"Won't see" ages/ethnicities

[smiths]

My last attempt at this. You enter employment when you know the rules of engagement. If you don't like the rules, you don't enter this form of employment. Anyone doing any service industry job should be fundamentally happy to serve anyone without discrimination. If the customer is behaving in a manner that puts anyone at risk, then workers have a right to refuse service. WGs have free choice on punters on an individual basis.

I reiterate, im talking from a very idealistic perspective where sex work is on a par with all other employment. Currently people's choice of both punters and WGs comes from norms that are probably progressive compared to the past, and probably conservative compared to the future. Maybe there will be a time when we only discern workers by merit than attributes, but that is definitely what can be considered "loony liberal"!

There aren't any employment rules in punting as its unregulated, that's why there are so many low lifes involved in it. What your not doing in my view is understanding the nature of punting, its not the same as buying goods or a service that involves purchasing an inaminate object that hasn't a brain, a WG will often have a complete stranger alone in her premises so she has to be as comfortable as possible with that, and if that means excluding who she isn't comfortable with that's her free choice. And yes she may be an out and out racist and unpleasant but she still MUST have free choice.

[vw]

My last attempt at this. You enter employment when you know the rules of engagement. If you don't like the rules, you don't enter this form of employment. Anyone doing any service industry job should be fundamentally happy to serve anyone without discrimination. If the customer is behaving in a manner that puts anyone at risk, then workers have a right to refuse service. WGs have free choice on punters on an individual basis.

I reiterate, im talking from a very idealistic perspective where sex work is on a par with all other employment. Currently people's choice of both punters and WGs comes from norms that are probably progressive compared to the past, and probably conservative compared to the future. Maybe there will be a time when we only discern workers by merit than attributes, but that is definitely what can be considered "loony liberal"!

One final time I reiterate you clearly have no grasp on reality.

[hendrix]

Adele4u only sees caucasions, latinos and orientals as that's her preference so she states on her profile, so she excludes other punters which presumably means blacks and Asians.

Correct, and I did question that. However, there's a very specific punter(s) she's trying to avoid. It's not a blanket rule, and perhaps not the best way to go about it, but that's none of my business. She was absolutely fine seeing me, and I'm Asian.

[smiths]

Correct, and I did question that. However, there's a very specific punter(s) she's trying to avoid. It's not a blanket rule, and perhaps not the best way to go about it, but that's none of my business. She was absolutely fine seeing me, and I'm Asian.

 

Fair enough.

[hendrix]

My last attempt at this. You enter employment when you know the rules of engagement. If you don't like the rules, you don't enter this form of employment. Anyone doing any service industry job should be fundamentally happy to serve anyone without discrimination. If the customer is behaving in a manner that puts anyone at risk, then workers have a right to refuse service. WGs have free choice on punters on an individual basis.

I reiterate, im talking from a very idealistic perspective where sex work is on a par with all other employment. Currently people's choice of both punters and WGs comes from norms that are probably progressive compared to the past, and probably conservative compared to the future. Maybe there will be a time when we only discern workers by merit than attributes, but that is definitely what can be considered "loony liberal"!

Yeah I'd also like to see world peace and people sterilised at birth until they can prove they're fit to be parents, but that ain't going to happen in the real world.

[hendrix]

 

Fair enough.

It was funny - I had my booking with her arranged before she put that note on her profile. I think it actually went on her profile the day I was supposed to see her which had me thinking of plan b and c and d urgently so I just messaged her and said "you know I'm asian right?" and she then explained her reasons which made sense to me.

[Pareidolia]

There you go again, nobody is compelled to see you or serve you. George with his electrical shop can choose to throw you out and not serve you, just because they have a business does not mean they are slaves to you.   

I feel like a broken record here!

If George refused service purely on the basis of skin colour, I suspect that he would be in a bit of trouble. Similarly it's like the weird situation where the BNP can't refuse membership to non-whites, even though we can be confident that they don't really want them.

Not wanting WGs to be forced to see people they don't, more that they should reflect on their reasons why they don't want to see them and to think if there's a better way of filtering out those that are potentially troublesome, rather than simply generalising.

[7x5]

My last attempt at this. You enter employment when you know the rules of engagement. If you don't like the rules, you don't enter this form of employment. Anyone doing any service industry job should be fundamentally happy to serve anyone without discrimination. If the customer is behaving in a manner that puts anyone at risk, then workers have a right to refuse service. WGs have free choice on punters on an individual basis.

I reiterate, im talking from a very idealistic perspective where sex work is on a par with all other employment. Currently people's choice of both punters and WGs comes from norms that are probably progressive compared to the past, and probably conservative compared to the future. Maybe there will be a time when we only discern workers by merit than attributes, but that is definitely what can be considered "loony liberal"!

You enter a place of business knowing the rules of engagement. If you don't like the rules, you don't do business. Anyone receiving a service from a provider should be happy to see anyone without discrimination - but they don't.

When you pick your plan A, there are any number of WG's who don't make the grade for any number of reasons, and the race card may be one of them. When it comes to black women, I personally prefer milk chocolate to dark chocolate, but irrespective of skin colour, the undeniable fact is a pretty woman is a pretty woman and I wouldn't want to see a woman I didn't find attractive in one form or another.

I am actually more attracted to foreign women because they are generally down to earth, hardworking and modest. Several such women have been recommended, but at first glance they don't float my boat, so I won't see them, irrespective of how good their service may be.

Now I could put on my profile I refuse to see white western women. I don't have to state why, but it could because there are many out there who are spoilt rotten, believe they are princesses, and if you pay for their whole workless, pointless life of luxury they *may* just have sex with you. Either that or they could be chavs who would fuck you and anyone else for a pint of beer and a packet of crisps. But I shouldn't be forced to fuck white western princesses or chavs. And I could exclude them all on the off chance they were, and if I do miss out, it is only my loss, so it shouldn't really be a problem for you.

Now flip that around the other way and understand how stupid your proposition is.

[a_test_person]

This debate is all very well, but there are a number of black WGs on AW who refuse to see black men. Are they racist too?

[vw]

If George refused service purely on the basis of skin colour, I suspect that he would be in a bit of trouble. Similarly it's like the weird situation where the BNP can't refuse membership to non-whites, even though we can be confident that they don't really want them.

Not wanting WGs to be forced to see people they don't, more that they should reflect on their reasons why they don't want to see them and to think if there's a better way of filtering out those that are potentially troublesome, rather than simply generalising.

Clearly a fucking idiot who doesn't even know what last is !

My last attempt at this.

People don;t want to force people to have sex and they don't want to force unemployment on people to !  And they don;t want looney liberal and unworkable ideas forced on them to. 

This debate is all very well, but there are a number of black WGs on AW who refuse to see black men. Are they racist too?

Under this idiots plan they would be forced to have sex or forced to be unemployed.

[Pareidolia]

This debate is all very well, but there are a number of black WGs on AW who refuse to see black men. Are they racist too?

Probably. Anyone can be racist. Any generalisation is a simplistic way of dealing with more complex problems.

[Pareidolia]

Reflecting on this thread as a whole, im willing to concede that WGs may be using these sorts of limitations as an efficient way to manage their work, given current circumstances. Nevertheless, I doubt it will stand in the future if the industry is more open and accepted.

[vw]

Reflecting on this thread as a whole, im willing to concede that WGs may be using these sorts of limitations as an efficient way to manage their work, given current circumstances. Nevertheless, I doubt it will stand in the future if the industry is more open and accepted.

Well still happens in other industries, think your very naive on this and you can never prove it happens !

You are just promoting a society of dishonesty in the name of tolerance, where lies become more and more normal and the whole world is deceptively tolerant !

Would rather a world where a few generalise than every body lies to suit a political ideal !

[Jimmyredcab]

Well still happens in other industries, think your very naive on this and you can never prove it happens !

Indeed it does.

Taxis can't refuse to take someone because they are black ----- but by the same token if the driver "doesn't see" someone hail them they have not broken any laws.

[Pareidolia]

Well still happens in other industries, think your very naive on this and you can never prove it happens !

You are just promoting a society of dishonesty in the name of tolerance, where lies become more and more normal and the whole world id deceptively tolerant !

Don't get me wrong - im idealistic but not naive. Tacit intolerance happens everywhere with everyone. The fact that theres discrimination laws doesnt mean that its eradicated or enforceable. But whether we wish overt discrimination (and therefore normalisaton) to occur is another matter. Having a "best interests" argument of keeping it out in the open doesnt really work, and tends to perpetuate the same attitudes.

[a_test_person]

If girls who get paid to be fucked in the ass don't want your money, I believe there is some kind of crowd wisdom in their decision. Perhaps in OPs perfect world the following won't be the case:

Black British persons represent < 3% of the population of the country, In London that is 10%. In London 54% of street crimes were black; for robbery, 59%; and for gun crimes, 67%.

We all take short cuts in making decisions. We all don't walk around dodgy estates late at night, you don't antagonise that aggressive guy in the pub. If a WG has anecdotal experience that leads her to believe that she can easily cut her working risk by 35% by not seeing certain races then that's what she has to do. It is what we all would do. The rest of us make certain decisions every day that aren't dissimilar.

[vw]

Don't get me wrong - im idealistic but not naive. Tacit intolerance happens everywhere with everyone. The fact that theres discrimination laws doesnt mean that its eradicated or enforceable. But whether we wish overt discrimination (and therefore normalisaton) to occur is another matter. Having a "best interests" argument of keeping it out in the open doesnt really work, and tends to perpetuate the same attitudes.

Well fact is it will never happen anyway !  All a naive pipe dream of yours !

I have a no haggler policy at mine, that could be twisted into racism, I say its just a company policy against people who don;t value my work.  It will only change when the tax office allows haggling by individuals.

[Pareidolia]

If girls who get paid to be fucked in the ass don't want your money, I believe there is some kind of crowd wisdom in their decision. Perhaps in OPs perfect world the following won't be the case:

Black British persons represent < 3% of the population of the country, In London that is 10%. In London 54% of street crimes were black; for robbery, 59%; and for gun crimes, 67%.

We all take short cuts in making decisions. We all don't walk around dodgy estates late at night, you don't antagonise that aggressive guy in the pub. If a WG has anecdotal experience that leads her to believe that she can easily cut her working risk by 35% by not seeing certain races then that's what she has to do. It is what we all would do. The rest of us make certain decisions every day that aren't dissimilar.

I essentially agree. In a perfect world it would be up to lawmakers to prevent us making such drastic shortcuts though. In reality, in this industry it wont happen soon, for reasons already said by all.

[Marmalade]

Sheesh! My point is being misinterpreted on the forum.

That's because you don't have one. 

[a_test_person]

I essentially agree. In a perfect world it would be up to lawmakers to prevent us making such drastic shortcuts though. In reality, in this industry it wont happen soon, for reasons already said by all.

Personally, I think a peer review system should suffice and race shouldn't be relevant. However the black community represent such a small percentage of the population ignoring them clearly doesn't have considerable ramifications for their business. I'm sure otherwise it would change their opinion.

You want lawmakers to force people to make decisions that will be detrimental to their own personal safety?

I suppose you would make it illegal for white girls to date white guys for the sake of diversity.

[Nagilum]

If George refused service purely on the basis of skin colour, I suspect that he would be in a bit of trouble. Similarly it's like the weird situation where the BNP can't refuse membership to non-whites, even though we can be confident that they don't really want them.

Not wanting WGs to be forced to see people they don't, more that they should reflect on their reasons why they don't want to see them and to think if there's a better way of filtering out those that are potentially troublesome, rather than simply generalising.

They don't have to provide you with a reason, just like George, if you want to assume, that's your prerogative, I did not say it was based on colour in that scenario.  You seem to have this sense of entitlement, that you should know and demand to know.  You don't have to be told anything. 

I am starting to think you enjoy trolling at this point, because after its been made clear to you from a legal stance and a democratic one, you still refuse and continue to troll. Either that or you enjoy being stubborn even when wrong.

[Pareidolia]

Personally, I think a peer review system should suffice and race shouldn't be relevant. However the black community represent such a small percentage of the population ignoring them clearly doesn't have considerable ramifications for their business. I'm sure otherwise it would change their opinion.

You want lawmakers to force people to make decisions that will be detrimental to their own personal safety?

I suppose you would make it illegal for white girls to date white guys for the sake of diversity.

Legislation alone wouldnt work at present, as ive said before its only more relevant when prostitution is more "mainstream".

I didnt say prostitution is the same as sexual relationships, so anyone can choose to date whoever they wish.

[vw]

Legislation alone wouldnt work at present, as ive said before its only more relevant when prostitution is more "mainstream".

I didnt say prostitution is the same as sexual relationships, so anyone can choose to date whoever they wish.

for now until your liberal brigade decide that is wrong.   

[a_test_person]

Legislation alone wouldnt work at present, as ive said before its only more relevant when prostitution is more "mainstream".

I didnt say prostitution is the same as sexual relationships, so anyone can choose to date whoever they wish.

So you think the government should allow rape in the case of white prostitutes?

[vw]

They don't have to provide you with a reason, just like George, if you want to assume, that's your prerogative, I did not say it was based on colour in that scenario.  You seem to have this sense of entitlement, that you should know and demand to know.  You don't have to be told anything. 

I am starting to think you enjoy trolling at this point, because after its been made clear to you from a legal stance and a democratic one, you still refuse and continue to troll. Either that or you enjoy being stubborn even when wrong.

Can see the abominations next post coming,  all prossies should have to accept bookings from lesbians against their sexual preference also !

[hullad]

I do not fancy bonking coloured girls, its not that I do
not like coloured people quite the reverse. My best friend was coloured and I have many coloured friends just do nothing for me sexually.

My favourite is tall blondes its purely my choice, I pay the money and I get to choose.

[Nagilum]

Legislation alone wouldnt work at present, as ive said before its only more relevant when prostitution is more "mainstream".

I didnt say prostitution is the same as sexual relationships, so anyone can choose to date whoever they wish.

Let me tell you something from a broader punting perspective.  Having punted abroad where it is legal and regulated the girls I have seen can still refuse to see you.  They don't need to provide you with a reason, they simply ask their pimp to not admit you the next time.  If they are independent they can refuse you outright. 

So this idea of mainstream and legalisation will not work because you are not going to treat them as slaves.  As smiths has said its a person you are dealing with not an inanimate object.  Nobody is going to hold anyone to account for freedom of choice.

Now go and have a punt will you!

[Nagilum]

Can see the abominations next post coming,  all prossies should have to accept bookings from lesbians against their sexual preference also !

Let's extend this, straight male Gigolos have to accept toys used on them and men wanting threesomes.

[Pareidolia]

So you think the government should allow rape in the case of white prostitutes?

If a WG sees someone and decides that she does not wish to partake in any sexual activity (for reasons that do not have to be divulged), then they dont. If the client then forces themselves on her, then its rape.

Its euphamistic I know, but we pay for time and companionship only, and anything else that occurs is between the consent of two willing individuals.

[Jimmyredcab]

Let me tell you something from a broader punting perspective.  Having punted abroad where it is legal and regulated the girls I have seen can still refuse to see you.

I have been knocked back in Thailand, not because I am black but because I am an old bastard, I just moved on.
The trouble with many black guys is that they have a chip on their shoulder.   

[Pareidolia]

Let me tell you something from a broader punting perspective.  Having punted abroad where it is legal and regulated the girls I have seen can still refuse to see you.  They don't need to provide you with a reason, they simply ask their pimp to not admit you the next time.  If they are independent they can refuse you outright. 

So this idea of mainstream and legalisation will not work because you are not going to treat them as slaves.  As smiths has said its a person you are dealing with not an inanimate object.  Nobody is going to hold anyone to account for freedom of choice.

Now go and have a punt will you!

Nope im fine with that actually. A reason doesnt need to be given.

I probably do need a punt.

[vw]

Its euphamistic I know, but we pay for time and companionship only, and anything else that occurs is between the consent of two willing individuals.

So more bullshit, are you american we pay by the hour but don't pay for time and companionship only.  You really are a stupid, that is an american thing that has no place in law here !

Maybe your a sucker that pays for time, nobody else does !   

[Pareidolia]

I have been knocked back in Thailand, not because I am black but because I am an old bastard, I just moved on.
The trouble with many black guys is that they have a chip on their shoulder.   

Again im OK with that, at least they had a chance to see you first!

[Jimmyredcab]

Its euphamistic I know, but we pay for time and companionship only, and anything else that occurs is between the consent of two willing individuals.

We both know that is bullshit, often used in America where prostitution is illegal.

[Pareidolia]

We both know that is bullshit, often used in America where prostitution is illegal.

Of course it is - thats why I said its euphamistic - but it does cover the discretion of the WG towarding accepting/refusing clients.

[a_test_person]

If a WG sees someone and decides that she does not wish to partake in any sexual activity (for reasons that do not have to be divulged), then they dont. If the client then forces themselves on her, then its rape.

Its euphamistic I know, but we pay for time and companionship only, and anything else that occurs is between the consent of two willing individuals.

I honestly think at this point you are just talking gibberish because you can't let it go. That doesn't even make sense.

When you see a WG it is for sex. No euphemism about it. You want a girl to be treated as a criminal if she refuses to have sex with a black person. Stop trying to restate it.

[Nagilum]

If a WG sees someone and decides that she does not wish to partake in any sexual activity (for reasons that do not have to be divulged), then they dont. If the client then forces themselves on her, then its rape.

Its euphamistic I know, but we pay for time and companionship only, and anything else that occurs is between the consent of two willing individuals.

  I'm speechless, bravo that takes some doing.

[Jimmyredcab]

Again im OK with that, at least they had a chance to see you first!

So it's OK to refuse service to someone old but not to someone who is black.     

[seward]

If girls who get paid to be fucked in the ass don't want your money, I believe there is some kind of crowd wisdom in their decision. Perhaps in OPs perfect world the following won't be the case:

Black British persons represent < 3% of the population of the country, In London that is 10%. In London 54% of street crimes were black; for robbery, 59%; and for gun crimes, 67%.

We all take short cuts in making decisions. We all don't walk around dodgy estates late at night, you don't antagonise that aggressive guy in the pub. If a WG has anecdotal experience that leads her to believe that she can easily cut her working risk by 35% by not seeing certain races then that's what she has to do. It is what we all would do. The rest of us make certain decisions every day that aren't dissimilar.

Taking this a stage further the grooming cases of young white girls the figures on black rapes and violence  does not instill great love for the Black and Asian ethnics . Nagilum is right when visiting relatives in Germany lots of WGs prefer blond hair and blue eyes because it is their preference they don't have to explain and neither should they just have to be subtle about it.

[vw]

I'm speechless, bravo that takes some doing.

Bet its April fools day every day in this ones house !

[Pareidolia]

I honestly think at this point you are just talking gibberish because you can't let it go. That doesn't even make sense.

When you see a WG it is for sex. No euphemism about it. You want a girl to be treated as a criminal if she refuses to have sex with a black person. Stop trying to restate it.

Nope. Im saying (in an ideal world) there shouldnt be blanket bans stated on WGs profiles, but WGs always have discretion on an individual basis. I might not agree if a WG doesnt like to see a specific cohort of individuals, but noones being forced into doing something they dont want to do and no law could ever enforce it. Id hope that peoples perceptions of others will evolve in a way that is more tolerant, but I might need to smoke some of the good stuff to ever think that would ever happen.

[vw]

Nope. Im saying (in an ideal world) there shouldnt be blanket bans stated on WGs profiles, but WGs always have discretion on an individual basis. I might not agree if a WG doesnt like to see a specific cohort of individuals, but noones being forced into doing something they dont want to do and no law could ever enforce it. Id hope that peoples perceptions of others will evolve in a way that is more tolerant, but I might need to smoke some of the good stuff to ever think that would ever happen.

In an ideal world.  No such thing new has been never will be, now grow up.. Tolerance is not important, cash is king and what you are proposing is the thought police !  So wrong on many ideas forcing perception on people,.

Anyway thanks for the new black list wont fuck anything you have don't want to catch mad punter disease and by all accounts were shit as all you paid for was chat !

[Marmalade]

I find it hilarious that he comes out with so much crap in big fancy sentences, like he's a college graduate, but can't spell 'euphemistic'. I've never seen such tripe argued with phoney posh-sounding sentences. Are Americans really that stupid???

[a_test_person]

Nope. Im saying (in an ideal world) there shouldnt be blanket bans stated on WGs profiles, but WGs always have discretion on an individual basis. I might not agree if a WG doesnt like to see a specific cohort of individuals, but noones being forced into doing something they dont want to do and no law could ever enforce it. Id hope that peoples perceptions of others will evolve in a way that is more tolerant, but I might need to smoke some of the good stuff to ever think that would ever happen.

You are missing the point, presumably intentionally. This isn't irrational racism. It is individual girls performing a risk analysis based on their experience. it isn't intolerance but a shorthand for avoiding something very bad happening to them.

[Ali Katt]

Of course it is - thats why I said its euphamistic - but it does cover the discretion of the WG towarding accepting/refusing clients.

Covered in detail on External Link/Members Only.

Probably. Anyone can be racist. Any generalisation is a simplistic way of dealing with more complex problems.

Not if it's based on experience and learning, then it becomes knowledge.

If George refused service purely on the basis of skin colour, I suspect that he would be in a bit of trouble. Similarly it's like the weird situation where the BNP can't refuse membership to non-whites, even though we can be confident that they don't really want them.

Who is this George and when can I buy him a pint? BNP don't refuse non-whites they often refuse non-British. They have had black members in the past.

If I didn't wish to work in a shop and serve ethnic minority / elderly / disabled customers, then I don't work in the shop. Same goes for any work activity including sex work. I'm not suggesting that we force people to work in the shop, or work as a prostitute. My concern is essentially one from an industrial relations perspective than anything else.

You're implying these people have a choice. I would happily never see a Somalian again in my life, so why don't I lock myself in my bedroom. I don't have that choice and don't want to live like that.

Regarding race Europe  (eastern, is still quite racist they are a good 50 years behind us).

Sure is. I'm amazed at how prejudiced Roma Gypsies are towards Pakistanis and blacks, when they originated from India themselves and have dark, some would say black skin.

Id hope that peoples perceptions of others will evolve in a way that is more tolerant, but I might need to smoke some of the good stuff to ever think that would ever happen.

If someone's experiences of a certain race or nationality are wholly negative then it is founded, it isn't a one-off and they shouldn't be tolerant. There is nothing "evolved" or more intelligent in the concept of accepting everybody. If we were "devolved" maybe we would have prevented all that awful stuff happening in Rochdale, Rotherham and other places as the parents would tell their kids not to date outside race, maybe we could have prevented Halal being served just about everywhere and maybe people of central London wouldn't have been forced out by the tidal wave of Roma, muslim and black african filth. I live in hope for the future, but people need realise we need to go "backwards" to go forwards and it starts with undoing 70 years of cultural Marxism.

[Marmalade]

There's also a spate of black American men who act like loud-mouth black rap stars with their 'bitches' when they're with prostitutes and which I've seen in brothels abroad, utterly obnoxious, like they fucking own the world, or black African muslims who see all women as lower forms of life. Statistically, many black men act like cunts around prostitutes. Some men of some black races also have a strong body smell that is unpleasant to whites, just as many Thais find the lacto smell of Westerners offensive or I sometimes find they stink of garlic in the pores of their skin. On the other hand i've had mates who have thoroughly absorbed our culture and when it comes to women can charm the birds off the trees. Statistically, if I were an average British prostitute, I would refuse to see black men, muslim men and Arabs unless I knew them already (for instance from seeing them and their rep in a brothel). I am not racist against such people: I prefer to avoid the not inconsiderable portion who, in my world, I'd class as cunts; and as I would have no reliable screening process as a prossie I'd just have a blanket ban for working purposes.

It might be unfortunate but that's the way it goes just now. I remember when a famous tv personality got turned away from a top hotel nightclub because he was wearing trainers (even though the trainers cost over a thousand quid).

[hendrix]

Covered in detail on External Link/Members Only.
Not if it's based on experience and learning, then it becomes knowledge.
Who is this George and when can I buy him a pint? BNP don't refuse non-whites they often refuse non-British. They have had black members in the past.
You're implying these people have a choice. I would happily never see a Somalian again in my life, so why don't I lock myself in my bedroom. I don't have that choice and don't want to live like that.
Sure is. I'm amazed at how prejudiced Roma Gypsies are towards Pakistanis and blacks, when they originated from India themselves and have dark, some would say black skin.
If someone's experiences of a certain race or nationality are wholly negative then it is founded, it isn't a one-off and they shouldn't be tolerant. There is nothing "evolved" or more intelligent in the concept of accepting everybody. If we were "devolved" maybe we would have prevented all that awful stuff happening in Rochdale, Rotherham and other places as the parents would tell their kids not to date outside race, maybe we could have prevented Halal being served just about everywhere and maybe people of central London wouldn't have been forced out by the tidal wave of Roma, muslim and black african filth. I live in hope for the future, but people need realise we need to go "backwards" to go forwards and it starts with undoing 70 years of cultural Marxism.

Indeed. My experience was that Colonial whites were pretty much all paedo's, rapists and thieves. But, I'm glad it didn't prejudice me as I've since found that most whites are fine.

[Pareidolia]

BNP don't refuse non-whites they often refuse non-British. They have had black members in the past.

Only since 2009, I remember this story well: External Link/Members Only

[vw]

Only since 2009, I remember this story well: External Link/Members Only

Did you have a nice tea party to celebrate ?  Hope you served green tea !

[Ali Katt]

Indeed. My experience was that Colonial whites were pretty much all paedo's, rapists and thieves. But, I'm glad it didn't prejudice me as I've since found that most whites are fine.

Fair play, but I think a little bit paranoia keeps us safe and first impressions are rarely wrong. I wouldn't punt in the rough "Ethnic" areas at night for example as there is a greater safety risk. Prejudice or not, we all have them, whether it's men that find fat women disgusting or Indian hindus that don't do business with pakistanis or old men that distrust teenagers, I don't think people should be held accountable for these beliefs if they are from experience.