aye, it's really not worth over thinking or making on it's important

 

it's unlikely anyone descends from anyone who just popped up british soil with no help from anywhere else

 

if you're proud to be anglo saxon, you should also be proud to be celtic, but there's cock all chance of anyone round here coming out with that

 

for the purposes of this debate, "white" will suffice

 

Yes it is all about context and relevance and, no, I wouldn't give it a second thought personally; but when folk bash others or take offence at the use of such terms I find it a bit, nit picky, shall we say

 

I'm happy to use the term white, black or whatever to describe someone but there are many who get offended if referred to as black as it isn't specific enough; they'll say I'm Creole, or Jamaican or whatever (just picked that as a random e.g.) and use it as a stick to beat folk with.  Does my head in.

 

No-one pulls up a Jap when they confuse a German with a Pole do they?  

 

I’m pretty sure that without the likes of TR far fewer folk would know.

 

I suspect the injunction is to not protect the kids.

I think you overestimate the effect he has.

 

I was having a conversation with my wife and parents yesterday and I mentioned Tommy Robinson having been arrested and what he’d done. None of them have even heard of the bloke.

 

I would be confident that if I had the same conversation at work tomorrow over 90% wouldn’t know who I was talking about.

I’m pretty sure that without the likes of TR far fewer folk would know.

 

I suspect the injunction is to not protect the kids.

 

Your 3rd point haven’t a clue what your point is.

Robinson’s reports are followed by a tiny minority of people. I bet not one person in the country has realised this week for the first time there are Muslim grooming gangs based on anything he has done.

 

On the final point read back what you posted. You agreed that protecting the victims was essential then added ‘but’ to defend the guys actions. Protecting victims of abuse is far ahead of this guys personal agenda ‘but’ it seems there are limits to how much protection they should get.

The Anglo Saxons didn't speak English as we know it. The Anglo Saxon language sounded German.

 

What we have now is an amalgamation of Anglo Saxon, Norse, Norman and Latin.

 

Didn't have Norman culture? Magna Carta ring a bell?

 

And?  I'd say modern day English is heavily influenced by the Germanic languages - more so than any other.  Yes it contains many elements but compare the structure of it to German - they are very similar (more so than any Gaelic, French or Latin)

 

I said they ruled, which is what the Magna Carta was all about - even restoring AS laws in some instances.

 

We could split hairs day, even going as far as saying the Normans were another AS tribe (which isn't far off the truth).  They did to British/English culture what the Chinese did to Tibet;  they imposed one over the top of the other(s) but the day to day living carried on much as before.  They didn't come across en masse and literally displace a group of people thereby removing the pre-existing culture outright.

Good to hear stuff like this - our society needs more of it

Couldn't agree more

And? I'd say modern day English is heavily influenced by the Germanic languages - more so than any other. Yes it contains many elements but compare the structure of it to German - they are very similar (more so than any Gaelic, French or Latin)

 

I said they ruled, which is what the Magna Carta was all about - even restoring AS laws in some instances.

 

We could split hairs day, even going as far as saying the Normans were another AS tribe (which isn't far off the truth). They did to British/English culture what the Chinese did to Tibet; they imposed one over the top of the other(s) but the day to day living carried on much as before. They didn't come across en masse and literally displace a group of people thereby removing the pre-existing culture outright.

Never said they displaced anybody. But to suggest they didn't contribute to the culture we have now is nonsense

Robinson’s reports are followed by a tiny minority of people. I bet not one person in the country has realised this week for the first time there are Muslim grooming gangs based on anything he has done.

 

On the final point read back what you posted. You agreed that protecting the victims was essential then added ‘but’ to defend the guys actions. Protecting victims of abuse is far ahead of this guys personal agenda ‘but’ it seems there are limits to how much protection they should get.

The victims have already been abused so what actually are we protecting? Anonymity is all we can offer them, there should be no restriction on reporting the crimes and reporting what these sick fuckers have done, that should be publicised to show the real horror of the abuse. And that’s why I put but and why I question the court injunction.

Edited May 28, 20188 yr by Mounts Kipper

I think most indigenous English folk can trace their roots to Persia if I remember correctly.

Anonymity is all we can offer them

Maybe that's why we were trying to offer them anonymity then?

Never said they displaced anybody. But to suggest they didn't contribute to the culture we have now is nonsense

 

I never said you did and now you're putting words in my mouth  

 

All i said was that the main culture was, and still is, Anglo-Saxon.   I'd say that's still true today as well which was my point way back.  

 

I'm sure historians with much more clout than either of us two could debate that long into the night but from what I've read and see all around me I'm quite happy taking that view - you are of course free to differ.

I think most indigenous English folk can trace their roots to Persia if I remember correctly.

 

And before that Africa   

 

Although I heard a rumour a while back saying that archaeologists have recently uncovered stuff that potentially turns our understanding of our origins on its head.

 

Very intriguing!

 

They "kept their culture very much to themselves"

 

Your words mate. I had no involvement in putting them in your mouth.

 

So apart from the Magna Carta (which could be argued is the basis of our legal system today) , castles and cathedrals dotted all over the country, words like Parliament , jury etc etc, what did the Normans ever do for us.

 

You remind me of these fellas

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tvauOJMHo

The victims have already been abused so what actually are we protecting? Anonymity is all we can offer them, there should be no restriction on reporting the crimes and reporting what these sick fuckers have done, that should be publicised to show the real horror of the abuse. And that’s why I put but and why I question the court injunction.

The injunction stops reporting to protect the victims. One for their rights but also so they are not scared to give evidence. If they do not give evidence the groomers more likely to get off. By breaking the injunction Robinson gives the accused the option of claiming they can not get a fair trial and are more likely to walk away free.

 

If you can give me one valid reason that the reporting of this could not be done after the trial I would be surprised.

They "kept their culture very much to themselves"

 

Your words mate. I had no involvement in putting them in your mouth.

 

So apart from the Magna Carta (which could be argued is the basis of our legal system today) , castles and cathedrals dotted all over the country, words like Parliament , jury etc etc, what did the Normans ever do for us.

 

You remind me of these fellas

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tvauOJMHo

 

Jesus fella!

 

Context . . .  they used their culture to rule but as that fell away and merged over the years it became, for want of a better word, Anglo Saxon.  The Magna carta backs this up really.

 

They weren't exactly poles apart to start with.

 

For fun then - give me ten significant differences between Anglo-Saxon and Norman culture.

 

I'll start you off with they built 'slightly' different same faith churches . . .  oh and another - they like to write down laws that are very similar in statutory form to, guess who, the Anglo-Saxons.

 

As for language - I'm pretty sure that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes all spoke in different tongues.  the Normans spoke something like french - which, in it's early form, was a Gaelic/Latin hybrid.  Not far off what all Anglo-Saxon languages are made up from.

 

See where I'm going here?

Edited May 28, 20188 yr by madthatter

So it's a much Norman as it is Anglo Saxon?

And 10 facts? Fuck that, it's Bank Holiday, I'm off to the beach

Just to repeat what a few have said I mentioned Robinson getting arrested to quite a few people. None have ever heard of him. Couple of football fans included. He's preaching to the choir Robinson, why's he outside court cases? Surely if he was serious he'd been unearthing new cases?

And 10 facts? Fuck that, it's Bank Holiday, I'm off to the beach

 

Yes - they're pretty much as similar as a Saxon was to a Jute.

 

Before the Scandinavians bred with the native French they could well have been from what is now Denmark - so pretty much the same yeah  

 

Enjoy - I'm off annoying myself with a driver and putter that won't play ball . . .

I've just asked Mrs Sweep. She's never heard of Tommy Robinson apparently

Anglo Saxon? Massive influx of Irish population in 1800s.. Norman invasion plus loads of norse street names bradshawgate.. we're a hotch potch

I’ve just asked a dog walker and he hasn’t heard either

The injunction stops reporting to protect the victims. One for their rights but also so they are not scared to give evidence. If they do not give evidence the groomers more likely to get off. By breaking the injunction Robinson gives the accused the option of claiming they can not get a fair trial and are more likely to walk away free.

 

If you can give me one valid reason that the reporting of this could not be done after the trial I would be surprised.

Can’t it be reported upon while not disclosing the victims names? I’d say it can therefore I’m thinking it’s the perpetrators that someone is trying to protect or are they keeping the trial low key because it’s another Muslim grooming gang? Either way I’m glad TR is trying to raise the profile of these atrocities.

Edited May 28, 20188 yr by Mounts Kipper

Can’t it be reported upon while not disclosing the victims names? I’d say it can therefore I’m thinking it’s the perpetrators that someone is trying to protect or are they keeping the trial low key because it’s another Muslim grooming gang? Either way I’m glad TR is trying to raise the profile of these atrocities.

Mounts, an injunction on reporting is put in place for lots of cases where children are concerned, I think you are over thinking it.

Apologies for bringing facts into the debate but....

 

Tommy Robinson’s arrest for contempt of court was down to him already being on a suspended......conditions from that sentence last year at Colchester....full records of the judge’s closing remarks are all over the net and clearly explains what would happen to him if he did a certain offence again.....so,the daft sod has shot himself in the foot by encroaching onto the courts....in the video in the first two minutes, he walked a couple of steps onto the disabled ramp.........if he didn’t walk onto that ramp he wouldn’t be in Hull Prison today.

 

Secondly....the restrictions are in place as two of the defendants are involved in another grooming gang trial.

Again, that fact is available all over the net from the court hearing page.

 

Thanks for your time.

I thowt he was arrested for Breach of the Peace, which was a pretty lame charge if anyone has seen the video of what was going on.......... He had also been reporting for over an hour before was knicked, and without any warning from the police as far as I could see.......