Win!

Firstram said:
This guy nailed it :smokin:

Click to expand...

IIRC 'Asian' often means middle eastern in written media in the UK and parts Europe; i presume that carries over to the aussies too...


Edit:
I'll be damned it is an actual chinamen:
1771947458160.png
 
Last edited:
WTF? said:
IIRC 'Asian' means middle eastern in the UK and parts Europe; i presume that carries over to the aussies too...
Click to expand...
No it doesn't! (not in the Uk or Aus. I can't say about mainland Europe because I've never lived there) In the UK and Aus Asian generally means someone of east or southeast Asian decent (Chinese, Thai, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean ect). Generally people from the Indian subcontinent are called Indian,Pakistani ect. Middle Eastern people are called Arabs. Source= Lived in Uk and Aus all my life!
 
Spudgun said:
No it doesn't! (not in the Uk or Aus. I can't say about mainland Europe because I've never lived there) In the UK and Aus Asian generally means someone of east or southeast Asian decent (Chinese, Thai, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean ect). Generally people from the Indian subcontinent are called Indian,Pakistani ect. Middle Eastern people are called Arabs. Source= Lived in Uk and Aus all my life!
Click to expand...
I have heard it done by libs that dont want to say middle eastern or Muslim in a variety of places. And technically it is correct.
 
Spudgun said:
No it doesn't! (not in the Uk or Aus. I can't say about mainland Europe because I've never lived there) In the UK and Aus Asian generally means someone of east or southeast Asian decent (Chinese, Thai, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean ect). Generally people from the Indian subcontinent are called Indian,Pakistani ect. Middle Eastern people are called Arabs. Source= Lived in Uk and Aus all my life!
Click to expand...
so the asian rape gangs are fake news?

sounds very safe and effective to me
 
Calling them Asian rape gangs is pretty much an American thing. In The UK they are called Pakistani rape gangs. If you called them Asian eveyone would think that they were made up of Chinese ect despite Pakistan being in Asia. So yes, as per the vast majority of the dumbed down media aimed at Americans, very much fake news.
 
Spudgun said:
No it doesn't! (not in the Uk or Aus. I can't say about mainland Europe because I've never lived there) In the UK and Aus Asian generally means someone of east or southeast Asian decent (Chinese, Thai, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean ect). Generally people from the Indian subcontinent are called Indian,Pakistani ect. Middle Eastern people are called Arabs. Source= Lived in Uk and Aus all my life!
Click to expand...
The point is they're often not japs or chinamen as the US would generally assume when the term 'Asian' is used (Edit: looks like it was an actual chinamen throwing the coffee on the baby in the genesis of this tangent)




Grok clarifies that its usually Paki's and indians they capture with the soft language:

When a British newspaper, politician, police report, or random lad on the street says "Asian," they almost always mean South Asian — specifically Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi heritage (with Sikh, Hindu, Muslim backgrounds all lumped in). East Asians (Chinese, Korean, etc.) sometimes get included in official stats but are usually specified separately in conversation ("Chinese bloke" vs "Asian bloke").
Real-world examples straight from UK media & discourse:
  • "Asian grooming gangs" = Pakistani & Bangladeshi men (never Arabs or Kurds or Turks in that context)
  • "Asian takeaway" = Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi curry house
  • "Asian community leaders" = usually referring to mosques, temples, gurdwaras from the subcontinent
 
Last edited:
Spudgun said:
Calling them Asian rape gangs is pretty much an American thing. In The UK they are called Pakistani rape gangs. If you called them Asian eveyone would think that they were made up of Chinese ect despite Pakistan being in Asia. So yes, as per the vast majority of the dumbed down media aimed at Americans, very much fake news.
Click to expand...
BBC is american?

www.bbc.com

'My mother was called racist for raising grooming gang issue'

John Cryer says his mother, former Keighley MP Ann, was smeared when she raised the issue in 2003.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

www.bbc.com

Previous Asian grooming gangs in Rochdale 'not relevant' - trial

A jury is warned not to let knowledge of previous abuse in Rochdale shape their conclusions.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

www.bbc.com

Andrew Norfolk: Times reporter who exposed grooming gang dies

Andrew Norfolk's work revealed a pattern of abuse which led to changes in the law around convictions.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMG
WTF? said:
The point is they're not japs or chinamen as the US would generally assume when the term 'Asian' is used



Grok clarifies that its usually Paki's and indians they capture with the soft language:

When a British newspaper, politician, police report, or random lad on the street says "Asian," they almost always mean South Asian — specifically Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi heritage (with Sikh, Hindu, Muslim backgrounds all lumped in). East Asians (Chinese, Korean, etc.) sometimes get included in official stats but are usually specified separately in conversation ("Chinese bloke" vs "Asian bloke").
Real-world examples straight from UK media & discourse:
  • "Asian grooming gangs" = Pakistani & Bangladeshi men (never Arabs or Kurds or Turks in that context)
  • "Asian takeaway" = Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi curry house
  • "Asian community leaders" = usually referring to mosques, temples, gurdwaras from the subcontinent
Click to expand...
Remember that Grok (and all the others) is Bull****. While I'm in no way denying that Pakistanis ect are from Asia when a person from the UK says somebody is Asian they generally mean Chinese ect and NOT from the middle east (as per the original point ) or from the Indian subcontinent. The only one of the three "examples" that Grok could scrape together that has any truth in it is the leaders/clergy of temples (and not the building itself, which is what is has put) are called Asian community leaders. The worst one of the three (and the funniest/ most obviously wrong) is the one that says "Asian takeway!" In my nearly 50 years I have never heard anybody refer to a curry house or a Chinese as a Asian Takeaway! This is just one of MANY reasons why anything Grok says should not be taken at face value.
 
Spudgun said:
Calling them Asian rape gangs is pretty much an American thing. In The UK they are called Pakistani rape gangs. If you called them Asian eveyone would think that they were made up of Chinese ect despite Pakistan being in Asia. So yes, as per the vast majority of the dumbed down media aimed at Americans, very much fake news.
Click to expand...
Screenshot 2026-02-24 at 9.48.01 AM.png
 
WTF? said:
BBC is american?

www.bbc.com

'My mother was called racist for raising grooming gang issue'

John Cryer says his mother, former Keighley MP Ann, was smeared when she raised the issue in 2003.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

www.bbc.com

Previous Asian grooming gangs in Rochdale 'not relevant' - trial

A jury is warned not to let knowledge of previous abuse in Rochdale shape their conclusions.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

www.bbc.com

Andrew Norfolk: Times reporter who exposed grooming gang dies

Andrew Norfolk's work revealed a pattern of abuse which led to changes in the law around convictions.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...
No. BBC is crap! Virtually nobody uses it much anymore. Unless it can source alternative funding it may well disappear in a few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMG
WTF? said:
It looks like they're reaching about 50% of the population :confused: ;

www.statista.com

BBC viewing figures by year in the UK 2015-2025| Statista

The most watched BBC TV channel in the UK was BBC One, with a 55% reach of viewership in 2023. Second came BBC Two.
www.statista.com www.statista.com

media.info

BBC - listening figures

The RAJAR listening figures and radio ratings for BBC, the company in the UK.
media.info media.info
Click to expand...
look at the other end of the graphs and see it used to be 70-80%.

and this likely includes the iplayer data, some of which are foreign users with a VPN getting free content.

losing 30% of your viwership in 10 years is nothing to sneeze at.
 
87manche said:
look at the other end of the graphs and see it used to be 70-80%.

and this likely includes the iplayer data, some of which are foreign users with a VPN getting free content.

losing 30% of your viwership in 10 years is nothing to sneeze at.
Click to expand...
that's par for the course for the last 10 years as the rise of online independent/ streaming media has fragmented the industry. At 50% they are allegedly still the top player in the market.
 
WTF? said:
that's par for the course for the last 10 years as the rise of online independent/ streaming media has fragmented the industry. At 50% they are allegedly still the top player in the market.
Click to expand...

adapt or die.

the fact that they're funded by the british government through licensing is the only reason they still exist.
like PBS.
and don't get me wrong, I like some PBS programming, but not enough that I want my money stolen from me by force to fund it.
 
87manche said:
adapt or die.

the fact that they're funded by the british government through licensing is the only reason they still exist.
like PBS.
and don't get me wrong, I like some PBS programming, but not enough that I want my money stolen from me by force to fund it.
Click to expand...
They still have the largest viewership of anyone; more audience for your ads to reach than anyone else- that's market dominance. His statement was 'nobody uses the BBC anymore' and 50% is pretty far from nobody.

I think the only thing touching 50% viewership here in the US might be the super bowl. ( google says fox news as the top rated network is estimated at 38% market penetration)
 
Last edited:
WTF? said:
They still have the largest viewership of anyone; more audience for your ads to reach than anyone else- that's market dominance. His statement was 'nobody uses the BBC anymore' and 50% is pretty far from nobody.

I think the only thing touching 50% viewership here in the US might be the super bowl. ( google says fox news as the top rated network is estimated at 38% market penetration)
Click to expand...
but none of the advertisers care about their audience because it's all old people.

BBC tried chasing the youth with modern audience bull****, but apparently failed to realize that the youth don't watch TV, they grew up with social media and streaming.

they ignored the warnings.
BC bosses were “dismissive” and defensive when Oxford and Cambridge professors accused the corporation of rewriting history to promote a woke agenda, a leaked internal memo says.

In December 2022, The Telegraph reported on complaints by leading academics that the BBC was allowing “politically motivated campaigners” to present tendentious views of British history as fact.

Rather than acknowledging that documentaries on subjects including slavery, colonialism and the Irish famine distorted the truth, BBC executives accused the academics of “cherry picking” examples.

It is the latest in a series of disclosures to come from a letter sent by a former BBC standards adviser to members of the BBC Board that implored them to act on alleged bias within the corporation, and which is now in the hands of the Government.

Previously, The Telegraph has revealed that a BBC Panorama documentary doctored a speech by Donald Trump, making it seem as though he incited the Capitol Hill riot, and that BBC Arabic allegedly downplayed the suffering of Israelis in the war with Hamas in order to paint Israel as the aggressor.

In 2022, university dons who were members of an organisation called History Reclaimed said that documentaries on subjects including slavery, colonialism and the Irish famine distorted the truth about Britain’s past through inaccuracy or the omission important facts.

Rather than seeking a balanced view of history from the country’s most knowledgeable historians, they said, the BBC sought out fringe figures who agreed with its woke view of Britain’s imperial past.

They criticised a programme that suggested the Bengal famine of 1943 was a consequence of racism on the part of Winston Churchill when in fact Britain sent large shipments of food to the Indian region in the face of wartime food shortages.

An episode of the archaeology programme Digging For Britain claimed that British policy during the 19th-century Irish potato famine amounted to the “extermination” of a people and that aid was refused, even though prime minister Robert Peel ordered the purchase of American maize to feed 500,000 people in Ireland and ruined his career by suspending the Corn Laws to allow untaxed imports.

After The Telegraph’s story was published, Michael Prescott, an independent editorial adviser on the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee (EGSC) suggested a meeting of BBC programme commissioners, producers and editors to review History Reclaimed’s findings.

Mr Prescott, a descendant of Guyanense indentured labourers, found the History Reclaimed report “fascinating and compelling”, and a senior BBC executive was lined up to meet some of the members behind it – but that plan was later withdrawn.

The EGSC was later told that a meeting “was judged inappropriate”.

In a letter sent to the BBC Board in September and now circulating in government departments, Mr Prescott says: “I remain slightly mystified by this. History Reclaimed seemed reasonable, were making limited claims and suggested an easy solution – why ignore the whole thing and allow the questionable practice, apparently identified, to continue?”

At the time The Telegraph’s original story was published, the BBC accused History Reclaimed of “cherry-picking a handful of examples” from thousands of hours of output that was not a fair representation of BBC content.

Mr Prescott described this response as “dismissive” and wrote: “This defensiveness when challenged over contested areas is something the BBC demonstrates time and time again and was an issue I had raised at the EGSC.”

The BBC has faced repeated criticism over its presentation of history. As well as the examples highlighted by History Reclaimed, it was accused of giving children a “dishonest” view of communism earlier this year because of material on the BBC Bitesize website, which is intended as a learning tool.

After outlining the central tenets of Marxism and the emergence of the Soviet Union, it conceded that some people thought communism placed “too many limits on individual freedom” but made no mention of dictators such as Joseph Stalin or of the millions who died under communist regimes.
Join the conversation
Click to expand...


why on earth is their decline a surprise to them?
 
notthebee.com

West Virginia introduces bill for state government to sell machine guns to Americans 🇺🇸

They found a loophole and they're going for it!
notthebee.com notthebee.com

West Virginia introduces bill for state government to sell machine guns to Americans 🇺🇸​







Joel Abbott
Feb 24, 2026
They found a loophole and they're going for it!






God bless West Virginia. 🔥​

Here's the rundown:

  • Gun Owners of America authored a bill that they passed to state senators in West Virginia that gets around the 1934 National Firearms Act and 1986 Hughes Amendment, which severely regulated gun sales in America.


  • This bill exploits a loophole in the 1986 law that bans Americans from buying full-auto guns.
  • The 1986 law exempts the government, including state governments, from the ban, including "transfers."
  • This new bill would therefore allow local governments to "transfer" the guns to citizens, presumably after gun shops have "transferred" the guns to the government.
According to 922(o), a state government may lawfully 'transfer' — that is, sell, give, loan, etc. — machineguns to ordinary citizens. And after the transfer is complete, those citizens may lawfully possess them, so long as the transfer was made by the State government.

But you don't have to take our word for it. The Department of Justice recently made the very same argument in a court filing. The case is State of New Jersey v. Bondi, which is being litigated in the US District Court for the District of Maryland.
Click to expand...
In that case, New Jersey is suing the U.S. DOJ because the Trump admin directed the ATF to return confiscated "Forced Reset Triggers" (FRTs) to their owners.

These triggers, like "bump stocks," allow the trigger to be pulled faster, which increases the rate of fire. Though these are not mechanically full-auto, the ATF gets really grabby when people invent new ways to get around their unconstitutional gun grabs.

A patriot sued Biden's DOJ in Cargil v. Garland and won, forcing the ATF to admit that such triggers are semi-auto devices, and thus not banned by the 1986 law. Democrat-led states like New Jersey were upset about this, so they are trying to stop such devices from being returned to Americans.

Trump's DOJ says the lawsuits are moot, because the DOJ is exempt from the 1986 law. 👇​





article-699dd54ca1fb1.png



Here's a link to a video summary from Gun Owners of America if you want more deets.

More:

Summed up, the exemption from the ban on machineguns follows the firearm, not who possesses it.

This is why our legislation, now officially introduced by our allies in West Virginia, would create State-Operated Machinegun Stores.

This state-run entity would be tasked with purchasing machineguns and conducting transfers to qualified members of the general public, much like how many states open and operate liquor stores.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • 699dd859e2b5c699dd859e2b5d.jpg
    699dd859e2b5c699dd859e2b5d.jpg
    67.1 KB · Views: 23
  • Avatar-6571bcf220552.jpg
    Avatar-6571bcf220552.jpg
    9.6 KB · Views: 24
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh