I want to say I can't believe it but I can. I've become used to hearing about racist things from Australia.
And this plebe tries to defend her actions.
Quote:
Okay don’t even know how to use tumblr but wanted to clarify this. It was my ‘African themed’ party and it was honestly made that theme because I have always wanted to go to Africa (to teach english) but haven’t made it there yet. In no way was this party intended to hurt anyones feelings or upset anyone at all. In fact as you can tell from the photos I dressed up as cleopatra, whilst MAJORITY of my guests came as animals, that can be found in africa or wore traditional african clothes or even dressed up as famous people who come from africa. If anything this was to celebrate the amazing country and people. However, some guest did decide to paint themselves, although this was in no way my intention or encouraged in the slightest. I understand that this has offended some people and I have no idea how these photos have even been seen, they were simply put on facebook for my guests to see the photos of themselves. I am 100% sure that parties would be held that would be ‘Australian themed’ or American themed or even countries of the world, and in that instance I don’t believe anyone would be offended. People wear oktoberfest cotumes to parties and no one cracks it that they are not German? So what I am saying is I do understand the people who have painted themselves have offended people, although none of them intended that…. but how can people be annoyed that the majority of the people at the party were celebrating another countries culture. Also one of my friends who is Mauritian painted himself white, but that photos didn’t make it to this page along with the MAJORITY of people who were amazingly detailed costumes that no one could take offense to!! I am sure that not one person at my party felt upset that said guest painted himself white as it was not meant in that way at all. Also, I have NEVER been asked to take these photos down, however if I had of course I would have done so, as I had no idea that anyone other than friends and guests could see these photos, and to be honest I am not a racist person at all so I didn’t think anyone could possibly take it that way. I intend to spend 2 months teaching english in cambodia in January, and cant wait to do the same in Africa. If you will still have me. To reiterate, I was cleopatra and did not encourage my guest to wear anything racist simply to come as something African Inspired, much like if you went to an australia day party (Which I am 100% sure people of all races and cultures do every year!!!) Again I am sorry for those I have offended and the photos have now been removed now that I have eventually been made aware people were upset. For those who know me at all you would know the last thing in the world I would want to do would be to offend people.
I want to say I can't believe it but I can. I've become used to hearing about racist things from Australia.
And this plebe tries to defend her actions.
Well so far as I know there isn't a history of minstrel shows and whites wearing blackface in Australia so it might not necessarily have as strong racist overtones as it would here. Obviously in America a white guy wearing shoe polish would be a big no-no to say the least but maybe it just doesn't register in the same way as it does in Australia. I mean I wouldn't think twice about making a potato famine joke around here, but apparently Trollheart would be offended, so I guess it's just a different standard in Ireland.
djchameleon
10-22-2013 09:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
(Post 1376093)
Well so far as I know there isn't a history of minstrel shows and whites wearing blackface in Australia so it might not necessarily have as strong racist overtones as it would here. Obviously in America a white guy wearing shoe polish would be a big no-no to say the least but maybe it just doesn't register in the same way as it does in Australia. I mean I wouldn't think twice about making a potato famine joke around here, but apparently Trollheart would be offended, so I guess it's just a different standard in Ireland.
Yeah but if you are going to do something from another culture wouldn't look into it and find out how to do things properly. You'd end up finding out what the big no no's are in the process.
There is no excuse for ignorance. Also Australians have a history of being extremely racist against Aboriginals to the point where they call them ferals. They don't even treat them like human beings.
The Batlord
10-22-2013 09:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by djchameleon
(Post 1376114)
Yeah but if you are going to do something from another culture wouldn't look into it and find out how to do things properly. You'd end up finding out what the big no no's are in the process.
Um...no. Why would I do in-depth research for a costume for a birthday party? Who has ever done that in the history of birthday parties? Nobody. I'm sure you haven't.
Quote:
There is no excuse for ignorance. Also Australians have a history of being extremely racist against Aboriginals to the point where they call them ferals. They don't even treat them like human beings.
True dat.
djchameleon
10-22-2013 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
(Post 1376120)
Um...no. Why would I do in-depth research for a costume for a birthday party? Who has ever done that in the history of birthday parties? Nobody. I'm sure you haven't.
yeah, I guess the average joe wouldn't but I totally would. I wouldn't want to disrespect someone else's culture for my fun times.
Paul Smeenus
10-22-2013 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
(Post 1376093)
mean I wouldn't think twice about making a potato famine joke around here, but apparently Trollheart would be offended, so I guess it's just a different standard in Ireland.
Potato famine jokes are fecking uproarious.
The Batlord
10-22-2013 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Smeenus
(Post 1376127)
Potato famine jokes are fecking uproarious.
I love 'em, but apparently they offend TH, so...*shrug*
butthead aka 216
10-22-2013 11:09 AM
i think the kkk stuff was in bad taste but dont really have a problem with the african theme in general for that bday party. i mean its a party, its fun, who cares. dont understand the uproar everytime a white guy has a black guy costume
djchameleon
10-22-2013 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by butthead aka 216
(Post 1376215)
dont understand the uproar everytime a white guy has a black guy costume
Originally Posted by butthead aka 216
(Post 1376215)
i think the kkk stuff was in bad taste but dont really have a problem with the african theme in general for that bday party. i mean its a party, its fun, who cares. dont understand the uproar everytime a white guy has a black guy costume
You've never heard of Blackface vaudeville shows then.
butthead aka 216
10-22-2013 11:19 AM
i know blackface was a minstrel show thing. but there is a difference between
-using blackface to make fun of blacks like hee-haw did by exagerating features and characteristics to create a caricature
and
-using blackface to just be black for a theme or a costume
some hockey player got in hot water last year for dressing up as a black guy. i legit just dont see the big deal. it was african themed, there are lots of blacks in africa lol
Ninetales
10-22-2013 11:29 AM
Every halloween the blackface topic comes up. In a perfect world it should be a non issue but it obviously is. Wearing blackface is disrespectful. It is. You can go on and on about it being just a costume and for fun or whatever but it's an incredibly sensitive topic and i will never understand why you would want to try and overstep it just for the sake of it. It's an easily recognizable symbol for racism.
For the love of god dont wear blackface for halloween, kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by butthead aka 216
some hockey player got in hot water last year for dressing up as a black guy.
Ya there have been a couple. Raffi Torres did it once and ****ing Bozak has twice now. If you understand the history of it you should know that you're going to be (and deservedly so imo) harshly criticized for dressing in it.
Cuthbert
10-22-2013 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
(Post 1376129)
I love 'em, but apparently they offend TH, so...*shrug*
Agreed, piss funny.
As for painting your face black, depends on context imo. The KKK costume is fucking daft though, anyone can see that is inappropriate. Speaks volumes about those people if that person actually felt it would be received well to turn up to an African themed party dressed as a member of the KKK ffs.
I'm assuming this is more of a thing in America tbh, I remember this happening and everybody saying it was pathetic how anyone had tried to claim it was racist:
Every halloween the blackface topic comes up. In a perfect world it should be a non issue but it obviously is. Wearing blackface is disrespectful. It is. You can go on and on about it being just a costume and for fun or whatever but it's an incredibly sensitive topic and i will never understand why you would want to try and overstep it just for the sake of it. It's an easily recognizable symbol for racism.
For the love of god dont wear blackface for halloween, kids.
Ya there have been a couple. Raffi Torres did it once and ****ing Bozak has twice now. If you understand the history of it you should know that you're going to be (and deservedly so imo) harshly criticized for dressing in it.
Next black fellow I see dressed up as a Saltine, I'm going straight to the NAAWP.
When I saw the headline, I thought the bride-to-be must be breathing a sigh of relief that the wedding didn't go through and she didn't end up married to this schmuck.
Then I read the article, and it says she's standing by her man. She must be a few bricks short of a load, herself.
If you lost 91-0 then you deserve to be humiliated. It's apparently the only way you will be encouraged to stop sucking so much epic ass. And if you can't improve then your team should feel so pathetic that they quit so the school can stop wasting money on such useless empty jerseys and buy some books.
Let's just kill every single member of the westboro baptist church. I'd feel no remorse.
Paul Smeenus
10-24-2013 02:26 PM
I've said this before but I am very proud to have been picketed by the WBC. I marched in the 2011 Slutwalk Seattle, they made a truly pathetic showing there and were thoroughly crushed by a group of good hearted Christians
So after 5 years, Portuguese police are to reopen the case investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann :cool:. apparently there is a new development that has nothing to do with the ones Scotland Yard are following.
Excellent letter sent to Crimewatch after their broadcast of that reconstruction last week.
Spoiler for Anal secks:
Quote:
Dear Mr Cappelle and Mr Mather
Proposed Crimewatch programme 14 October 2013 - Madeleine McCann
I have a number of concerns about the above proposed programme.
I understand that there is to be a ‘live’ interview with the McCanns and that a reconstruction of events will be shown, presumably of part of Thursday evening 3 May 2007, the day Madeleine was reported missing.
The BBC has said that it will be showing a reconstruction of Madeleine’s ‘abduction’.
The alleged ‘reconstruction’ is reported in various media as taking place ‘abroad’ or in Spain but not in Portugal, and certainly not, therefore in Praia da Luz.
The duties of the BBC and Crimewatch
I understand that the BBC Charter requires that it be truthful and accurate and, where appropriate, must provide 'balanced' coverage of any issue, and that OFCOM has the power to investigate complaints.
‘Crimewatch’ has a formidable reputation, based on setting before the public accurate information about a crime, and asking for the public’s help in identifying the perpetrators. These principles must apply just as rigourously to the case of the reported disappearance of Madeleine.
Given the controversial, sensitive and high profile nature of this case, I must assume that the research done by Crimewatch into the background for any reconstruction and interview of the McCanns has been exceptionally thorough and meticulous. You will be aware that there are thousands of pages of witness statements, experts’ reports, forensic reports, photographs, videos and other material, which was made public on DVDs by the Portuguese Police as long ago as August 2008, and all of which has been translated into English, read and analysed in great detail on numerous internet websites, blogs and fora. You will no doubt for example have read all the relevant information on the McCannfiles blog (www.mccannfiles.com), a library of factual material about the case.
Was Madeleine McCann abducted?
Given the claim by the BBC in its advance publicity for your proposed programme that Madeleine McCann was ‘abducted’, the first question that the producers and editors of any Crimewatch programme have to answer is whether or not this is established as a fact
I hope, therefore, that you have considered the following:
• The detailed investigation Interim report by Inspector Tavares de Almeida dated 10 September, and publicly available on the internet, giving numerous clear reasons for concluding that Madeleine died in the McCanns’ holiday apartment and that they and/or others hid her body
• The contents of the book ‘The Truth Of The Lie’, written by Dr Gonçalo Amaral, which as you will be well aware is currently the subject of the final trial in the-long running libel action the McCanns brought against him
• The fact that the content of Dr Amaral’s book has been repeatedly shown to be entirely consistent with the contents of the police files released to the general public in 2008 (indeed this fact has been repeatedly emphasised during the first six days of this trial)
• The fact that the concluding report signed off by the regional Attorney-General in July 2008, whilst archiving the investigation and deciding there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone, made it plain that the Portuguese judicial authorities by no means established as a fact the McCanns’ claim that Madeleine had been abducted
• Indeed the probability that Madeleine had died in her parents’ apartment and her body hidden was explicitly acknowledged in the very same report.
If you have considered the above facts, I am not sure how the BBC can proceed with this programme at all, or to continue to refer to ‘the abduction’ of Madeleine. The alerts of two sniffer dogs belonging to top police dog handler Martin Grime cannot be ignored in considering whether or not Madeleine was abducted. The McCanns for example have never been able to explain the dogs’ alerts to the past presence of a human corpse in four locations in the McCanns’ flat, on three items of their clothing, in the hired car and other locations associated with them, and in no other places. Dr Gerald McCann has claimed that sniffer dogs are ‘incredibly unreliable’ despite the fact that their reliability is well established and their use in ever more fields of detection, drugs, explosives, medicine and other disciplines is growing rapidly. There are excellent BBC programmes on this very subject, the most recent showing a dog detecting early cancer of the kidney from urine.
To reinforce this point, let it be stated clearly - the only ‘evidence’ of abduction is the say-so of the McCanns themselves.
I believe that a complaint may be made to the disciplinary body of the National Union of Journalists if any member of the NUJ had contributed to a dishonest programme which ignored or set aside relevant facts.
The history of reconstructions or attempted reconstructions
In the Portuguese criminal justice system, reconstructions of events surrounding a murder or disappearance or other crime are used to test the validity of the witnesses’ statements. The actual persons involved in such events are the witnesses themselves. They will be invited to the scene of the crime. Such reconstructions are commonly video-recorded for the benefit of the criminal investigation. This is especially true where there are obvious contradictions between the witnesses’ statement, as is manifestly the case regarding Madeleine’s disappearance. Your researchers must be fully aware of these. They have been extensively catalogued and analysed (a) in the interim report of Tavares de Almeida (b) in the Attorney-General’s final report (c) in Dr Gonçalo Amaral’s book and (d) on numerous Madeleine McCann information and discussion sites on the internet.
This type of ‘reconstruction’ is very different from a ‘Crimewatch’-style televised reconstruction.
Dr Amaral wanted to do such a reconstruction as it was clear in the first days of the investigation that there were significant inconsistencies in the witnesses’ statements, even between various statements made by the same witness. As he explains in his book, he decided not to do one because of the intense media spotlight he and his team were under.
A reconstruction of some of the events of 3 May 2007 was shown on the BBC’s Panorama programme on 19 November 2007.
A second attempt by the Portuguese police to hold a reconstruction occurred in the spring of 2008. The McCanns and their friends all declined to take part, after taking legal advice, giving a variety of reasons for not doing so. Dr Gerald McCann specifically said at the time that he saw no purpose in such a reconstruction as the police would not be showing the reconstruction on TV. He said he wanted a ‘Crimewatch-style’ reconstruction. Therefore the proposed Portuguese police reconstruction could not proceed.
The Channel 4 reconstruction, 2009
In May 2009, Channel 4 screened a reconstruction made by Mentorn Media. This was heavily criticised by many on a number of grounds, including these:
• It featured the description of a possible abductor by Jane Tanner, despite numerous indications that her alleged ‘sighting’ was fabricated (see below)
• It attempted to link an alleged sighting of a man carrying a child by Martin Smith, at around 10.00pm in a different part of Praia da Luz, with Jane Tanner’s claimed ‘sighting’ at 9.15pm. The improbability of any abductor walking around the village for 45 minutes or more carrying a child is so obvious as to hardly require mention
• It attempted to suggest that the man allegedly seen by Jane Tanner and the man allegedly seen by Martin Smith were one and the same, despite Jane Tanner describing the man as having ‘long, black hair’ whilst the man described by Martin Smith had ‘short, brown hair’
• Three witnesses, namely Jane Tanner, Jeremy Wilkins and Dr Gerald McCann gave significantly contradictory statements about the very moment when Jane Tanner claimed to have seen the abductor at 9.15pm. These were contemptuously dismissed on the TV reconstruction by the McCanns’ then chief private investigator, ex-Detective Inspector Dave Edgar, as ‘inevitable inconsistencies’. Any serious detective would have probed the contradictions, which should have been fully aired on the programme
• The man shown in the documentary as carrying a child away from near the McCanns’ apartment did not look the same as Jane Tanner’s description. In any case, of course, Jane Tanner admitted to not seeing his face.
Severe doubts about the credibility of Jane Tanner
The reasons for doubting the evidence of Jane Tanner are many but include:
• changes in her accounts, such as changing the direction in which the person she claimed to have seen was walking
• her recollection of details about the abductor and the child improving with time, such as ‘recollecting’ on a second interview precise details of the pattern of the pyjamas of the girl being carried (in line with what she then knew about Madeleine’s pyjamas, but crucially miscalculating the length of the pyjama bottoms )
• rambling and over-elaborate descriptions of the abductor and what he was wearing, both when interviewed by the Portuguese police and later when re-interviewed by Leicestershire Police
• her positive identification on 13 May 2007 of Robert Murat as the person she’d seen carrying a child away from near the McCanns’ apartment - only for her to change her mind about this months later
• her willingness to claim that the person she claimed to have seen looked like a moustachioed man seen in a sketch by a Mrs Gail Cooper, despite the fact that Jane Tanner admitted on 3 May never having seen the man’s face
• the fact that at a press conference in August 2009, the McCanns’ chief investigator, Dave Edgar, said that Jane Tanner might have been mistaken and seen a woman carrying a child, not a man
• the fact that her story was so vague and inconsistent that the Portuguese police dismissed it as a fabrication from very early on in their investigation.
Other facts that the BBC should perhaps take into account if they are to proceed with this broadcast
I invite you to consider the following additional points:
• The thread of criminality running through the McCann Team’s investigators. If the BBC has researched the background material to this case then you will be aware that the McCanns’ first preferred detectives, the Spanish firm Metodo3, has a long record of criminal conduct. Two of Metodo3’s investigators who worked very closely with the head of the McCann Team’s private investigators, Cheshire businessman Brian Kennedy, have served time in prison.
• Antonio Giminez Raso spent four years in prison on remand due to his association with a 27 strong gang of drug-dealers who were convicted of serious criminal charges in a Barcelona court last year.
• Julian Peribañez who also worked very closely with Brian Kennedy has spent much of this year after his arrest for illegally taping the conversations of Spanish politicians, an offence he has now admitted and for which he is awaiting sentence.
• The McCanns also employed Kevin Halligen, who charged the McCann Team £500,000 plus expenses yet, as exposed in a 2009 article in the Evening Standard and elsewhere, spent most of the time he was employed by them on high living in London, Oxfordshire and the U.S. with his girlfriend Shirin Trachiotis, and was arrested in 2009 on serious fraud charges in the U.S. which he eventually admitted. He spent a total of four years in Belmarsh and another top security prison in the U.S. None of these investigators had any experience in locating missing children but most had expertise in such areas as money laundering and fraud.
These private detectives have together with the McCann Team produced a bewildering variety of so-called ‘suspects’ and ‘persons tightly of interest’, 21 in total so far, two of them women, a fact which also undermines the credibility of the McCann Team’s private investigators, not to mention Tanner’s statements.
Should the BBC continue to promote the claim that Madeleine McCann was abducted, you must take full account of these and indeed many other matters of real concern about the McCanns’ private investigations, which again your researchers must know.
• Dr Kate McCann’s refusal to answer any one of 48 questions put to her on interview by the Portuguese police on 7 September 2007.
• The numerous contradictions in the witnesses’ evidence about the events of 3 May 2007.
This is a vast subject. Again, no doubt your researchers, together with D.C.I. Andy Redwood and his team, are aware of the following contradictions and changes of story etc. These contradictions would need to be resolved if possible before any realistic reconstruction could possibly take place. If you proceed with a reconstruction, you will be faced with the problem of which version of events you will be presenting to viewers. I believe the only honest way for the BBC to proceed would be to present the viewer with all the contradictions, letting the viewer see what they are, and allowing us to draw our own conclusions. Among the main contradictions are the following:
• Three different versions about a claimed ‘high tea’ that Madeleine is said to have had with her parents and crèche staff at about 5.30pm
• Two entirely different versions (Dr Kate McCann and Dr David Payne) of an alleged visit by Dr Payne to the McCanns’ apartment, when he claims to have seen all three children alive
• Three different accounts (Dr Gerald McCann, Jane Tanner and Jeremy Wilkins (whom we understand may have worked for Crimewatch before)) about events at around 9.15pm on 3 May, the time when Jane Tanner claims she saw a man carrying a child
• Whether or not the curtains of the children’s room in the apartment were wide open (Dr Kate McCann’s first version) or closed (Dr Kate McCann’s later version)
• Whether you will be showing the shutters smashed, broken, and jemmied open (the McCanns’ first versions) or completely undamaged (reality - and subsequently admitted as such by the McCanns’ spokesman, Clarence Mitchell)
• Whether you will be showing Dr Gerald McCann entering through the ‘front door using his key’ (Dr McCann’s first police statement), or ‘going in through the unlocked patio door’ (Dr Gerald McCann’s second police statement)
• Whether you will be showing Madeleine tucked up in bed because it was a cold night (Dr Kate McCann’s version - the cold also being testified to by the rest of the McCanns’ friends and indeed by weather records ) - or lying on top of the covers because it was so hot (Dr Gerald McCann’s version).
• The extremely limited ‘window of opportunity’ for any claimed abductor to have removed Madeleine from the apartment.
On the basis of statements made by Dr Gerald McCann, Jane Tanner and Jeremy Wilkins, with very precise timing included within them ( Dr McCann for example says he left the table at 9:04 by his watch, and the apartment at 9.10pm, and Jane Tanner says she saw a man carrying a child in the area at 9.15pm ) the time available for the abductor to remove Madeleine is somewhere between 1 minute 20 seconds, and three minutes. During this time, the McCann Team suggest that an intruder could have entered the apartment (either via the open patio door with the father directly outside, or by having a key to the front door), sedated three children, selected one of them, picked her up, turned her round so that her feet are now to the right, opened the curtains, window and shutters as some kind of ‘red herring’ (see ‘red herring’ statement made by Dr Kate McCann) and then exit, all of this being accomplished without being seen or heard by anyone except Jane Tanner and without leaving any forensic trace. (The suggestion that Madeleine and the twins were sedated is a repeated theme of the McCanns and their team over the past six years. They moved from strong denials and threats to sue, to an acceptance that it must have happened, even though there is no known substance which could have been used within that time frame. Dr Kate McCann is a qualified anaesthetist and must be aware of this ).
• The only fingerprints on the window found by police being those of Dr Kate McCann, strongly suggesting that she opened the window in order to promote the abduction scenario.
• In the very unlikely event that Madeleine is still alive and is being held by the abductor or others, has BBC Crimewatch assessed the risk that its programme could lead to Madeleine being harmed by the person who now has her ?
A useful summary of the many contradictions, changes of story and other inconsistencies amongst the witness statements in this case can be read in an e-book by Michael McLean at:
A Nevada assemblyman came under fire Monday after a YouTube video surfaced in which he told a Republican gathering he would vote to allow slavery if that is what his constituents wanted him to do.
“If that’s what they wanted, I’d have to hold my nose … they’d probably have to hold a gun to my head, but yeah,” Assemblyman Jim Wheeler told members of the Storey County Republican Party at a meeting in August.
lol and then he tries to defend himself and doesn't make the situation any better.
