[fruit_cake]

I just don't care Pyramid, you can argue alone now.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by fruit_cake

I just don't care Pyramid, you can argue alone now.

Therein lies the difference between us.

I do care about how people in this country are treated, especially when it is badly.

I do care about the Laws of this land being upheld.

I do care about vile, racists such as this woman being dealt with.

I do care about such, especially when someone like her is raising a young toddler, one who is part of our future generation - being brought up and having to listen to the vicious, disgusting comments from his mother's mouth: and I do care about the effect that will have on him.

[Wildcat!]

Oh thank you god, I wasnt there. I would have honestly done physical harm to her, and happilly suffered the consequence. And I imagine, I could get away with temporary insanity.

And Fruit Cake, you have no clue what youre talking about. Ifyou cant see the harm it causes, you are pretty clueless.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Wildcat!

Oh thank you god, I wasnt there. I would have honestly done physical harm to her, and happilly suffered the consequence. And I imagine, I could get away with temporary insanity.

And Fruit Cake, you have no clue what youre talking about. Ifyou cant see the harm it causes, you are pretty clueless.

No then it would Go Global as well.


I do not want you Locked Away
I like your Fights on here.


Great to see you Post again.


Feel The Force.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Wildcat!

Oh thank you god, I wasnt there. I would have honestly done physical harm to her, and happilly suffered the consequence. And I imagine, I could get away with temporary insanity.

And Fruit Cake, you have no clue what youre talking about. Ifyou cant see the harm it causes, you are pretty clueless.

You know, that's an interesting thought..... if somone 'snapped' - would it be regarded as being provoked to such a degree, that they would escape being charged? I doubt it, but it's an interesting point all the same.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by bbfan1991

Youtube video

How rude is that woman, there were kids on that tram aswell including her own and she does that. I am glad Britain is a multi cultural country and it is people like her who shame us...

If a black or other minority person rode that same train and started bemoaning all the cruel evils that whites have done to Africa over the centuries and blamed all their problems on whites do you really think it would have caused as much fuss as this white woman's diatribe has caused? I doubt it. If it got any attention, it would probably garner more praise than critisicm.

I applaud this woman for saying what she believes even if her beliefs may be inaccurate and she may be drugged or drunk at the time. There's one thing that annoys me more than racists who speak their minds and it's the thought police. BTW, I'll bet you 80% of the people in the UK secretly sympathize with a lot of what the woman is saying.

[MTVN]

Racism apologists

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

If a black or other minority person rode that same train and started bemoaning all the cruel evils that whites have done to Africa over the centuries and blamed all their problems on whites do you really think it would have caused as much fuss as this white woman's diatribe has caused? I doubt it. If it got any attention, it would probably garner more praise than critisicm.

I applaud this woman for saying what she believes even if her beliefs may be inaccurate and she may be drugged or drunk at the time. There's one thing that annoys me more than racists who speak their minds and it's the thought police. BTW, I'll bet you 80% of the people in the UK secretly sympathize with a lot of what the woman is saying.

The funniest part of your post here is your reference to the 'thought police'.

Perhaps if this woman had kept her vile mouth shut, and kept her thoughts to herself, she wouldn't currently be banged up in a cell until the 6th December having been charged by the 'real live version of the Police'.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by Snowball

The funniest part of your post here is your reference to the 'thought police'.

Perhaps if this woman had kept her vile mouth shut, and kept her thoughts to herself, she wouldn't currently be banged up in a cell until the 6th December having been charged by the 'real live version of the Police'.

Whatever happened to people having the right to be ***holes? If all she's doing is insulting people and not physically attacking them or threatening violence then why arrest her? If I was a UK citizen I would be pissed that she got arrested if for no other reason than it's going to cost taxpayers a lot of money to house her when she is no real threat to anyone and it won't change her beliefs at all.

Isn't it a bit ironic that we can look down upon Middle Eastern culture where yoiu can be arrested or worse for insulting the prophet Muhommad or drawing funny cartoons of him? But in places like the UK you can be arrested for insulting different races. Freedom of speech?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

Whatever happened to people having the right to be ***holes? If all she's doing is insulting people and not physically attacking them or threatening violence then why arrest her? If I was a UK citizen I would be pissed that she got arrested if for no other reason than it's going to cost taxpayers a lot of money to house her when she is no real threat to anyone and it won't change her beliefs at all.

Isn't it a bit ironic that we can look down upon Middle Eastern culture where yoiu can be arrested or worse for insulting the prophet Muhommad or drawing funny cartoons of him? But in places like the UK you can be arrested for insulting different races. Freedom of speech?

She has committed a crime. She has broken the Law - maybe you should update yourself with the facts surrounding this particular case.

Nothing ironic about this at all - this isn't a comparision between UK Laws and the Laws of other countries. It is discussion surrounding this woman, in the UK, her behaviour - and as such, a person who has acted outwith the realms of the Law, and is being dealt with accordingly.

Perhaps if you want to dicuss UK Laws in comparison to other countries: you might want to open up a thread for such a discussion, because it doesn't belong here - which you will have realised if you had actually read the thread and understood that this message has already been given out by a moderator. for ease of reference for you. http://thisisbigbrother.com/forums/s...&postcount=127 .

[Liberty4eva]

So the UK doesn't have freedom of speech anymore?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

So the UK doesn't have freedom of speech anymore?

As long as it is within reason and is acceptable, with no intent on deliberately aggrevating another, yes.

[Samuel.]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

If a black or other minority person rode that same train and started bemoaning all the cruel evils that whites have done to Africa over the centuries and blamed all their problems on whites do you really think it would have caused as much fuss as this white woman's diatribe has caused? I doubt it. If it got any attention, it would probably garner more praise than critisicm.

I applaud this woman for saying what she believes even if her beliefs may be inaccurate and she may be drugged or drunk at the time. There's one thing that annoys me more than racists who speak their minds and it's the thought police. BTW, I'll bet you 80% of the people in the UK secretly sympathize with a lot of what the woman is saying.

Oh dear.

[Shaun]

Liberty4eva saying something controversial? What? Where?

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by Snowball

As long as it is within reason and is acceptable, with no intent on deliberately aggrevating another, yes.

Just keep in mind that popular speech doesn't need any protection whatsoever. It's the unpopular speech that needs to be protected.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Snowball

You know, that's an interesting thought..... if somone 'snapped' - would it be regarded as being provoked to such a degree, that they would escape being charged? I doubt it, but it's an interesting point all the same.

Legally, you cannot lay your hands on someone however much you are provoked. The only way you can hit (or otherwise physically "attack") someone is if you are defending yourself, but basically you cannot hit someone because they provoke you. There are certain circumstances where a lesser charge may be handed out because you were provoked, but the bottom line is, if you throw the first punch, your defence will have to prove that the verbal attack was so severe that you temporarily lost your mind. It's a toughie... and let's face it, if anyone deserved a smack in the mouth, it's that woman.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

Just keep in mind that popular speech doesn't need any protection whatsoever. It's the unpopular speech that needs to be protected.

I wondered how long it'd take the "free speech" lobbyists to show up.

You can have free speech within reason, but you cannot allow every ridiculous, offensive, half-baked thought that enters your head to spill out of your mouth if you want to live in a civilised society.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

Just keep in mind that popular speech doesn't need any protection whatsoever. It's the unpopular speech that needs to be protected.

Nothing to do with it. It's called defending peoples' right not to be racially abused, targetted and victimised because someone doesn't like the colour of another person's skin.

Perhaps you missed the part in the video clip whereby a woman clearly confirms that she is British. A black woman. She was then subjected to more abuse, regardless of the fact that she was British.

You will also note that a white woman also then stated much of the same thing to the woman abuser: and the abuser had nothing to say to her - because she was white.

Targetting someone based on the colour of their skin and abusing them (verbally or otherwise) is assault in this country, and is against the law.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Livia

Legally, you cannot lay your hands on someone however much you are provoked. The only way you can hit (or otherwise physically "attack") someone is if you are defending yourself, but basically you cannot hit someone because they provoke you. There are certain circumstances where a lesser charge may be handed out because you were provoked, but the bottom line is, if you throw the first punch, your defence will have to prove that the verbal attack was so severe that you temporarily lost your mind. It's a toughie... and let's face it, if anyone deserved a smack in the mouth, it's that woman.

Had a hunch that was the case - but by God, I'd have been sorely tempted myself...... I really take my hat off to the man sitting behind her and those who persuaded him not to address her. (I also thought it was incredibly lovely to see a woman standing up and hugging him). That was a rather poignant moment in the clip.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Had a hunch that was the case - but by God, I'd have been sorely tempted myself...... I really take my hat off to the man sitting behind her and those who persuaded him not to address her. (I also thought it was incredibly lovely to see a woman standing up and hugging him). That was a rather poignant moment in the clip.

I agree. After witnessing the dregs of society gob off, it's good to see decent people restoring your faith.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by Livia

I wondered how long it'd take the "free speech" lobbyists to show up.

You can have free speech within reason, but you cannot allow every ridiculous, offensive, half-baked thought that enters your head to spill out of your mouth if you want to live in a civilised society.

I think the societies with the most unrestricted free speech are the most civilized. The ones with the most regulated speech are the most uncivilized.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Nothing to do with it. It's called defending peoples' right not to be racially abused, targetted and victimised because someone doesn't like the colour of another person's skin.

Perhaps you missed the part in the video clip whereby a woman clearly confirms that she is British. A black woman. She was then subjected to more abuse, regardless of the fact that she was British.

You will also note that a white woman also then stated much of the same thing to the woman abuser: and the abuser had nothing to say to her - because she was white.

Targetting someone based on the colour of their skin and abusing them (verbally or otherwise) is assault in this country, and is against the law.

I don't think the woman was "abusing" anyone. If the people on that bus were sensible and not so reactionary, they'd feel annoyed and not "abused". If I was a minority on the bus I'd probably be mildly amused as the woman was sounding kind of drunk and drugged.

Why are people so afraid of what a 100 pound woman has to say? What is she gonna do? She's freaking harmless.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

I think the societies with the most unrestricted free speech are the most civilized. The ones with the most regulated speech are the most uncivilized.

You think that this woman was within her rights to act the way she did? You are, in all seriousness, defending the right of racists like her to voice their absurd opinions publically? And you think that a civilised society will stand for that? You need to do some reading. And some thinking.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

I don't think the woman was "abusing" anyone. If the people on that bus were sensible and not so reactionary, they'd feel annoyed and not "abused". If I was a minority on the bus I'd probably be mildly amused as the woman was sounding kind of drunk and drugged.

Why are people so afraid of what a 100 pound woman has to say? What is she gonna do? She's freaking harmless.

She was being verbally abusive. If you are unwilling to understand why, and you truly believe that her behaviour and words, that 'she's freaking harmless', there really is no point in discussing this with you.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by Livia

You think that this woman was within her rights to act the way she did?

Absolutely. You tell me very specifically what this woman did to harm anyone? If all you can come up with is she offended people then that's pretty weak. People don't have the right to not be offended. If someone called you a slut would that be an arrestable offense?

Originally Posted by Livia

You are, in all seriousness, defending the right of racists like her to voice their absurd opinions publically? And you think that a civilised society will stand for that? You need to do some reading. And some thinking.

In a civilized society where freedom of speech is unrestricted when someone voices an absurd opinion, others are free to challenge it and respond to it. The white woman who yelled back at her is a good example. So it's not like there are no checks against ignorant speech.

If you can tell me with a straight face that what the woman did was an arrestable offense then I think you need to do some reading. Civilized society? Yeah right.