The treuth is the woman never got violent. If people got arrested everytime they said something crazy on a train, well there;'d be alot more arrests. It's the TUBE, there are plenty of crazies. I don't think this woman should be treated any more harshly than the other crazies screaming about "9/11 was an inside job" or "jesus is comming, repent!"

This was obviously just a crazy woman, and i think it's unfair to treat her crazy rant any more harshly than we'd treat any other crazies.

Racism is violence, this woman was not violent at all.

Crazy people should be locked up too, if they can't be trusted to not act like crazies in public and not be a danger to themselves - so she's still in the right place.

Oh I have just as much say in the UK laws as you do. And by that I mean you have no say. The people at the top are going to do what they're going to do regardless of how you and the rest of your citizenry feel. Aren't 80% of your laws from the EU now?

Read again. I said what you believe or don't believe, has no impact. It doesn't.

Read again what I said: what you believe or don't believe has no impact either. You have no more say in your government's affairs than a Middle Ages serf did in his time.

Tbh I dont think she should be in prison because she hasnt psyhically hurt anybody because of there skin,though I do not like her behaviour or views.

Did I suggest I did. Nope.

However, I am allowed to vote in this country, the UK which affords me the ability to vote for a Government political party who may promote and uphold my personal beliefs and values as far as this country and the way it is run is concerned.

Do you have that same ability to vote within the UK -are you on the Electoral Register here in the UK?

The fact of the matter is, the woman in the video has been accused of committing a crime, the police investigated the accusation and found there was sufficient evidence against her to believe that she had committed the crime she was accused of, they therefore arrested and charged her.

In charging her with that particular crime, they placed her into custody, prior to an initial appearance at court to answer the accusation. When she appeared in court she choose to make no plea, the magistrate then decided not to allow her bail.

The decision to allow bail is taken on a variety of considerations, maximum sentence for the crime if found guilty (previous criminal charges generally arent taken into account at this stage except in very serious cases), likelihood of interferring with witnesses and danger to the accused themselves.

The magistrate decided it was safer for her to remain in custody,

Although she will be held in a prison during her period of remand, she wont be treated as a prisoner, she will follow a different regime, different limits on visits, phone calls, and freedoms from routine. Although she is still banged up its a lot less restrictive for a remandee than it is for a convicted criminal. Also the time she does will count as normal time and be removed from any custodial sentence she receives, if convicted and sentenced to a custodial sentence.

Unfortunate but thats the way UK Law works.

If the video hadnt been pasted online then obviously the whole situation would be different and she would probably be out on bail at the moment, thats the way the world turns. S**t Happens.

LOL, you're allowed to vote for one of the two sides of the same coin. Liberal, Labour, and Conservative are part of the same political unit that support and prop up each other. You're allowed to vote for the LibLabCon party or throw your vote away. There are differences at the margin on some issues but on all the truly important issues they are in agreement. If you wanted to get out of the EU, who would you vote for? If you wanted to hault immigration who would you vote for? If you wanted to stop all the bank bailouts who would you vote for? On all those issues they all are in agreement or conveniently forget promises they made after the votes are cast. The only parties that could conceivably offer a real difference in government are ones that are dismissed as Nazis (like BNP) or not viable (like UKIP).

What about the Greens or the SWP? Well maybe not the Greens, but I don't see why you have to go the Right of the spectrum to try and find parties that'd offer a "real difference"

Who wins is another matter entirely, but there are more than only 2 political parties from which I can make a choice as to which I wish to vote for.

Now. Back to the rest of my question:

Haven't heard a lot about the Greens or SWP. Maybe that's because the BNP and UKIP actually have representatives in the European Parliament.

The Greens have a couple of seats there as well I think, and they have one MP which the BNP and UKIP don't. I agree anyway that there's very little that's of significance to distinguish between the 3 main parties here

I'm not registered to vote and don't have UK citizenship so no. You keep asking me that like voting has some real ability to make changes. Far from it. That's why I say with a straight face that I have just as much say and influence in UK politics as you.

Therefore you in fact have no say in the UK Laws. You have no impact on what happens here in the UK.

Difference is: people such as myself and others on this thread who are UK citizens, entitled to vote and do vote: we do have an impact on what happens here.

Certainly more influence that you have, that's for sure.

No, I'm pretty confident you have little influence over anything. And I think I once saw a bumper sticker that captures my thoughts on the matter: if voting truly affected things they would take that away.

“Those who stay away from the election think that one vote will do no good: 'Tis but one step more to think one vote will do no harm.” Ralph Waldo Emerson a countryman of yours I believe

I'm kind of 50/50 on whether people should vote or not. If they want to vote 3rd party then go for it but I'm starting to think the people who vote for the "mainstream" parties do more harm than the people who just decide to stay home because they give credibility to the system.

My concern is that there were possible offences committed by the person filming this.

• They violated the privacy of the child in posting the video on Youtube
• They were filming on public transport, without permission in violation of rules regarding counter terrorism
• They published this video without obtaining permissions from those caught on camera

Those of us who do film in the public arena have clear protocols and rules of engagement. When I film for our church events, care must be taken to protect the identity of those not involved. Also I am highly visible so that any visitors will know that filming is in progress. An waivers that parents sign if it is an event that is put on for children usually refer to filming being carried out either in stills or in video and sometimes our organisers restrict where I can film so privacy is preserved.

With regard to CCTV that may have been operating on this tram, the operators are required to the data protection act.

This person in filming covertly did not follow any of that, so should this footage have been admissible in court? Official covert filming still has to follow Home office guidelines.

If this had not been film then it is likely that this would have been forgotten and no investigation made, at cost to the public purse.

What needs to be asked, is what is the most severest sentence and what is most likely? Does this really warrant someone being separated from their child as is happening? Is this prosecution really in the public interest?

The reason for her being held is the hate campaign organised via Facebook. As a minor may be involved, living at that address, what sanctions were carried out against those in that hate campaign.

We should never tolerate vigilantes and mob violence where people take the law into their own hands.

I beg leave to have this case dropped on grounds that the rules of evidence with regards to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act have not been followed

http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/Ac...90612-1476.gif

Objection. Two wrongs don't make a right.

If there was a case to answer on any of the things you bring up, they would be heard separately. If the video evidence was inadmissible in court, there are still eyewitnesses. One would not cancel out the other.

Regardless of the permissions that need to be sought for official filming, if everyone who ever posted anything on Youtube was suddenly arrested for the range of charges you mention above, the legal system would collapse under the weight of cases.

Another racist tram argument:



Stupid fat bitch :joker::joker::joker:

Yaayyyyyy......... just what we need...... :D :D

OMG..... !!!!

It was funny when she fell, but a bit scary at the end.

What a state she was, that bit was funny but when she went for his face :shocked::shocked: ....... I don't blame the guy for hitting her back though - and for shoving her off the bus.

What IS it with these headcases?

She really is the definition of a fat ****ing *****.