that as it doesn't fit the agenda. These marches and demonstrations you mentioned weren't primarily about police brutality, they were about "racism" unfortunately. So, if deaths in custody are 2:1 white to black, it is not the demographic difference which should be a factor, it should be the ratio of blacks to whites in police custody. And extrapolating from the prison populations tell us that is one to one. So a white prisoner is twice as likely to die in custody than a black prisoner. That should be easy to understand and it is surely critically important to dispel the current destructive and false grievance if possible. The trouble is these false analogies are being used to prop up a campaign feeding off the notion that whites are intrinsically bad, and that is the cause of all the problems in the black community. Now that is a massive issue.

Well, unlike you, I read your post, but it doesn't seem as if you have read or understood mine at all from your first paragraph. I'll condense it: There are roughly equal numbers of blacks and whites in the US prison system, so that means, unless conviction rates are massively, and I mean massively skewed against blacks, there are a similar ratio of the races in the criminal justice system and thus in the population as a whole. The 1:6 demographic of blacks to whites is thus cancelled out by the six-fold disparity in the number of criminals between the demographics. So if there are two whites who die in custody to every one black, and there are the same number of whites and blacks in the system, that is a 2:1 bias against whites in custody. In armed and unarmed shootings, the police will generally be interacting with criminals so the same proportions apply. Hence whites are over-represented in all of these categories. Let me know if there's any part of that you don't agree with. In Brook's case, if the police tell him to stop, and he carries on running, their procedure may well be to shoot in special cases, and running off with a police weapon (which could be used against them in the future) may have been one of those cases. If he had stopped, whether with hands up or down, then it's a case of murder and the policeman should be fully liable of course. However, if he's was running fast, the policeman will only have a very short window when he's still in range, so may make an impulsive wrong decision. If so, he'll be suitably punished I'm sure. But once again, all the media show us is one-off incidences of the rarer form of inter-racial killing so to make any larger point is going to be difficult. Black and Hispanic police shoot unarmed blacks at the same rate pro-rata apparently.

Not much on the main news outlets I bet, as everything must be done to stoke the grievance. The logical conclusion to all this will be more equality of outcome though they still occasionally pay lip service to equality of opportunity. But let's face it, if any group is under-performing in a multicultural society, they must be given public sector jobs, university places etc at the expense of applicants with much better qualifications, and it'll be even more so than happens at present. My daughter said to me the other day that black people get longer prison sentences than whites for similar offences. Oh dear, I had to explain that that is certainly true in the UK, not due to racism funnily enough, but due to the fact that a higher percentage of black people plead not guilty than white people (the latest figure form the Office of Justice is 70% to 57%). So when they are found guilty (and they have often been given legal advice to have pleaded guilty) they get a longer jail sentence. But this is what young people are learning. 1949 - sorry, I'll reply to you tomorrow. This home computer is hard work to operate!