# Two gay men thrown off a London bus



## hash tag (Sep 5, 2016)

This weekend, in London, in the year 2016, two blokes were thrown off a London bus because the driver took against them.
For goodness sake, this is not the dark ages, this is cosmopolitan London, or is it? 
Gay couple 'thrown off London bus after driver's homophobic rant'


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 5, 2016)

hash tag said:


> This weekend, in London, in the year 2016, two blokes were thrown off a London bus because the driver took against the.


You didn't finish your sentence.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 5, 2016)

.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 5, 2016)

Sorry, better? Mad and preoccupied.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 5, 2016)

So they were thrown off the bus for fare dodging? No excuse for homophobia whilst doing that of course.


----------



## Ted Striker (Sep 5, 2016)




----------



## Winot (Sep 5, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> So they were thrown off the bus for fare dodging?



Where does it say that?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 5, 2016)

Winot said:


> Where does it say that?



It says they got on at the back of the bus. I just assumed you pay your fare at the front and leave at the back. I'm no Laaaandaner though, so no idea if that's how it works nowadays.


----------



## spliff (Sep 5, 2016)




----------



## quimcunx (Sep 5, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> It says they got on at the back of the bus. I just assumed you pay your fare at the front and leave at the back. I'm no Laaaandaner though, so no idea if that's how it works nowadays.



There are several new buses on the go now that allow you to get on in the middle and at the back and tap an oyster reader.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 5, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> It says they got on at the back of the bus. I just assumed you pay your fare at the front and leave at the back. I'm no Laaaandaner though, so no idea if that's how it works nowadays.



That was the case but they've brought in the new Routemasters so you can get on any door now - if it was that type of bus obviously.


----------



## Maggot (Sep 5, 2016)

It's not entirely clear what happened from that article. It sounds like the couple chose to leave the bus after the driver's remark, rather than actually get thrown off.


----------



## irf520 (Sep 5, 2016)

I'm guessing it was a Boris bus, where you can embark or disembark using any door. They weren't fare dodging. They just went in via the back door. Fnarr fnarr...


----------



## 8den (Sep 5, 2016)

hash tag said:


> This weekend, in London, in the year 2016, two blokes were thrown off a London bus because the driver took against them.
> For goodness sake, this is not the dark ages, this is cosmopolitan London, or is it?
> Gay couple 'thrown off London bus after driver's homophobic rant'



London is only cosmopolitan if you avoid the fact that you have millions of extremely thick racist homophobic cunts living on top of each other.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 5, 2016)

A London bus driver made my sister cry once.

I've never forgiven London for that tbh.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 5, 2016)

irf520 said:


> I'm guessing it was a Boris bus, where you can embark or disembark using any door. They weren't fare dodging. They just went in via the back door. Fnarr fnarr...


 
Route 25 does not have Boris Buses.

Of course the article saying it was a 25 does not necessarily mean it was a 25...


----------



## hash tag (Sep 5, 2016)

I read earlier that the driver made homophobic remarks and announced over the tanoy that he was going nowhere until they got off.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 5, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> There are several new buses on the go now that allow you to get on in the middle and at the back and tap an oyster reader.



Presumably the middle entrance is for bisexuals?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 5, 2016)

8den said:


> London is only cosmopolitan if you avoid the fact that you have millions of extremely thick racist homophobic cunts living on top of each other.



Same people everywhere sadly, and I doubt it will change anytime soon.


----------



## Cid (Sep 5, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I read earlier that the driver made homophobic remarks and announced over the tanoy that he was going nowhere until they got off.



Where did you read it?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 5, 2016)

Please don't call them _B----buses;_ if anything, they,re _Roastmasters._
Basically they're shit, like Johnson.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 5, 2016)

8den said:


> London is only cosmopolitan if you avoid the fact that you have millions of extremely thick racist homophobic cunts living on top of each other.


Voted to Remain therefore more tolerant apparently


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Basically they're shit, like Johnson.


They're shit, like Johnson, and he commissioned them. Seems ok to call them B.... Buses.

The bikes, on the other hand, were ken's idea. Livingstone's velocipedes.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 5, 2016)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Presumably the middle entrance is for bisexuals?


no. Bisexuals can use either the front or the back. 

The middle is for people who don't wish to declare their sexuality


----------



## scifisam (Sep 5, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> So they were thrown off the bus for fare dodging? No excuse for homophobia whilst doing that of course.



Nope.



> They caught up to the bus at the next stop but the doors were closed, even though there were people on.
> 
> “The back door was open so we got on and go straight to the front and put our Oyster cards on the machine,” Okai said.



Had something similar happen to me years ago so am not terribly surprised.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You didn't finish your sentence.


The title wasn't complete either, so I sorted that.


----------



## Athos (Sep 5, 2016)

Similar thing happened to me. Only I was drunk, rather than gay. And I hadn't paid. And I dropped a two piece chicken and chips just inside the door. But still...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 5, 2016)




----------



## kittyP (Sep 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Please don't call them _B----buses;_ if anything, they,re _Roastmasters._
> Basically they're shit, like Johnson.



I really like the new Routmasters 

I don't like Johnson though


----------



## harpo (Sep 5, 2016)

kittyP said:


> I really like the new Routmasters
> 
> I don't like Johnson though


Not if the weather goes above 25 degrees though.  They need to sort their temperature out.


----------



## kittyP (Sep 5, 2016)

harpo said:


> Not if the weather goes above 25 degrees though.  They need to sort their temperature out.



Tbh most of London transport is not great in weather above 20 degrees.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 5, 2016)

harpo said:


> Not if the weather goes above 25 degrees though.  They need to sort their temperature out.




they are supposed to have air con but all the windows are open, I went on a bus a few days ago that had the air con on as well as the heating vents. 

basically it's still impossible to travel on public transport during the summer. 

piss poor.


----------



## harpo (Sep 5, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> they are supposed to have air con but all the windows are open, I went on a bus a few days ago that had the air con on as well as the heating vents.
> 
> basically it's still impossible to travel on public transport during the summer.
> 
> piss poor.


Aye.  The routemasters don't even have windows. The driver said the aircon is supposed to come on over a certain temperature.  I can only imagine that temperature is set around 40 degrees.


----------



## Athos (Sep 5, 2016)

harpo said:


> Aye.  The routemasters don't even have windows. The driver said the aircon is supposed to come on over a certain temperature.  I can only imagine that temperature is set around 40 degrees.


Yeah, at the heating only goes off when it gets above 50.


----------



## kittyP (Sep 5, 2016)

harpo said:


> Not if the weather goes above 25 degrees though.  They need to sort their temperature out.


I have just got on a Routmaster now and while its very humid out the air con is on and it's quite pleasant upstairs.


----------



## harpo (Sep 5, 2016)

kittyP said:


> I have just got on a Routmaster now and while its very humid out the air con is on and it's quite pleasant upstairs.


Let's hope they're getting it sorted.  I have had to get off several this summer.


----------



## maomao (Sep 5, 2016)

I'm assuming it was a standard double decker not a Boris bus if it was the number 25. It seems the pair of them got on the rear door of the bus (which is located towards the middle of the bus but is the rear of the two doors) when the driver had closed the (or was yet to open) the front doors. The driver made it clear he wasn't standing for their shit and during the ensuing argument made a joke in poor taste yet mild enough to raise no complaint at all when it was repeated and then expanded on in posts 15 and 18 of this thread.

So the driver chucks them off in slightly jobsworthy but understandable fashion and they tout it round Twitter as having been abused and chucked off a bus for being gay. Fucking arseholes. Hope the driver doesn't get much more than a telling off and a warning to watch his mouth.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 5, 2016)

harpo said:


> Aye.  The routemasters don't even have windows. The driver said the aircon is supposed to come on over a certain temperature.  I can only imagine that temperature is set around 40 degrees.


some of the shitty boris buses do have windows - apparently they all will in a few months time when no one will want to open them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 5, 2016)

kittyP said:


> Tbh most of London transport is not great in weather above 20 degrees.


yeh 20 fahrenheit


----------



## agricola (Sep 5, 2016)

8den said:


> London is only cosmopolitan if you avoid the fact that you have millions of extremely thick racist homophobic cunts living on top of each other.



I thought London was only Cosmopolitan because it was an overlarge, overly glossy monstrosity that is mostly composed of adverts and things normal people can't afford, don't need, and don't understand the point of?


----------



## Reno (Sep 5, 2016)

maomao said:


> I'm assuming it was a standard double decker not a Boris bus if it was the number 25. It seems the pair of them got on the rear door of the bus (which is located towards the middle of the bus but is the rear of the two doors) when the driver had closed the (or was yet to open) the front doors. The driver made it clear he wasn't standing for their shit and during the ensuing argument made a joke in poor taste yet mild enough to raise no complaint at all when it was repeated and then expanded on in posts 15 and 18 of this thread.
> 
> So the driver chucks them off in slightly jobsworthy but understandable fashion and they tout it round Twitter as having been abused and chucked off a bus for being gay. Fucking arseholes. Hope the driver doesn't get much more than a telling off and a warning to watch his mouth.



A bus driver telling a black couple "I bet you like watermelons" (which btw would be milder than making an abusive sexual remark) and then chucking them off the bus would have people here up in arms over racism. Telling a gay couple "I bet you like it in the back door" apparently is a mild joke in poor taste. That's exactly the type of homophobic double standard which has made me take long breaks from here in the past. Considering  he drove past them at the previous bus stop and then didn't open the front doors for them when they caught up with the bus at the next stop and tried to get in, what do you think happened ?

I've had bus drivers not stop for me a plenty of times when I was dressed to go out clubbing.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 5, 2016)

editor said:


> The title wasn't complete either, so I sorted that.


Personally I would have preferred:

Theatre director makes a drama out of bus journey. 

Proper Sun pun ftw.


----------



## Athos (Sep 5, 2016)

Reno said:


> A bus driver telling a black couple "I bet you like watermelons" (which btw would be milder than making an abusive sexual remark)...



Would it?


----------



## kenny g (Sep 5, 2016)

[QUOTE="Reno, post: 14687247, member.]

I've had bus drivers not stop for me a plenty of times when I was dressed to go out clubbing.[/QUOTE]

Were the buses fuĺl? I have had buses not stop for me plenty of times as well but I haven't assumed it was due to my sexual preferences or otherwise.


----------



## Reno (Sep 5, 2016)

No they were not. I can tell the difference between an overcrowded bus and one that won't let me on because the bus driver was being a cunt. I've been taking busses in London for 34 years.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 5, 2016)

maomao said:


> I'm assuming it was a standard double decker not a Boris bus if it was the number 25. It seems the pair of them got on the rear door of the bus (which is located towards the middle of the bus but is the rear of the two doors) when the driver had closed the (or was yet to open) the front doors. The driver made it clear he wasn't standing for their shit and during the ensuing argument made a joke in poor taste yet mild enough to raise no complaint at all when it was repeated and then expanded on in posts 15 and 18 of this thread.
> 
> So the driver chucks them off in slightly jobsworthy but understandable fashion and they tout it round Twitter as having been abused and chucked off a bus for being gay. Fucking arseholes. Hope the driver doesn't get much more than a telling off and a warning to watch his mouth.


Point 1. It's a media report and they love to spin / exaggerate stories. 
Point 2. Only one side of the story is given. 
Point 3. Why did this even need to hit the press? Have TFL been approached and responded to the complaint or did they go to the press before they were even given a chance to address any issues?


----------



## Reno (Sep 5, 2016)

Athos said:


> Would it?


You cut off the "and then throws them off the bus"


----------



## Reno (Sep 5, 2016)

Anyways, I'm out of here putting the thread on ignore before it ruins my evening.

Just one more thing to consider: when you've got Gromit on your side you are losing.


----------



## Athos (Sep 5, 2016)

Reno said:


> You cut off the "and then throws them off the bus"



The question was whether "I bet you like watermelons" to a black person is 'milder' than "I bet you like the backdoor" to a gay person.


----------



## Athos (Sep 5, 2016)

Don't get me wrong, I think it was outrageous, but I'm not convincd by your assertion that a racial insult would be 'milder.'


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 5, 2016)

Time for a big gay disco on the No. 25


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 5, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh 20 fahrenheit


----------



## Gromit (Sep 5, 2016)

Reno said:


> Anyways, I'm out of here putting the thread on ignore before it ruins my evening.
> 
> Just one more thing to consider: when you've got Gromit on your side you are losing.


I'm just wondering why it's a story. 

It's a one off incident. Or are we ascertaining that this one incident is a sign of institutionalised homophobia at TFL?
Because if so let me laugh in your faces. TFL is probably one of the most diverse organisations in Britain and take this sort of shit very very seriously. If proven to have said it that driver is 99% likely to lose his job.


----------



## kenny g (Sep 5, 2016)

Personally I find accusations of homophobia against tfl extemely offensive and distressing and yet more evidence of U75 bias.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 5, 2016)

Do TFL even employ bus drivers?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 5, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Do TFL even employ bus drivers?


 
no

all London's buses are operated, and their drivers employed, by private sector bus operators - each route is (in effect) a franchise

(generally speaking the buses are owned by the operators, although the 'boris bus' things are on lease from TfL

TfL do involve themselves in contract standards and in complaints, so I would imagine that they would take it fairly seriously

TfL do take the diversity thing quite seriously - they do have this bus







it doesn't appear on the 25 (it's a boris bus) - it's with stagecoach - i've never worked out whether this was a bit of PR on stagecoach's behalf (considering some of brian souter's comments) or a bit of trolling on TfL's...


----------



## scifisam (Sep 6, 2016)

Telling passengers they must like it by the back door is not a mild joke. I'm a bit surprised at you, Maomao - would you let your students get away with comments like that to each other? I fucking hope not. 

And, assuming the passengers are telling the truth, which CCTV can easily verify, the driver let a woman on at the front while telling them to get off. I once had a bus driver make me and a then-GF leave the bus because we'd been kissing before getting on the bus - he refused to move the bus till we got back off. It happens.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 6, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> I've never forgiven London for that tbh.


I find her very easy to forgive, particularly in the sunshine. There's a real beauty there if you look for it. Always come home with black tar like bogies, something I didn't mean to buy and the exhaustion of navigating around so many people on missions as much as I am but conditioned to a much faster pace of achieving mission. Thusly leaving me discombobulated and shook up like a pair of dice as snoop lion once opined. But its worth it, even the statuary is nice except the ones of evil people from colonial times obvs. They have pride of place.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 6, 2016)

oh and on topic: well out of order, expect that should be gross misconduct


----------



## Calamity1971 (Sep 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I find her very easy to forgive, particularly in the sunshine. There's a real beauty there if you look for it. Always come home with black tar like bogies, something I didn't mean to buy and the exhaustion of navigating around so many people on missions as much as I am but conditioned to a much faster pace of achieving mission. Thusly leaving me discombobulated and shook up like a pair of dice as snoop lion once opined. But its worth it, even the statuary is nice except the ones of evil people from colonial times obvs. They have pride of place.


I was beguilled by your words, but you lost me at 'obvs'.


----------



## maomao (Sep 6, 2016)

Reno said:


> A bus driver telling a black couple "I bet you like watermelons" (which btw would be milder than making an abusive sexual remark) and then chucking them off the bus would have people here up in arms over racism. Telling a gay couple "I bet you like it in the back door" apparently is a mild joke in poor taste. That's exactly the type of homophobic double standard which has made me take long breaks from here in the past. Considering  he drove past them at the previous bus stop and then didn't open the front doors for them when they caught up with the bus at the next stop and tried to get in, what do you think happened ?
> 
> I've had bus drivers not stop for me a plenty of times when I was dressed to go out clubbing.


The watermelon joke doesn't make sense. The back door joke makes sense enough to have been repeated on this thread where apparently it's okay (not one complaint). 

I'm afraid I don't particularly believe the story as presented on Twitter and in the paper. I'd like to hear the bus driver's side of it. 



			
				scifisam said:
			
		

> Telling passengers they must like it by the back door is not a mild joke. I'm a bit surprised at you, Maomao - would you let your students get away with comments like that to each other? I fucking hope not



I haven't been a teacher in many years. I work in public transport in London in a job that involves customer services. There are two sides to most stories and someone's job and livelihood is probably on the line here.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2016)

maomao said:


> The watermelon joke doesn't make sense. .



How Watermelons Became a Racist Trope




> the stereotype that African Americans are excessively fond of watermelon emerged for a specific historical reason and served a specific political purpose. The trope came into full force when slaves won their emancipation during the Civil War. Free black people grew, ate, and sold watermelons, and in doing so made the fruit a symbol of their freedom. Southern whites, threatened by blacks’ newfound freedom, responded by making the fruit a symbol of black people’s perceived uncleanliness, laziness, childishness, and unwanted public presence. This racist trope then exploded in American popular culture, becoming so pervasive that its historical origin became obscure. Few Americans in 1900 would’ve guessed the stereotype was less than half a century old.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2016)

If you Google 'blacks' and 'watermelons', this is what you get:

blacks watermelons - Google Search


----------



## devit (Sep 6, 2016)

From what's been reported it's unclear (at least to me) what the events are, it's certainly not straight forward based on what's been presented.



> They claim the driver said: "I bet you like it in the backdoor"



Above from the article - However, if this is true then the driver should be reprimanded as it's completely unacceptable and inappropriate. It's a tired insult which belong back in the 1970s and not in present day. How could anyone say this is mild? It's a disgusting comment!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 6, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> How Watermelons Became a Racist Trope



Unless bus companies have started selling watermelons at the back of buses, it still doesn't make much sense as a joke.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Unless bus companies have started selling watermelons at the back of buses, it still doesn't make much sense as a joke.



It does. The point being made is that it is a comment that is intended to offend specifically picking on a 'feature/aspect' of the person to do so.


----------



## andysays (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> It does. The point being made is that it is a comment that is intended to offend specifically picking on a 'feature/aspect' of the person to do so.



No, it doesn't make sense *as a joke*.

The reason the alleged comment about liking it through the backdoor makes sense *as a joke* (a pretty weak, offensive joke, but a joke none the less) is because the two passengers were boarding the bus through the back door. If they were boarding through the front door the same same comment would just be an offensive but random _non sequitur_.

For a hypothetical comment about watermelons to make any sense *as a joke* the passengers would need to be actually carrying or eating watermelons, otherwise again it would just be an offensive but random _non sequitur_.

And if you and others can't understand the mechanism of a simple joke like that, it's hardly surprising you're all at sea when it comes to slightly more complex things like satire used in a cultural context which you're less than fully familiar with, like various Charlie Hedbo cartoons.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Please don't call them _B----buses;_ if anything, they,re _Roastmasters._
> Basically they're shit, like Johnson.


Roastmaster sounds like something that would have been advertised on telly in the 70s. £24.99. comes with 35 roastmaster accessories. Not available in any shop!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

> In a letter to TfL, he wrote: "I would like an explanation, not just an apology, as I will be taking it further.




Where?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Where?



The next stop, or maybe all the way to last stop?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> no
> 
> all London's buses are operated, and their drivers employed, by private sector bus operators - each route is (in effect) a franchise
> 
> ...



It was an initiative from within the TfL LGBT staff network group. I wasn't involved but I know the people who were. The fact that it was a stagecoach bus was entirely a fluke as the fact that the organisers weren't prepared for the (minor) backlash that occurred testifies.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2016)

I don't think the real issue is whether or not the hurtful comment somehow has some merit as a joke. Most likely the bus drivers in question were looking to make an insulting comment to someone they'd identified as someone the driver didn't like - in these cases, because of race, and sexual orientation. The fact that the second driver was able to couch his hurtful comment into something bus related might have made the comment funnier to some of the passersby, and some of those reading about it. But the intent in either case is the same - to put down and make the recipients feel small. 

The comments were likely equally unfunny to the black person in the first instance, and the gay couple, in the second.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I don't think the real issue is whether or not the hurtful comment somehow has some merit as a joke. Most likely the bus drivers in question were looking to make an insulting comment to someone they'd identified as someone the driver didn't like - in these cases, because of race, and sexual orientation. The fact that the second driver was able to couch his hurtful comment into something bus related might have made the comment funnier to some of the passersby, and some of those reading about it. But the intent in either case is the same - to put down and make the recipients feel small.
> 
> The comments were likely equally unfunny to the black person in the first instance, and the gay couple, in the second.




What about these?



farmerbarleymow said:


> Presumably the middle entrance is for bisexuals?





AuntiStella said:


> no. Bisexuals can use either the front or the back.
> 
> The middle is for people who don't wish to declare their sexuality


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I don't think the real issue is whether or not the hurtful comment somehow has some merit as a joke. Most likely the bus drivers in question were looking to make an insulting comment to someone they'd identified as someone the driver didn't like - in these cases, because of race, and sexual orientation. The fact that the second driver was able to couch his hurtful comment into something bus related might have made the comment funnier to some of the passersby, and some of those reading about it. But the intent in either case is the same - to put down and make the recipients feel small.
> 
> The comments were likely equally unfunny to the black person in the first instance, and the gay couple, in the second.



Exactly. Whilst there seems an obvious connection between the back door comment and the fact they got on the bus using the back doors, the driver's comment could also have been made because he assumed these men were gay.

Even if he didn't assume they were gay, there is a long history of men using comments and name calling in this way to undermine other men. Questioning their sexuality, implying that they are homosexual and therefore less than 'men'.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> What about these?


I am bisexual though


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 6, 2016)

The new routemasters are great. Comfy seats inside, looks like a droog on the outside.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> I am bisexual though




And?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And?


So I can make humour about my own identity


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> So I can make humour about my own identity




So it is humour then?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So it is humour then?


Go away troll


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Go away troll



www.confused.com


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

<since this post got so misinterpreted and over thought by someone I've deleted it>


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 6, 2016)

Have we ascertained the bus driver's sexual identity yet?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> I only took BS off ignore yesterday. Now he's back on.




Gutted


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

I have been subject to homophobic slurs for about 4 years now, fairly constantly, and none of the above struck me as homophobic. I apologise if any of it is.

But I'm very used to being able to tell such jokes freely among (mostly LGBT) friends without feeling any kind of threat or mockery is involved. I always feel that such humour is about mocking the homophobes that attack us.


----------



## Reno (Sep 6, 2016)

maomao said:


> The watermelon joke doesn't make sense. The back door joke makes sense enough to have been repeated on this thread where apparently it's okay (not one complaint).
> 
> I'm afraid I don't particularly believe the story as presented on Twitter and in the paper. I'd like to hear the bus driver's side of it.
> 
> ...



Considering you were a teacher I find your ignorance of offensive racist tropes surprising. In any case, I just used watermelons as one example of an equivalent slur. I couldn't think of any racial slurs which attack the intimate/sex lives of its victims (that's what makes this so offensive, Athos) so you'll have to do with that.

You are free to disbelieve the story, but to me as a gay man, it's one which is only all too plausible and familiar. And so is the denial of homophobia by heterosexuals, on this forum and generally. The arrogance of the majority (even by those who think they are quite liberal) to assume to know what it's like to walk in the shoes of an oppressed minority, never ceases to amaze me.

Sure, at this point we only know one side of the story and if it turns out that there is a credible other side to it and that there are accusations they were lying or exaggerating, we can take that into account. Yet without any denial or another perspective, you've already decided they are "lying arseholes" which says a lot about your bias. Think for a moment about how you expressed your outrage, consciously or not. Gay men constantly get reduced to their arseholes and what they do with them by homophobes.That's why the bus drivers slur wasn't  "mild" as you keep insisting

Yet again a discussion about homophobia is turning into a discussion where the queers here are being told by heterosexuals that homophobia didnt happen or that queers are wildly exaggerating or that it was "banter". This incident is only the tip of the iceberg, the vast majority of this type of homophobic abuse never gets reported. When one NYE I got my face punched in on Oxford St and ended up in hospital, just for holding my boyfriend's hand, it didn't make the papers.

It is exactly the same type of thinking which denies the existence of racism, in that case usually by the right. Of course this being a largely lefty forum, racism is a no-no. To accuse others of racism gets waved around like a trump card here. However homophobia is still considered acceptable and gets belittled by the left. That (presumably) working class bus driver couldn't possibly be homophobic, so it's the middle class gays who must be lying arseholes, right ? 

That's why I mostly stay off the politics forum, it's all so fucking predictable and when it comes to homophobia, the left often are no better than the right.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> I only took BS off ignore yesterday. Now he's back on.


Nobody gives a flying ant wank about who you do and don't have on ignore.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 6, 2016)

It used to be the bendy buses on that route where they would have been fine using one of the exits. It was easy to treat it as a free service which is probably why they changed the buses.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 6, 2016)

I think the main reason they changed the bendy busses was because they were a supremely shit design for getting around the narrow streets of London.


----------



## irf520 (Sep 6, 2016)

Maybe they got rid of them because some people objected to the word "bendy" ?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It used to be the bendy buses on that route where they would have been fine using one of the exits. It was easy to treat it as a free service which is probably why they changed the buses.


they changed the buses because they were thought to be a Ken Livingstone initiative and Boris had to erase them and piss over it


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 6, 2016)

irf520 said:


> Maybe they got rid of them because some people objected to the word "bendy" ?



They were just a nickname - they were actually bendy.


----------



## Mation (Sep 6, 2016)

Maggot said:


> It's not entirely clear what happened from that article. It sounds like the couple chose to leave the bus after the driver's remark, rather than actually get thrown off.


It sound it like they got thrown off because he said they were made to leave.



andysays said:


> No, it doesn't make sense *as a joke*.
> 
> The reason the alleged comment about liking it through the backdoor makes sense *as a joke* (a pretty weak, offensive joke, but a joke none the less) is because the two passengers were boarding the bus through the back door. If they were boarding through the front door the same same comment would just be an offensive but random _non sequitur_.
> 
> ...


This is an incredibly unimportant point to clarify on a thread that's actually about homophobia not the semantics of a joke.



Bahnhof Strasse said:


> What about these?





Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So it is humour then?


Please don't derail the thread away into the least important aspect of this. This happens with threads about any kind of discrimination; a bunch of people who aren't affected by the discrimination turn up and start talking about some pedantic point irrelevant to the fact that people are being abused.

It's ok not to dive into a discussion if you haven't got anything relevant to say!



Spymaster said:


> Nobody gives a flying ant wank about who you do and don't have on ignore.


I do, actually. It tells me something about how a poster I have a lot of regard for is feeling.


----------



## Mation (Sep 6, 2016)

And ho ho aren't the Independent funny in that article in the OP



> Theatre director Omar Okai, 51, and his partner said the incident occurred after an evening out in central London.
> 
> Mr Okai said they were "shocked and disgusted" when the driver shouted an innuedo-laden remark to them after they boarded the bus using the rear entrance.


It's just _hilarious_.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 6, 2016)

Mation said:


> And ho ho aren't the Independent funny in that article in the OP
> 
> It's just _hilarious_.



I hate the independent more and more tbh.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

Mation said:


> Please don't derail the thread away into the least important aspect of this. This happens with threads about any kind of discrimination; a bunch of people who aren't affected by the discrimination turn up and start talking about some pedantic point irrelevant to the fact that people are being abused.



The premise of the thread is what the bus driver said was so far beyond the pale that the two men felt they had to leave the bus. And yet two posters on here make the same 'joke'. I enquire if that is acceptable or not and get called a troll for my trouble. Hardly derailing anything.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 6, 2016)

and yeah homophobia is always being belittled, don't see it so much on this forum but then I've not really been paying attention, but so many people on the left seem to think it doesn't exist any more

this shit triggers some really bad memories for me of being physically attacked when younger for holding hands with my girlfriend at the time, among other things like being bullied at school for being gay.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The premise of the thread is what the bus driver said was so far beyond the pale that the two men felt they had to leave the bus (not just cos they were bunking the fare or anything...). And yet two posters on here make the same 'joke'. I enquire if that is acceptable or not and get called a troll for my trouble. Hardly derailing anything.



can you not see the difference between a bisexual person making a semi ironic comment on a forum and a bus driver yelling out homophobic jokes to strangers?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> can you not see the difference between a bisexual person making a semi ironic comment on a forum and a bus driver yelling out homophobic jokes to strangers?



And yet by that very bisexual's own admission it was not semi-ironic at all, it was out and out humour.

FWIW I think the bus driver was well out of order, I also think farmerbarleymow and AuntiStella's shit was also out of order, semi-ironic, fully ironic or just moronic, it perpetuates the sort of shite that the bus driver came out with.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 6, 2016)

the independent self righteous clickbait wank for liberal lefties.

"the rear entrance" ho ho ho.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And yet by that very bisexual's own admission it was not semi-ironic at all, it was out and out humour.
> 
> FWIW I think the bus driver was well out of order, I also think farmerbarleymow and AuntiStella's shit was also out of order, semi-ironic, fully ironic or just moronic, it perpetuates the sort of shite that the bus driver came out with.



I don't think it does tbh, any more than black people calling themselves the n-word perpetuates racists yelling it out to people.

surely you can see that there is a context here


----------



## Mation (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The premise of the thread is what the bus driver said was so far beyond the pale that the two men felt they had to leave the bus. And yet two posters on here make the same 'joke'. I enquire if that is acceptable or not and get called a troll for my trouble. Hardly derailing anything.


Don't be disingenuous. In any case, the direction of this thread does not need to meet the demands of straight, white, cis men. It's ok to shut up.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> and yeah homophobia is always being belittled, don't see it so much on this forum but then I've not really been paying attention, but so many people on the left seem to think it doesn't exist any more
> 
> this shit triggers some really bad memories for me of being physically attacked when younger for holding hands with my girlfriend at the time, among other things like being bullied at school for being gay.


I hate it particularly when you see privileged people (straight and gay) saying that LGBT can be wrapped up because we're all equal now. Like fuck we are. For a start most of the obvious homophobic abuse has been turned onto trans people who pretty much get treated as out gay people did in 1972, and even being gay and cis can get your head kicked in.

It seems likely that most gay people are still not happy to be completely out or even be open at work because discrimination is still so rife. Times that by 100 for trans people!!!

I would also like the LGBT community to acknowledge that trans people suffer the brunt of homophobia way worse than most L or G people these days!


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And yet by that very bisexual's own admission it was not semi-ironic at all, it was out and out humour.
> 
> FWIW I think the bus driver was well out of order, I also think farmerbarleymow and AuntiStella's shit was also out of order, semi-ironic, fully ironic or just moronic, it perpetuates the sort of shite that the bus driver came out with.



I disagree. With my LGBT friends we crack jokes with each other; sending up bigots views and sometimes sending ourselves up. We're not playing to an audience, re-inforcing stereotypes like, I dunno, Larry Grayson or whoever.

It's a relief, actually. After all the social gatherings and interactions when you inevitably hear straight folk making jokes and incorrect assumptions about LGBT people. And I hear them very often.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> can you not see the difference between a bisexual person making a semi ironic comment on a forum and a bus driver yelling out homophobic jokes to strangers?



How does he know they're bisexual?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> I don't think it does tbh, any more than black people calling themselves the n-word perpetuates racists yelling it out to people.
> 
> surely you can see that there is a context here




All I saw was cheap laughs based on stale sterotypes and nothing that has been posted since changes that impression at all.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> How does he know they're bisexual?



AuntiStella's quite open about her orientation.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I disagree. With my LGBT friends we crack jokes with each other; sending up bigots views and sometimes sending ourselves up. We're not playing to an audience, re-inforcing stereotypes like, I dunno, Larry Grayson or whoever.



P&P is a public forum open for anyone to read, it is not a closed group of LGBT folk mocking homophobes.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> P&P is a public forum open for anyone to read, it is not a closed group of LGBT folk mocking homophobes.



So, I should keep my opinions to myself, then?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 6, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> AuntiStella's quite open about her orientation.



Doesn't mean everyone is aware.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> So, I should keep my opinions to myself, then?



Where did I say that?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Doesn't mean everyone is aware.



True but given the context of her replies to certain posters and given the content of these particular threads, I would have thought it's obvious at this stage.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Where did I say that?



Ok, let me instead ask what you mean by "P&P is a public forum open for anyone to read, it is not a closed group of LGBT folk mocking homophobes."?

Is it not ok for us to send bigots and ourselves up on occasion? Especially after continual asinine comments here and outside of urban?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Doesn't mean everyone is aware.


i mention it in this thread so it should be obvious to all reading this.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Ok, let me instead ask what you mean by "P&P is a public forum open for anyone to read, it is not a closed group of LGBT folk mocking homophobes."?
> 
> Is it not ok for us to send bigots and ourselves up on occasion? Especially after continual asinine comments here and outside of urban?


he's trying to tone police us. He's telling us how to be LGBT.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Ok, let me instead ask what you mean by "P&P is a public forum open for anyone to read, it is not a closed group of LGBT folk mocking homophobes."?
> 
> Is it not ok for us to send bigots and ourselves up on occasion? Especially after continual asinine comments here and outside of urban?





> With my LGBT friends we crack jokes with each other;



You're not with each other, you are on a public forum. Go back and read the 'jokes' and tell me if you approve of them.




AuntiStella said:


> he's trying to tone police us. He's telling us how to be LGBT.



No I'm not you utter fool.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> he's trying to tone police us. He's telling us how to be LGBT.



Yeah. Next we'll have some random saying "it's not all about you" etc 

It is about us because it's the type of thing we face. Being visible or not. Happening on a regular basis or not. It still hurts, goes to the very core of who we are sometimes. And the bigots and their enablers here, feed on it. 

Sometimes sublty, sometimes not.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You're not with each other, you are on a public forum. Go back and read the 'jokes' and tell me if you approve of them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You still, willingly, refuse to see the difference between LGBT people having a bit of craic and homophobes taking potshots.

Astounding.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> You still, willingly, refuse to see the difference between LGBT people having a bit of craic and homophobes taking potshots.
> 
> Astounding.



And you are unable to stop making shit up you sad twerp.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> I hate it particularly when you see privileged people (straight and gay) saying that LGBT can be wrapped up because we're all equal now. Like fuck we are. For a start most of the obvious homophobic abuse has been turned onto trans people who pretty much get treated as out gay people did in 1972, and even being gay and cis can get your head kicked in.
> 
> It seems likely that most gay people are still not happy to be completely out or even be open at work because discrimination is still so rife. Times that by 100 for trans people!!!
> 
> I would also like the LGBT community to acknowledge that trans people suffer the brunt of homophobia way worse than most L or G people these days!



yeah its pretty bad , there's also a lot of transphobia/biphobia in the lgbt community, could name a couple examples ive experienced personally

I dunno if it's worse as there's things like corrective rape that goes on in the case of lesbians/bi (cis) women and there is a general expection that people will "meet the right guy" and have kids, I think what's happened is that homophobia is less openly acceptable than transphobia although rest assured it still goes on


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> i mention it in this thread so it should be obvious to all reading this.



Yes but that was *after* being challenged. Anyway it's kind of irrelevant now.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 6, 2016)

given what happened to me at school and stories I have heard since I doubt it has changed very much tbh


----------



## kabbes (Sep 6, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> You still, willingly, refuse to see the difference between LGBT people having a bit of craic and homophobes taking potshots.
> 
> Astounding.


If the bus driver turned out to be gay, would that make it all okay then?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 6, 2016)

no, because its not ok to yell out sexual innuendos at people you don't know and refuse the pick them up etc


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And you are unable to stop making shit up you sad twerp.



That's your best? You haven't a clue.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 6, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> They were just a nickname - they were actually bendy.



They moved to brighton where they do the no25 university run which is mostly straight (fnanaar fnarr)
To and from the seafront but I suppouse they were cheap and from london so very Brighton


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

kabbes said:


> If the bus driver turned out to be gay, would that make it all okay then?



Entirely different scenario, as well you know. For one thing; this was in a public arena & those concerned didn't all know each other.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> no, because its not ok to yell out sexual innuendos at people you don't know and refuse the pick them up etc


It's not okay to do the same thing in a public forum as a private one, then, regardless of your personal orientation?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 6, 2016)

banter with mates is fine , (again depending on context)

yelling sexual shit at strangers on a bus is not


----------



## kabbes (Sep 6, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Entirely different scenario, as well you know. For one thing; this was in a public arena & those concerned didn't all know each other.


Which "this" are you talking about?  The this on a public bus or the this on a public forum?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Yes but that was *after* being challenged. Anyway it's kind of irrelevant now.





frogwoman said:


> yeah its pretty bad , there's also a lot of transphobia/biphobia in the lgbt community, could name a couple examples ive experienced personally
> 
> I dunno if it's worse as there's things like corrective rape that goes on in the case of lesbians/bi (cis) women and there is a general expection that people will "meet the right guy" and have kids, I think what's happened is that homophobia is less openly acceptable than transphobia although rest assured it still goes on


OK - perhaps i shouldn't have said worse, but its definitely more open and more acceptable. 

Though rapes and beatings are also used to correct trans people


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

kabbes said:


> It's not okay to do the same thing in a public forum as a private one, then, regardless of your personal orientation?



Because it's so much more important to shout down the LGBT folks here for their humour than address what the driver said.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> banter with mates is fine , (again depending on context)
> 
> yelling sexual shit at strangers on a bus is not


I quite agree.

Public forum discussions are not banter with mates, of course.


----------



## Skyfallsz (Sep 6, 2016)

I think banter with strangers is ok as long as it's banter

The gay guy should have hit back with a withering put down and humiliated the bus driver


----------



## irf520 (Sep 6, 2016)

Mation said:


> And ho ho aren't the Independent funny in that article in the OP
> 
> It's just _hilarious_.



It's homophobic just to state the fact that they embarked via the rear entrance?
So, things I'm not allowed to mention:

Back doors
Rear entrances
Watermelons

I had no idea watermelons were racist. I always associated them with environmentalists.

I think a bulk order of chill pills is warranted here.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> I think banter with strangers is ok as long as it's banter
> 
> The gay guy should have hit back with a withering put down and humiliated the bus driver



Possibly but we don't all have an infinite number of pre-programmed/stored for the occasion responses.

And sometimes the abuse can just exhaust you where you feel "why bother"?


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 6, 2016)

Lots of people sticking their oar in here who would be better off sticking it somewhere else.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

irf520 said:


> It's homophobic just to state the fact that they embarked via the rear entrance?
> So, things I'm not allowed to mention:
> 
> Back doors
> ...



You *are *allowed to mention these things. Repeatedly, if you so wish - but doing so when you've been advised they can be homophobic and or racist in the thread context will just make you look insensitive, at the least.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> I think banter with strangers is ok as long as it's banter
> 
> The gay guy should have hit back with a withering put down and humiliated the bus driver



The bus driver also made an announcement that the bus would not be moving until they got off the bus even though they had tapped in with their oyster cards. It wasn't just a case of him making a homophobic joke that they could/should simply have hit back against.

There is also the not too little matter of the driver was at work and as such his behaviour is regulated by the standards set by his employer.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> I only took BS off ignore yesterday. Now he's back on.



The fact that you feel the need to ignore anyone who disagrees with anything you write says more about your inability to construct a coherent argument than it does about the person you're ignoring. (And that's from someone who thinks Bahnhof Strasse is talking bollocks on this thread.)


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> I think banter with strangers is ok as long as it's banter
> 
> The gay guy should have hit back with a withering put down and humiliated the bus driver


they should be thinking of that withering put down right about now


----------



## 8den (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> The bus driver made an announcement that the bus would not be moving until they got off the bus even though they had tapped in with their oyster cards. It wasn't just a case of him making a homophobic joke that they could/should have hit back against.



It's denying goods or services due to people's sexual orientation. It's not banter.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> OK - perhaps i shouldn't have said worse, but its definitely more open and more acceptable.
> 
> Though rapes and beatings are also used to correct trans people



yeah ok, I know its not your intention but I kind of feel a bit uncomfortable people saying that something is worse / that homophobia doesn't go on any more because that's been used in the past by people to dismiss my experiences and cast doubt on them.

not saying you're doing that but it seems to me with homophobia some (usually straight) people can be like "yeah but that hardly happens any more x minority always have it worse" as an excuse to carry on saying homophobic shit themselves


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Lots of people sticking their oar in here who would be better off sticking it somewhere else.



It's good to know one's enemy, mind.



Athos said:


> The fact that you feel the need to ignore anyone who disagrees with anything you write says more about your inability to construct a coherent argument than it does about the person you're ignoring. (And that's from someone who thinks Bahnhof Strasse is talking bollocks on this thread.)



Or it might just mean she's sick to death of the usual suspects trying to elicit a response from a statement they know will cause grief, eh?


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Or it might just mean she's sick to death of the usual suspects trying to elicit a response from a statement they know will cause grief, eh?




Nah.


----------



## Skyfallsz (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> The bus driver also made an announcement that the bus would not be moving until they got off the bus even though they had tapped in with their oyster cards. It wasn't just a case of him making a homophobic joke that they could/should simply have hit back against.
> 
> There is also the not too little matter of the fact the driver was at work and as such his behaviour is regulated by the standards set by his employer.



Well we don't know the whole story. 

If that is the case then that's clearly out of order. But if they started acting up and being indignant even though they shouldn't have used that door then the bus driver is allowed to throw them off if they want


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> Nah.



Good coherent argument.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> yeah ok, I know its not your intention but I kind of feel a bit uncomfortable people saying that something is worse...




I agree. That's why I picked up on the comment regarding the relative mildness of watermelon v backdoor.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Good coherent argument.



None required. The evidence is all over these board, for anyone interested in the truth.


----------



## lazythursday (Sep 6, 2016)

Walking along the street just this week I was subjected to lots of 'hey duckie, chase me' 70s type camp comments from two binmen - I think because they'd seen me kiss my boyfriend goodbye. This kinda shit does happen all too often and you just shrug your shoulders and get on with life, unless you have the extra gumption needed to actually make a complaint and then have that dissected by disbelieving straight people. 

And then there's the everyday indirect casual homophobia. The people making casual anti-gay comments on the train or at the next table in the restaurant, utterly oblivious to the fact that there could be gay people nearby. The times when it happens and includes someone who you count as a friend - who play along with the banter because they don't want to make a scene - but you know they would object to racism. 

Can't see any reason to doubt these guys, other than a [small] possibility that the bus driver didn't understand his banter was out of order and wasn't actually meaning to cause hurt.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> None required. The evidence is all over these board, for anyone interested in the truth.



And what is the "truth" about AuntiStella, then, Athos? You've clearly invested a lot of time on her case...


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> I agree. That's why I picked up on the comment regarding the relative mildness of watermelon v backdoor.



I think they are equally bad tbh, anyone that knows anything about the history of racism or knows anything about the far right should know about the whole watermelon/fried chicken thing. if someone was to yell racist bollocks about watermelons and then refuse to pick up someone on their bus that is equally bad, and that person probably should reconsider whether they should be in a line of work that involves interacting with the public


----------



## lazythursday (Sep 6, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> Well we don't know the whole story.
> 
> If that is the case then that's clearly out of order. But if they started acting up and being indignant even though they shouldn't have used that door then the bus driver is allowed to throw them off if they want



Yeah, cos that's what gay guys do, they 'act up' like children or drama queens don't they? Fucks sake.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> yeah ok, I know its not your intention but I kind of feel a bit uncomfortable people saying that something is worse / that homophobia doesn't go on any more because that's been used in the past by people to dismiss my experiences and cast doubt on them.
> 
> not saying you're doing that but it seems to me with homophobia some (usually straight) people can be like "yeah but that hardly happens any more x minority always have it worse" as an excuse to carry on saying homophobic shit themselves


I apologise unreservedly then. Never want to dismiss anyone's experiences - I know just how real homophobia is.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 6, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Lots of people sticking their oar in here who would be better off sticking it somewhere else.



Innuendo?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> I apologise unreservedly then. Never want to dismiss anyone's experiences - I know just how real homophobia is.



thanks


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> And what is the "truth" about AuntiStella, then, Athos? You've clearly invested a lot of time on her case...


The truth is that Athos tried to tell me how to be trans and dismissed my lived experience and I called him on it and since then he's been on my case. I chose to ignore him rather than rising to it and he hates me for that.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> The truth is that Athos tried to tell me how to be trans and dismissed my lived experience and I called him on it and since then he's been on my case. I chose to ignore him rather than rising to it and he hates me for that.



More lies. If not, quote the posts. Pathetic.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> And what is the "truth" about AuntiStella, then, Athos? You've clearly invested a lot of time on her case...


I've already told you: she can't steering an argument together so ignores people.  I should have added her other tactic: she tries to smear them.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> The truth is that Athos tried to tell me how to be trans and dismissed my lived experience and I called him on it and since then he's been on my case. I chose to ignore him rather than rising to it and he hates me for that.



I understand. I'd one person elsewhere (not urban) completely dismiss my orientation. I couldn't possibly be monogamous, I must be out on the pull all the time, my poor poor wife etc etc. Oh and I've had so many people (friends included) who tell me it's a choice I made. I couldn't possibly have been born that way  to which I always reply; "so when did you chose to be heterosexual"?

What gets me is that, invariably, any thread dealing with discrimination of LGBT people, there's always going to be handful of people posting here *specifically* to have a go and round on the LGBT posters or the people in the article.

They know *exactly* what they're doing. And no amount of obfuscation can hide their intent.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> I've already told you: she can't steering an argument together so ignores people.  I should have added her other tactic: she tries to smear them.



What, like you have chosen to start doing on this thread?


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I understand. I'd one person elsewhere (not urban) completely dismiss my orientation. I couldn't possibly be monogamous, I must be out on the pull all the time, my poor poor wife etc etc. Oh and I've had so many people (friends included) who tell me it's a choice I made. I couldn't possibly have been born that way  to which I always reply; "so when did you chose to be heterosexual"?
> 
> What gets me is that, invariably, any thread dealing with discrimination of LGBT people, there's always going to be handful of people posting here *specifically* to have a go and round on the LGBT posters or the people in the article.
> 
> They know *exactly* what they're doing. And no amount of obfuscation can hide their intent.


Except she will fail to produce any evidence of me doing any such thing!


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> What, like you have chosen to start doing on this thread?


No. I've said nothing untrue.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> I've already told you: she can't steering an argument together so ignores people.  I should have added her other tactic: she tries to smear them.



Do you think it's easy to maintain an argument, not lose your cool, remain calm and collected when there's a bunch of folk out there who make it their business to get stuck in and press all the wrong buttons? 

Such dedication. And you wonder why she puts them on ignore?

She knows what you're up to. I do, too. How's about giving it a rest, eh?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> No. I've said nothing untrue.



You have chosen to get on your high horse and attack her even though BS and AS dealt with their disagreement effectively themselves. Please give it a rest.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

It's a pity posters like Athos don't have the emotional maturity to admit when they're wrong and back off.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> You have chosen to get on your high horse and attack her even though BS and AS dealt with their disagreement effectively themselves. Please give it a rest.



Dealt with it effectively? Putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la, la, la, I can't hear you" can't be considered an effective response for an adult!

Anyway, can't be bothered. As you were.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> It's a pity posters like Athos don't have the emotional maturity to admit when they're wrong and back off.



Emotional maturity!? For someone so self-absorbed, you have so little self-awareness.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Do you think it's easy to maintain an argument, not lose your cool, remain calm and collected when there's a bunch of folk out there who make it their business to get stuck in and press all the wrong buttons?
> 
> Such dedication. And you wonder why she puts them on ignore?
> 
> She knows what you're up to. I do, too. How's about giving it a rest, eh?


What I'm up to. Lol. Anyway, as I said, I can't be arsed.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> Emotional maturity!? For someone so self-absorbed, you have so little self-awareness.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos maintains that he isn't phobic but that were all just doing being LGBT wrong


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


>


Ok. Sorry


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Athos maintains that he isn't phobic but that were all just doing being LGBT wrong


More lies. Any evidence?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Ok. Sorry



Not you.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Not you.


Putting people on ignore can be confusing especially if they're always on your case


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Putting people on ignore can be confusing especially if they're always on your case



Tell me about it. Or Pm me, so we can get back onto topic 

Anyways; the bus incident is just another in a long line of malicious treatment of LGBT people. It will happen again and again and again. Which is why, despite the slings and arrows of the mischievous, we must continue to highlight and decry such hateful occurences. Just because they weren't physically attacked, doesn't mean it doesn't hurt. Because it does. Every time.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 6, 2016)

what also pisses me off is when people say that homophobia must be down to someone being secretly gay/bisexual themselves.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> what also pisses me off is when people say that homophobia must be down to someone being secretly gay/bisexual themselves.


Like those secretly black racists.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> Like those secretly black racists.



its the same as that "hitler was jewish" bollocks that loads of people believe. forget someone being the product of a homophobic/racist society, forget everyone who blindly goes along with this shit


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> Like those secretly black racists.



 What do you know about internalised racism and how that might manifest in someone's attitudes and behaviours?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> its the same as that "hitler was jewish" bollocks that loads of people believe. forget someone being the product of a homophobic/racist society, forget everyone who blindly goes along with this shit


When LGBT people are phobic its always because of bullshit in society that they internalise anyway. And so we get back to the same thing.

I've had to unlearn lots of transphobia i picked up in 30 odd years and I'm sure I still slip up.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> What do you know about internalised racism and how that might manifest in someone's attitudes and behaviours?



I know that the notion that all homophobes are secretly gay is as nonsensical as the idea that all (white)  racists are secretly black.  I know you're looking to pick a fight with me, but surely that's not a controversial position?!


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> When LGBT people are phobic its always because of bullshit in society that they internalise anyway. And so we get back to the same thing.
> 
> I've had to unlearn lots of transphobia i picked up in 30 odd years and I'm sure I still slip up.



I don't doubt that it happens but it annoys me that its always the go-to explanation for why someone is homophobic tbh. "oh he must secretly be gay". as if straight people are never homophobic

it's kind of homophobic itself


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> I don't doubt that it happens but it annoys me that its always the go-to explanation for why someone is homophobic tbh. "oh he must secretly be gay". as if straight people are never homophobic
> 
> it's kind of homophobic itself


Yeah, that extreme is of course wrong, but there's an element of truth to it, no? 

My mate wrote a song called 'Fucking queer' about being violently homophobic before coming out.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, that extreme is of course wrong, but there's an element of truth to it, no?
> 
> My mate wrote a song called 'Fucking queer' about being violently homophobic before coming out.



of course, but I think it is used as a get out clause to stop people looking at the underlying attitudes in society. I don't think everyone who says "oh its just a phase you will settle down with a nice guy" is secretly gay

for example


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, that extreme is of course wrong, but there's an element of truth to it, no?
> 
> My mate wrote a song called 'Fucking queer' about being violently homophobic before coming out.


Some homophobes are gay, and some are straight. But the assumption that they must all be secretly gay is, in itself, homophobic, and fails to address the real caused of homophibia.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> Some homophobes are gay, and some are straight. But the assumption that they must all be secretly gay is, in itself, homophobic.


Yeah, I reckon a pretty large percentage of queer bashers are themselves gay, though.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, I reckon a pretty large percentage of queer bashers are themselves gay, though.



Oh, well, if you 'reckon' so, it must be true.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> I know that the notion that all homophobes are secretly gay is as nonsensical as the idea that all (white)  racists are secretly black.  *I know you're looking to pick a fight with me, but surely that's not a controversial position?!*



Don't be silly, that's not what I am doing at all. 

I asked you a perfectly reasonable question based on what you wrote.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> what also pisses me off is when people say that homophobia must be down to someone being secretly gay/bisexual themselves.



I get that. I really do. However (and it's pure anecdotage, I know) but some of my tormentors at school did actually turn out to be LGBT in later life. And were full of remorse for the way they'd treated me, as a child.

These days, I don't give a shit if the person is full of self loathing or not. You just can't do that to another human being.

It's hard to know exactly what drives the hate in some people. I've tried to comprehend but in the end; there's so many factors. Society, fear, ignorance, religious beliefs... maybe just the need to have someone to treat as dirt.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Don't be silly, that's not what I am doing at all.
> 
> I asked you a perfectly reasonable question based on what you wrote.


Fair enough, then. My mistake. And I think I answered it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> Oh, well, if you 'reckon' so, it must be true.


I've known a couple, who themselves knew quite a few more.

So yeah, a man who goes out looking for another man to come onto him so that he can beat him up is probably himself gay.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, I reckon a pretty large percentage of queer bashers are themselves gay, though.



Based on what evidence?


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've known a couple, who themselves knew quite a few more.
> 
> So yeah.


You're missing the point, again. Not that no homophobes are gay, but that no all homophobes are gay.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> Some homophobes are gay, and some are straight. But the assumption that they must all be secretly gay is, in itself, homophobic, and fails to address the real caused of homophibia.



Who here is claiming that they must all be secretly gay. Also what is the real cause of homophobia and what are you doing to address it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> You're missing the point, again. Not that no homophobes are gay, but that no all homophobes are gay.


No I'm not. I specifically referred to queer bashers. A small violent subset of homophobes.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 6, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I get that. I really do. However (and it's pure anecdotage, I know) but some of my tormentors at school did actually turn out to be LGBT in later life. And were full of remorse for the way they'd treated me, as a child.
> 
> These days, I don't give a shit if the person is full of self loathing or not. You just can't do that to another human being.
> 
> It's hard to know exactly what drives the hate in some people. I've tried to comprehend but in the end; there's so many factors. Society, fear, ignorance, religious beliefs... maybe just the need to have someone to treat as dirt.



yeah there are people this does apply to, but I don't think it's everyone and it annoys me that people are like "oh well that person must secretly gay then" if they hear about homophobia. as if its just the individuals problem and not the shitty attitudes prevalent about LGBT people generally even if they are not violent homophobic themselves


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 6, 2016)

its like people who explain the holocaust by saying "hitler was secretly jewish" (a lot of people do this).


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> its like people who explain the holocaust by saying "hitler was secretly jewish" (a lot of people do this).


or heydrich


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> yeah there are people this does apply to, but I don't think it's everyone and it annoys me that people are like "oh well that person must secretly gay then" if they hear about homophobia. as if its just the individuals problem and not the shitty attitudes prevalent about LGBT people generally even if they are not violent homophobic themselves



Oh no, I don't think all the eejits are secretly gay etc. Some of them are just *angry, angry* people. Brought up to believe that they are the "norm". And that anyone who deviates from said "norm" is an affront to their masculinity. I don't have to remind you of those who hold opinions on _gays in bushes in Berlin parks_ or that "_weird gay smile they all seem to have just looks really creepy_ ."

See, that never goes away. You can just feel the hatred, seething, bubbling under the surface. That's down to the individual, to deal with that anger. Until it translates into something else, of course.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No I'm not. I specifically referred to queer bashers. A small violent subset of homophobes.


But, notably, without any evidence beyond your own anecdotes.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No I'm not. I specifically referred to queer bashers. A small violent subset of homophobes.



 what a dreadful expression which does no one any good.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Who here is claiming that they must all be secretly gay. Also what is the real cause of homophobia and what are you doing to address it?


That was the sentiment to which I understood frogwoman to be referring.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Just because they weren't physically attacked, doesn't mean it doesn't hurt. Because it does. Every time.



I know from long bouts of depression and feeling suicidal after receiving abuse that words hurt.

Words are the reason i didn't transition till i was 46. They're the reason kids kill themselves and why we internalised the hatred in the first place. They're often the reason why people can't be out in the workplace or in their communities which in itself can cause serious mental health issues for LGBT folk.

And I see people reducing it to "aww are your feelings hurt?" and they really don;t know the half of it!!


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> I don't doubt that it happens but it annoys me that its always the go-to explanation for why someone is homophobic tbh. "oh he must secretly be gay". as if straight people are never homophobic
> 
> it's kind of homophobic itself


and also beside the point because it isn't a root cause. Homophobic and transphobic society is the root cause.


----------



## Mation (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You're not with each other, you are on a public forum. Go back and read the 'jokes' and tell me if you approve of them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We are on a public forum yes. But just because you can post doesn't mean you should. You want the discussion to satisfy your idea of how it should be, but why should it? You don't have to be accommodated all the time. There are trans and bi and gay and black people on this thread. The discussion won't lose anything if straight, cis white men choose not to post on it, or at least not to demand that this question is answered or that point clarified to their satisfaction. This thread isn't for straight cis white men to set the agenda. If you want to get something out of it, why not just read it instead?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

Mation said:


> We are on a public forum yes. But just because you can post doesn't mean you should. You want the discussion to satisfy your idea of how it should be, but why should it? You don't have to be accommodated all the time. There are trans and bi and gay and black people on this thread. The discussion won't lose anything if straight, cis white men choose not to post on it, or at least not to demand that this question is answered or that point clarified to their satisfaction. This thread isn't for straight cis white men to set the agenda. If you want to get something out of it, why not just read it instead?



I was bailing out of this, but get dragged back.

I ask a question and get called a troll and accused of harassment by AS so bad that she's supposedly had me on ignore for ages and only un-ignored me yesterday. This from a poster with which any interaction I have previously had has been minimal to say the least. Athos then gets the same treatment with repeated accusations of harassment. It's not on to join a discussion and when asked to back up your position to throw lies about the place about each poster who you perceive to not be agreeing 100% with you. It's fucking out of order tbf and causes decent threads to turn to shit. P&P can be harsh, but if you can't back up even a simple statement without resorting to bullshit smears then perhaps a fluffier area of the boards maybe a safer bet.


----------



## Mation (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I was bailing out of this, but get dragged back.
> 
> I ask a question and get called a troll and accused of harassment by AS so bad that she's supposedly had me on ignore for ages and only un-ignored me yesterday. This from a poster with which any interaction I have previously had has been minimal to say the least. Athos then gets the same treatment with repeated accusations of harassment. It's not on to join a discussion and when asked to back up your position to throw lies about the place about each poster who you perceive to not be agreeing 100% with you. It's fucking out of order tbf and causes decent threads to turn to shit. P&P can be harsh, but if you can't back up even a simple statement without resorting to bullshit smears then perhaps a fluffier area of the boards maybe a safer bet.


Did you listen to what I was saying about how this thread doesn't have to be about meeting your needs for a thread? I know you're upset that you're not getting what you want out of it, but it doesn't have to be for you or about you. Some things aren't and nor should they be. 

You're not being dragged anywhere. You're choosing to keep posting. You could also choose to stop.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I was bailing out of this, but get dragged back.
> 
> I ask a question and get called a troll and accused of harassment by AS so bad that she's supposedly had me on ignore for ages and only un-ignored me yesterday. This from a poster with which any interaction I have previously had has been minimal to say the least. Athos then gets the same treatment with repeated accusations of harassment. It's not on to join a discussion and when asked to back up your position to throw lies about the place about each poster who you perceive to not be agreeing 100% with you. It's fucking out of order tbf and causes decent threads to turn to shit. P&P can be harsh, but if you can't back up even a simple statement without resorting to bullshit smears then perhaps a fluffier area of the boards maybe a safer bet.


perhaps there should be identity boards for threads only certain groups can post on


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

Mation said:


> Did you listen to what I was saying about how this thread doesn't have to be about meeting your needs for a thread? I know you're upset that you're not getting what you want out of it, but it doesn't have to be for you or about you. Some things aren't and nor should they be.
> 
> You're not being dragged anywhere. You're choosing to keep posting. You could also choose to stop.



She could choose to stop making up derogatory lies about posters all over the boards, it's not on.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She could choose to stop making up derogatory lies about posters all over the boards, it's not on.



So why did you come onto this thread to pick up on LGBT people making jokes?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> So why did you come onto this thread to pick up on LGBT people making jokes?



Is there supposed to be a comma in that sentence? it can be read two quite different ways.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Is there supposed to be a comma in that sentence?



That's the only contribution I can identify. Do you think it was a worthwhile one?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> That's the only contribution I can identify. Do you think it was a worthwhile one?




Have you read the thread? #72 was directed at JC3 who as far as I know is not an LGBT person. AS sticks her oar in and when questioned rather than attempting any sort of answer at all she starts making up shit to insinuate that there has been previous beef. Then goes on to do the same to another poster. It's bollocks. Anyway, finished with this shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> That's the only contribution I can identify. Do you think it was a worthwhile one?


and you even fail quoting it


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

Mation said:


> We are on a public forum yes. But just because you can post doesn't mean you should. You want the discussion to satisfy your idea of how it should be, but why should it? You don't have to be accommodated all the time. There are trans and bi and gay and black people on this thread. The discussion won't lose anything if straight, cis white men choose not to post on it, or at least not to demand that this question is answered or that point clarified to their satisfaction. This thread isn't for straight cis white men to set the agenda. If you want to get something out of it, why not just read it instead?



Whilst I agree that there's no reason the discussion should conform to the expectations of a straight, cis, white male or run to their (our!) agenda (particularly given the subject matter), I'm not sure it's true to say that it would 'lose nothing' if such people did not post. It would lose the perspective of a pretty significant component group of society (numerically, and in terms of power) . Personally, I think it's a wide ranging social problem, that requires a society-wide response. I'm not sure the sort of atomisation that this identity politics results in leads to much more than an echo chamber.

Genuine question, made knowing full well it's not my place to dictate the nature of other groups' struggles (even those with which I show solidarity).


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Have you read the thread? #72 was directed at JC3 who as far as I know is not an LGBT person. AS sticks her oar in and when questioned rather than attempting any sort of answer at all she starts making up shit to insinuate that there has been previous beef. Then goes on to do the same to another poster. It's bollocks. Anyway, finished with this shit.



Now you're being disingenuous. Your post may have been in reply to JC3 but it quoted AS and appeared, although being short on content, to question whether her joke was appropriate. Why shouldn't she reply to this (or "stick her oar in" as you so nicely put it)? 

I am still unclear as to why you have spent your time on this thread picking up on LGBT people making jokes, and then flouncing when questioned about it. Perhaps you were bored and wanted to stir some shit.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> It would lose the perspective of a pretty significant component group of society (numerically, and in terms of power) .



Where on this thread is that perspective which would otherwise have been lost?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Where on this thread is that perspective which would otherwise have been lost?


you seem to be saying you don't understand Athos' post.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you seem to be saying you don't understand Athos' post.



On the contrary, I understand it fully. I am asking where this perspective of the "straight, cis, white male" on the situation in the OP can be found on this thread.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure the sort of atomisation that this identity politics results in leads to much more than an echo chamber.



Does this assume that 'all' people from particular groups will agree or think the same things?

Also, if and when such agreement happens, what makes it an issue that its value can be dismissed as merely an 'echo chamber'?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 6, 2016)

Do all white cis hetero men agree with each other or something?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 6, 2016)

And why are black cis hetero men not being suggested for exclusion also?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Do all white cis hetero men agree with each other or something?


groupthink


----------



## Mation (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> Whilst I agree that there's no reason the discussion should conform to the expectations of a straight, cis, white male or run to their (our!) agenda (particularly given the subject matter), I'm not sure it's true to say that it would 'lose nothing' if such people did not post. It would lose the perspective of a pretty significant component group of society (numerically, and in terms of power) . Personally, I think it's a wide ranging social problem, that requires a society-wide response. I'm not sure the sort of atomisation that this identity politics results in leads to much more than an echo chamber.
> 
> Genuine question, made knowing full well it's not my place to dictate the nature of other groups' struggles (even those with which I show solidarity).


You're right, it would lose something. It would lose the opinions and agenda setting of straight cis white men  You're doing it right there with your genuine question (which I'm sure is genuine).

You may wonder whether it's an echo chamber but you're missing that it's not important in this instance whether you think it is or not. And there is no need (apart from to satisfy you, but it's ok if your needs aren't always met) for anyone to spend their energy on discussion of what constitutes an echo chamber and problems with that as you see them). 

It's not for you or about you. You are welcome to learn from it without getting in the way, though.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 6, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Do all white cis hetero men agree with each other or something?



Apparently they offer a valuable perspective on homophobic abuse, a perspective that should be found in this thread somewhere according to Athos.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

Mation said:


> You're right, it would lose something. It would lose the opinions and agenda setting of straight cis white men  You're doing it right there with your genuine question (which I'm sure is genuine).
> 
> You may wonder whether it's an echo chamber but you're missing that it's not important in this instance whether you think it is or not. And there is no need (apart from to satisfy you, but it's ok if your needs aren't always met) for anyone to spend their energy on discussion of what constitutes an echo chamber and problems with that as you see them).
> 
> It's not for you or about you. You are welcome to learn from it without getting in the way, though.


should be an anechoick chamber


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Apparently they offer a valuable perspective on homophobic abuse, a perspective that should be found in this thread somewhere according to Athos.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 6, 2016)

Mation said:


> It's not for you or about you. You are welcome to learn from it without getting in the way, though.


Sorry but this is total bollocks. The thread is about an incident of homophobic discrimination of two men in London, posted in the politics forum. It is not for you to tell others on the thread who it is for or about. That really is the worst kind of identity politics.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 6, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Apparently they offer a valuable perspective on homophobic abuse, a perspective that should be found in this thread somewhere according to Athos.



Are you suggesting heterosexual men can't experience homophobic abuse? Do gay people carry a flag identifying their sexuality?


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Does this assume that 'all' people from particular groups will agree or think the same things?
> 
> Also, if and when such agreement happens, what makes it an issue that its value can be dismissed as merely an 'echo chamber'?


No more than that idea is implicit in the idea that nothing is lost by that group not posting!


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> On the contrary, I understand it fully. I am asking where this perspective of the "straight, cis, white male" on the situation in the OP can be found on this thread.


We are talking about the principle of identity politics dictating who may participate.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sorry but this is total bollocks. The thread is about an incident of homophobic discrimination of two men in London, posted in the politics forum. It is not for you to tell others on the thread who it is for or about. That really is the worst kind of identity politics.



Athos has contributed more posts to this thread than anyone else, kicking off with a crass joke and then going on to crticise someone who he knows has him on ignore. I don't see he has offered any perspective on the incident whatsoever. It's entirely appropriate to ask him to shut it.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 6, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Are you suggesting heterosexual men can't experience homophobic abuse? Do gay people carry a flag identifying their sexuality?



I'm not, no.


----------



## Mation (Sep 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sorry but this is total bollocks. The thread is about an incident of homophobic discrimination of two men in London, posted in the politics forum. It is not for you to tell others on the thread who it is for or about. That really is the worst kind of identity politics.


I'd be quite happy to let straight white cis men tell themselves that not all topics have to be for or about them.

Who's going to start?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Are you suggesting heterosexual men can't experience homophobic abuse? Do gay people carry a flag identifying their sexuality?


they can, but generally don't. If you have then please share because it would be relevant.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

Mation said:


> You're right, it would lose something. It would lose the opinions and agenda setting of straight cis white men  You're doing it right there with your genuine question (which I'm sure is genuine).
> 
> You may wonder whether it's an echo chamber but you're missing that it's not important in this instance whether you think it is or not. And there is no need (apart from to satisfy you, but it's ok if your needs aren't always met) for anyone to spend their energy on discussion of what constitutes an echo chamber and problems with that as you see them).
> 
> It's not for you or about you. You are welcome to learn from it without getting in the way, though.


I was questioning whether it was important to tackling the issue, not making a point about whether or not it's important for me to be listened to for my own sake - I accept that it's not. The former being something which must concern you, surely?


----------



## Mation (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> I was questioning whether it was important to tackling the issue, not making a point about whether or not it's important for me to be listened to for my own sake - I accept that it's not. The former being something which must concern you, surely?


You can't even see it, can you?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> they can, but generally don't. If you have then please share because it would be relevant.



Of course I've had tossers harass me insisting I'm gay. At work too so not just an isolated instance in the pub. Now given I couldnt actually prove to them either way beyond dragging a gf to work with me that I'm not, I don't see how it differs from a homosexual getting similar grief.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Athos has contributed more posts to this thread than anyone else, kicking off with a crass joke and then going on to crticise someone who he knows has him on ignore. I don't see he has offered any perspective on the incident whatsoever. It's entirely appropriate to ask him to shut it.


On the basis that I've made a crass joke and offered nothing of value, maybe (she reads my posts despite claiming to ignore me, by the way); but not as a matter of identity politics principle as to who can participate in discussions on certain topics.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

Mation said:


> You can't even see it, can you?


No. Can you?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Of course I've had tossers harass me insisting I'm gay. At work too so not just an isolated instance in the pub. Now given I couldnt actually prove to them either way beyond dragging a gf to work with me that I'm not, I don't see how it differs from a homosexual getting similar grief.



I couldn't tell you how it differs but i agree it certainly sounds like it could be relevant here.

My LGBT group have helped heterosexual men with homophobic bullying in the past so I would never say it couldn't happen.

But I'm pretty sure that there is a difference in experiencing this being gay and experiencing this being straight so though similar in ways, different overall.

But why of course?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> I couldn't tell you how it differs but i agree it certainly sounds like it could be relevant here.
> 
> My LGBT group have helped heterosexual men with homophobic bullying in the past so I would never say it couldn't happen.
> 
> ...



Well given I'm not gay my identity wasn't being attacked so there is that.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Roastmaster sounds like something that would have been advertised on telly in the 70s. £24.99. comes with 35 roastmaster accessories. Not available in any shop!


Yes, spot on; 'K-Tel' presents, the *Roastmaster...

*


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Even if he didn't assume they were gay, there is a long history of men using comments and name calling in this way to undermine other men. Questioning their sexuality, implying that they are homosexual and therefore less than 'men'.



At least when I was growing up, this was virulent among adolescent boys. Everyone wanted to fit in, to be like the others, but the 'pack' was constantly vigilant for anything that can be used as a cudgel to single someone out as being different. This impulse to bully and shame kids who were different really came on strong during teen years, and kept going until...... well, for a long time. With some, I think maybe it never goes away.

Being an adolescent meant being conscious constantly of not doing or saying anything that could be construed as feminine, and hiding anything that could be construed of being somehow less than 'manly'.

Didn't know how to change a tire? Had a haircut slightly different from everyone else? Did too well in school? Sucked at sports?

Any of those things, and many many more, could get you labelled 'gay' by those with an inclination for bullying. Nobody wanted to be called that.

If you were straight, you hated it if that happened to you. I can only imagine how horrible it was, and is, for kids who are gay, and are  confused and struggling with their sexuality, and/or trying to hide it because of that confusion, to have their classmates turn on them.  Is it any wonder that the suicide rate for young gay people is so high?

The thing is, kids are just a bellwether for society at large. Seems to me, the use of gay slurs by young people, just shows the depth and pervasiveness of homophobia in our society. And maybe that's where part of the answer lies: educating young people before these homophobic ideas get too ingrained.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 6, 2016)

Mation said:


> I'd be quite happy to let straight white cis men tell themselves that not all topics have to be for or about them.
> 
> Who's going to start?


Is it time for a hidden forum for gay people to discuss stuff in? 
When they reach a consensus on something an elected representive can tell the rest of us they've decided.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Is it time for a hidden forum for gay people to discuss stuff in?
> When they reach a consensus on something an elected representive can tell the rest of us they've decided.



No but it might halt foolish comments like yours above.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> Emotional maturity!? For someone so self-absorbed, you have so little self-awareness.


Nonsense if that were true she'd have tried to make this thread, which is about homophobia, into one about transphobia and herself.


----------



## Mation (Sep 6, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Is it time for a hidden forum for gay people to discuss stuff in?
> When they reach a consensus on something an elected representive can tell the rest of us they've decided.


And why would that be needed?


----------



## Mation (Sep 6, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Of course I've had tossers harass me insisting I'm gay. At work too so not just an isolated instance in the pub. Now given I couldnt actually prove to them either way beyond dragging a gf to work with me that I'm not, I don't see how it differs from a homosexual getting similar grief.


Liked not for your experience, which sounds horrible, but for the fact that you posted about it.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

Mation said:


> I'd be quite happy to let straight white cis men tell themselves that not all topics have to be for or about them.



Homophobia is very much about them, though - I suspect they're responsble for the lion's share!


----------



## Mation (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> Homophobia is very much about them, though - I suspect they're responsble for the lion's share!


Absolutely. But not all discussions about homophobia need to be about benefitting you, Athos, and your personal growth.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

Mation said:


> Absolutely. But not all discussions about homophobia need to be about benefitting you, Athos, and your personal growth.



I agree.  And have never suggested otherwise, have I?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 6, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Is it time for a hidden forum for gay people to discuss stuff in?
> When they reach a consensus on something an elected representive can tell the rest of us they've decided.



you are such a fucking prick. Go and drink a pint of piss. It'll have to be your own cos I am not donating even the steam off mine to you


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 6, 2016)

Mation said:


> Liked not for your experience, which sounds horrible, but for the fact that you posted about it.



It was weird really as I didn't know how to react. At first I was like oh, how trite. Then it's annoying but if I reacted he'd think he's right or have the upper hand. So it was drip drip bullying over a period.
I didn't want to chin him as I kind of needed the job so I just waited until everyone was about and then loudly quizzed the fuck out of him regarding why he deeply wished I was gay. He shut the fuck up after that.


----------



## Skyfallsz (Sep 6, 2016)

lazythursday said:


> Yeah, cos that's what gay guys do, they 'act up' like children or drama queens don't they? Fucks sake.



Often when people get thrown off buses by the driver, it's for acting up, whoever they are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

ime you have to be a right twat to get chucked off a bus, it's not something i've seen done too lightly by drivers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Is it time for a hidden forum for gay people to discuss stuff in?
> When they reach a consensus on something an elected representive can tell the rest of us they've decided.


oh fuck off you dull wankstain


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> Often when people get thrown off buses by the driver, it's for acting up, whoever they are.



The driver is never wrong or a prick? Seriously? Have you never seen bus drivers deliberately let people run for their lives up to the bus then close their doors and drive off?  It's a common example of bus driver prickishness IME... some people will exert power when they can because they feel like it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> The driver is never wrong or a prick? Seriously? Have you never seen bus drivers deliberately let people run for their lives up to the bus then close their doors and drive off?  It's a common example of bus driver prickishness IME... some people will exert power when they can because they feel like it.


for all his faults, Skyfallsz said often, not always: recognising that on occasion drivers can be arses.


----------



## Skyfallsz (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> The driver is never wrong or a prick? Seriously? Have you never seen bus drivers deliberately let people run for their lives up to the bus then close their doors and drive off?  It's a common example of bus driver prickishness IME... some people will exert power when they can because they feel like it.



Yes but we don't know that was the case, I've also seen people be total dicks on buses and fully deserve to be thrown off

#notallbusdrivers


----------



## Sirena (Sep 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> for all his faults, Skyfallsz said often, not always: recognising that on occasion drivers can be arses.


I'm not taking sides but I reckon I used to see bus drivers being pricks but I don't now.  

I can't remember the last time I saw someone running for a bus where the bus didn't wait....


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> Yes but we don't know that was the case, I've also seen people be total dicks on buses and fully deserve to be thrown off
> 
> #notallbusdrivers



In the article shared the two guys reported that this is what the driver did, they chased the bus and he closed the doors as they reached it... hence them boarding through the back doors.

#somebusdrivers


----------



## maomao (Sep 6, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> How Watermelons Became a Racist Trope


I know watermelons are a racist trope numbnuts. There was nothing watermelonny about the situation. Back doors were very much the topic of the day.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 6, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And why are black cis hetero men not being suggested for exclusion also?



In this instance the men involved were in a mixed-race relationship, which does sometimes trigger people's prejudices even when they seem perfectly fine with people from other races in general. It's as if they go "looks like his family's from a Muslim place, OK, looks black, OK, seem to be a gay couple, OK," but having someone cope with those features added on top of one another causes the hidden well of bigotry to overflow and spurt over everyone.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> At least when I was growing up, this was virulent among adolescent boys. Everyone wanted to fit in, to be like the others, but the 'pack' was constantly vigilant for anything that can be used as a cudgel to single someone out as being different. This impulse to bully and shame kids who were different really came on strong during teen years, and kept going until...... well, for a long time. With some, I think maybe it never goes away.
> 
> Being an adolescent meant being conscious constantly of not doing or saying anything that could be construed as feminine, and hiding anything that could be construed of being somehow less than 'manly'.
> 
> ...


I never knew why I got called gay - I mean I thought of myself as a girl but I kept it to myself and thought I did a pretty good job of hiding it. I wasn't the most feminine boy in my group - but I guess I wasn't ever really a boy and it showed through whatever I tried to do


----------



## Cid (Sep 6, 2016)

maomao said:


> I know watermelons are a racist trope numbnuts. There was nothing watermelonny about the situation. Back doors were very much the topic of the day.



Just for a moment imagine an advert featuring a watermelon positioned near the back door. Because this is a pointless bit of the argument.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

maomao said:


> I know watermelons are a racist trope numbnuts. There was nothing watermelonny about the situation. Back doors were very much the topic of the day.



Nope, not unless you wanted to ridicule someone for being or maybe being gay. Seriously when have you ever heard this kind of comment from one unknown man to another without it being homophobic or a come on in some way...this wasn't banter. You know that.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Seriously when have you ever heard this kind of comment from one unknown man to another without it being homophobic or a come on in some way....



I have. A washing machine was involved. Thats all i can remember.

Out of curiosity why are we inferring that backdoors when being addressed to a man means gay man? There are straight men who like things up their bum. Also straight women for that matter too. Its not a homosexual only practice.


----------



## muscovyduck (Sep 6, 2016)

Gromit said:


> I have. A washing machine was involved. Thats all i can remember.
> 
> Out of curiosity why are we inferring that backdoors when being addressed to a man means gay man? There are straight men who like things up their bum. Also straight women for that matter too. Its not a homosexual only practice.



probably because they were a gay couple gromit


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Gromit said:


> I have. A washing machine was involved. Thats all i can remember.
> 
> Out of curiosity why are we inferring that backdoors when being addressed to a man means gay man? There are straight men who like things up their bum. Also straight women for that matter too. Its not a homosexual only practice.



No it isn't and who here has said it is?

Two men board a bus they have had to run for and then been closed out of by the driver.
They decide to get on the bus using the open backdoors.
They approach the front of the bus and tap in using their oyster cards.
The bus driver isn't happy...he asks them what they think they are doing, how many years they have been using buses in the UK.. things now are getting tense for obvious reasons given that they didn't break any fucking laws, tapped in and have a legitimate right to ride the bus.
At some point the driver decides to say 'I bet you like it through the back doors'
One random, unknown, angry man to two other men.

Get a grip. You desire to defend this driver is  on you.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 6, 2016)

muscovyduck said:


> probably because they were a gay couple gromit



Were they wearing a sign?

They were two strangers who both happened to be men.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Were they wearing a sign?
> 
> They were two strangers who both happened to be men.


no, they were not strangers, they are partners, they have been a relationship for a while. and it's very homophobic of you to suggest gay people only have one night stands.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> No it isn't and who here has said it is?
> 
> Two men board a bus they have had to run for and then been closed out of by the driver.
> They decide to get on the bus using the open backdoors.
> ...



Sorry he is of course Guilty until proven innocent and has no right to a defense. Trial by media, whose moral compass is never in anyway compromised by their desire to sell as many papers as possible, is of course the best way to decide this individual's life and career.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Sorry he is of course Guilty until proven innocent and has no right to a defense. Trial by media, whose moral compass is never in anyway compromised by their desire to sell as many papers as possible, is of course the best way to decide this individual's life and career.


whatever else the driver merits, he doesn't deserve to be defended by someone so feeble as you. no one deserves that.


----------



## maomao (Sep 6, 2016)

Has anyone actually read the evening standard story then? Their own story is full of holes:



> “We put our hands out to get the bus but he looked at us and pointed at something and just drove on,”





> “The back door was open so we got on and go straight to the front and put our Oyster cards on the machine,” Okai said. The driver told the men the doors were closed for a reason.



Is. On two occasions the driver made an effort to explain what was happening and ask them to follow the same rules as everyone else but the pair of twats decided to ignore him, act up and disrupt everyone else's journey. 

There was no 'homophobic rant'. There was an unfortunate comment, repeated several times on here without challenge by various posters who also seem to think it funny for which the driver will almost certainly be reprimanded. There is no evidence that they were thrown off the bus 'for being gay'. There's some pretty strong evidence that they were thrown off for acting like a pair of cunts. Trying to present this as the same sort of homophobic incident as the two men being asked to leave Sainsbury in Hackney for holding hands is an insult to everyone's intelligence.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

maomao said:


> There was no 'homophobic rant'. There was an unfortunate comment


 Eh? Seriously? When is the last time a bus driver or anyone in a service industry role made assumptions about or commented on your sexual preferences?

When in your mind would that be appropriate?


----------



## maomao (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Eh? Seriously? When is the last time a bus driver or anyone in a service industry role made assumptions about or commented on your sexual preferences



Last 3 hours.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

If the report is to be believed, it was neither 'a homophobic rant' nor 'an unfortunate comment'; rather, it was a single hompohbic comment.  Nevertheless, it was completely out of order, and the driver should be reprimanded.  This is the case whether or not the blokes he said it to had acted like pricks (which seems a strong possibility from the reports, but, again, we don;t really know the full facts).


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> If the report is to be believed ...


That's quite a big if, apparently.

Anyone read the comments?



> Omar Okai is well known in the theatre industry for being a fantasist and a liar - it's a shame the papers are reporting on something he most likely invented for attention. He and his boyfriend boarded a bus which was clearly not stopping by the back door, which is obviously not what you are meant to do - and now they complain. The man is so dislikeable I think I'd have reacted the same way!



Also, this comment by Okai ...



> This kind of behaviour is not acceptable in any shape or form in Great Britain and _as a British citizen born here, I am not accepting it._



Why did he feel the need to make that comment?

Something smells here.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> If the report is to be believed, it was neither 'a homophobic rant' nor 'an unfortunate comment'; rather, it was a single hompohbic comment.  Nevertheless, it was completely out of order, and the driver should be reprimanded.  This is the case whether or not the blokes he said it to had acted like pricks (which seems a strong possibility from the reports, but, again, we don;t really know the full facts).


They don't reprimand for this in TFL. 

They also don't care if the person who is offended by a homophobic comment is gay or even the recipient. 

The most likely outcome is the sack. If it it proven that it *was* said and decided it was discriminatory towards a characteristic.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

Sacking is a form of reprimand, and might be appropriate, depending on all the facts.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why did he feel the need to make that comment?
> 
> Something smells here.



They were  asked about their experiences of using buses in the UK. As he is a Black man, I can see why he might want to underline the point that he was born here therefore a British citizen.

I'd do the same actually spy. Bully for you if you have never had someone try to undermine your 'Britishness' in this way. I have, and always because  I am not White. So yeah I get him.

As for the insinuations that he is overly dramatic and the comment by some random that he is a liar...Can you imagine what some random posters you've had run ins here might comment on a news article that they identified as you? Are you seriously saying that that can't possibly be a malicious comment?

Fux sake


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why did he feel the need to make that comment?
> 
> .











> “He then said, the front doors were closed for a reason. We apologised and said ‘but we have paid, is it ok?’
> 
> “He just kept repeating, ‘how long have you been using buses in this country?’ I made it very clear I am British but he kept repeating it. It was really aggressive, it was vile.



Gay couple 'kicked off London bus after driver launches homophobic rant'


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why did he feel the need to make that comment?



Becasue he was asked how long he'd been using busses in Britain, maybe?


----------



## Gromit (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> Becasue he was asked how long he'd been using busses in Britain, maybe?


My mother is British. Last year she went for her first bus ride in 40 years (in this country). She has rode a bus in Spain in the last 10 years, twice. She's no expert on the operation of either.

When she told me she announced it like she'd just done a half marathon and deserved a medal. Some people view buses very differently to other.s


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

Cool story bro.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 6, 2016)

I remarked to someone from the local council about the level of arsenic in the soil up back of my place and was asked how long I'd lived in Cornwall. It got my back up a bit I have to say. Like that was relevant.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 6, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I remarked to someone from the local council about the level of arsenic in the soil up back of my place and was asked how long I'd lived in Cornwall. It got my back up a bit I have to say. Like that was relevant.





> Historically extensive tin and copper mining has occurred in Cornwall and Devon, as well as arsenic, silver, zinc and a few other metals. As of 2007 there are no active metalliferous mines remaining. However, tin deposits still exist in Cornwall, and there is talk of reopening South Crofty tin mine.



Well known source of arsenic. Meant as a joke.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

What reason were the front doors closed but the back ones remained opened? Door malfunction? Entry through the front doors obstructed by some pavement or road works? The bus was still stationary and the back doors remained open. After the argument he is reported to have even opened the front doors and allowed another passenger on.  Sure the whole situation got out of hand...


----------



## tim (Sep 6, 2016)

Gromit said:


> I have. A washing machine was involved. Thats all i can remember.
> 
> Out of curiosity why are we inferring that backdoors when being addressed to a man means gay man? There are straight men who like things up their bum. Also straight women for that matter too. Its not a homosexual only practice.



Idiot!


----------



## irf520 (Sep 6, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Do gay people carry a flag identifying their sexuality?



Apparently so. We had a poster earlier on claiming that a bus driver wouldn't stop the bus to let him on because he was gay. But how can the driver tell he's gay from down the road as he's approaching the bus stop?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 6, 2016)

Athos said:


> Becasue he was asked how long he'd been using busses in Britain, maybe?


So, driver was racist as well as homophobic. And how did the bus driver know they were gay?


----------



## irf520 (Sep 6, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Is it time for a hidden forum for gay people to discuss stuff in?
> When they reach a consensus on something an elected representive can tell the rest of us they've decided.



That wouldn't be sufficient. You'd have to have a big collection of private fora, indexed by the Cartesian product of {L, G, B, T, ...} and {black, white, brown, ...} and whatever other identifying characteristics you care to think of, to make sure everyone's got their own "safe space".


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> So, driver was racist as well as homophobic. And how did the bus driver know they were gay?



If the story is to be believed, that's what he said.  I don't know enough t say that was necessarily a racist comment.  Nor do I know how the driver knew they were gay.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 6, 2016)

irf520 said:


> Apparently so. We had a poster earlier on claiming that a bus driver wouldn't stop the bus to let him on because he was gay. But how can the driver tell he's gay from down the road as he's approaching the bus stop?


Two people of the same gender in some sort of intimate situation, kissing, hugging, hand in hand would probably indicate gay or bisexual.


----------



## Skyfallsz (Sep 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Two people of the same gender in some sort of intimate situation, kissing, hugging, hand in hand would probably indicate gay or bisexual.



They might have been Italian


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 6, 2016)

Or street wrestlers.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 6, 2016)

Or had just scored a goal.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> So, driver was racist as well as homophobic. And how did the bus driver know they were gay?



Maybe he assumed and BINGO he was right. Still doesn't make his comment right, funny nor appropriate.

I posted a serious reply to you and your comments above and I would be grateful if you could read it.  If not, fair enough I won't bother again.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> They might have been Italian





Magnus McGinty said:


> Or street wrestlers.





Gromit said:


> Or had just scored a goal.



Is this why people have a problem with heterosexual men commenting on things that don't actually affect them or are any of these comments from members of the LGBT community sending up a situation that needn't have escalated in the way it did?


----------



## Skyfallsz (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Is this why people have a problem with heterosexual men commenting on things that don't actually affect them or are any of these comments members of the LGBT community sending up a situation that needn't have escalated in the way it did?



How do you know we are all heterosexual men?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> How do you know we are all heterosexual men?



I asked a question. Your response tells me _you _are.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I posted a serious reply to you and your comments above and I would be grateful if you could read it.  If not, fair enough I won't bother again.


Sorry, but when I read your reply it didn't require an answer. You've edited this bit in since, which does:



> As for the insinuations that he is overly dramatic and the comment by some random that he is a liar...Can you imagine what some random posters you've had run ins here might comment on a news article that they identified as you? Are you seriously saying that that can't possibly be a malicious comment?



Sure it could be a malicious comment, but it seems to add weight to the theory that Maomao's been suggesting, that this guy has gobbed off at the driver after getting on the bus when he probably shouldn't have. 

I'd like to hear what the driver has to say about it.


----------



## Skyfallsz (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I asked a question. Your response tells me _you _are.



ASSUME makes an ASS of U and ME


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> ASSUME makes an ASS of U and ME



Yeah, yeah. I am right though, your comments on this thread betray that.


----------



## Skyfallsz (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah, yeah. I am right though, your comments on this thread betray that.



You know nothing about what I've been through


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Sorry, but when I read your reply it didn't require an answer. You've edited this bit in since, which does:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I also referred to why I understand his comments with regard being British and why the driver asking someone/him who is British how often they us the buses in the UK would irk him. Have you ever had your Britishness questioned because you are not White, directly or indirectly?


----------



## two sheds (Sep 6, 2016)

Also not really relevant but I've had a bloke stress a couple of times that he's worked all his life in a discussion with me because (I presumed) I look like a hippy. Correct answer should have been "so have I, so fuck off" 

I suspect their best answer could have been similar but they'd certainly have been thrown off then.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I also referred to why I understand his comments with regard being British and why the driver asking someone/him who is British how often they us the buses in the UK would irk him. Have you ever had your Britishness questioned because you are not White, directly or indirectly?


Oh, yes, but only by dickheads "that's not the way we do things in this country ... blah blah". Once I got stopped in the car with the rear fog lamps on and the copper made a few wanky comments about whether or not I understood the law _in this country_, but as I say, only by dickheads really. Nothing that has subsequently made me feel the need to assert my Britishness elsewhere, afaicr.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Oh, yes, but only by dickheads "that's not the way we do things in this country ... blah blah". Once I got stopped in the car with the rear fog lamps on and the copper made a few wanky comments about whether or not I understood the law _in this country_, but as I say, only by dickheads really. Nothing that has subsequently made me feel the need to assert my Britishness elsewhere, afaicr.



Right so those kinds of aresholes do exist and you have experienced them directly. Thanks for answering. Until I know different, given this driver's comments I think he is that kind of arsehole.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> You know nothing about what I've been through



I haven't claimed I do.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 6, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Until I know different, given this driver's comments I think he is that kind of arsehole.


Fair enough. It's all a bit smelly to me!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Fair enough. It's all a bit smelly to me!



Of course...none of it needed to happen, which is why it stinks.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 6, 2016)

Not what I meant


----------



## emanymton (Sep 6, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Also not really relevant but I've had a bloke stress a couple of times that he's worked all his life in a discussion with me because (I presumed) I look like a hippy. Correct answer should have been "so have I, so fuck off"
> 
> I suspect their best answer could have been similar but they'd certainly have been thrown off then.


No, the correct response to someone saying they have worked all their life is 'I guess you didn't get to school much then, which probably explains why you are such a thick cunt'.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Not what I meant



 I know. But it's what I mean.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 6, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Something smells here.


That'll be Gromit


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 7, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> You know nothing about what I've been through



We all have been through stuff. If you have been through unpleasant stuff, maybe you might be less trivial in your approach here and show some solidarity?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 7, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Nobody gives a flying ant wank about who you do and don't have on ignore.


Thanks for letting me know that.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> no, they were not strangers, they are partners, they have been a relationship for a while. and it's very homophobic of you to suggest gay people only have one night stands.



I think he was merely suggesting they were strangers to the driver, not each other . And therefore he had no idea of their sexuality when driving past them .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Maybe he assumed and BINGO he was right. Still doesn't make his comment right, funny nor appropriate.
> 
> .



Or maybe he never even said it in the first place . Sincerely hope you're not on his tribunal . All we know for sure is 2 punters boarded a bus incorrectly after expressly being told not to . And were then put off after the driver refused to drive. This is something that could very , very easily happen to anyone , male or female , black or white, homosexual or straight . That will piss a bus driver off regardless . The driver may well be a prick and a jobs worth . Or the manner of boarding might well have pissed him off . but neither homophobia nor racism necessarily follows .
This could just as easily be a case of 2 people getting their own back after being shown up and angered . It happens . People go out of their way to tell lies and drop others in the shit all the time if they've been crossed ...workmates, employees , partners..al sorts . Fact is we simply don't know. It could just as easily be 2 middle class people out to get a bus driver who got uppity and didn't know his place. Or who just pissed them off by being officious and a jobs worth after they pissed him off. We don't know .
All we do know for sure is that the driver had a legitimate..if somewhat officious ...excuse to tell them to get off the bus . And that if you piss a bus driver or any other jobs worth off they'll behave like that regardless of who or what you are .
Ultimately a mans jobs on the line here . We know nothing of his character or his accusers . Nor have we heard his account or that of any witnesses . Jumping to these massive assumptions is pretty daft under those circumstances .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Two people of the same gender in some sort of intimate situation, kissing, hugging, hand in hand would probably indicate gay or bisexual.



And were they in an intimate situation when the driver came down the street ? I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate they were .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Right so those kinds of aresholes do exist and you have experienced them directly. Thanks for answering. *Until I know different*, given this driver's comments I think he is that kind of arsehole.



I think its pretty well known racists  actually do exist . We dont need cunty si to confirm it . Vengeful liars exist as well however . Theyre an actual phenomenon . You don't actually "know" anything regarding this case . You're merely taking the wholly uncorroborated word of an accuser because you believe that accuser to be more worthy an individual due to his sexual identity, despite not knowing either him or the bus driver from the man on the moon . It's solely a political position .Not one based on any reason or logic.
Meanwhile a mans job is on the line, a family could be plunged into poverty during a regime of neo liberal austerity . If the accusations untrue that'd be a real disgrace I reckon . Doubt you'd care less though . Mere collateral.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

maomao said:


> Has anyone actually read the evening standard story then? Their own story is full of holes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We don't even know if there was an unfortunate comment . That could well be a deliberate lie. All we know is  even the alleged unsubstantiated comment wasn't a homophobic rant . and that headline is hyperbole intended to sensationalise the accusers version of events .


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Or maybe he never even said it in the first place . Sincerely hope you're not on his tribunal . All we know for sure is 2 punters boarded a bus incorrectly after expressly being told not to . And were then put off after the driver refused to drive.



How do we know that if we only have one side of the story? Why do you believe their story except for the homophobic part? Hmm, let me guess.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 8, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> How do we know that if we only have one side of the story? Why do you believe their story except for the homophobic part? Hmm, let me guess.


I question anything the papers have said no matter who's side as:
1. It's the papers
2. I wasn't there
3. It's the fucking papers


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 8, 2016)

Gromit said:


> I question anything the papers have said no matter who's side as:
> 1. It's the papers
> 2. I wasn't there
> 3. It's the fucking papers



Good for you. We can all question the story, but we know that this is being investigated by TFL and the police where the driver will give his version of events no doubt supported by cctv etc.


----------



## A380 (Sep 8, 2016)

Why is everyone assuming the bus driver is white?


----------



## Athos (Sep 8, 2016)

A380 said:


> Why is everyone assuming the bus driver is white?


There's a picture of him in the ES story.


----------



## A380 (Sep 8, 2016)

Athos said:


> There's a picture of him in the ES story.


Thanks.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> How do we know that if we only have one side of the story? Why do you believe their story except for the homophobic part? Hmm, let me guess.



No , it's because I think it highly unlikely they boarded the bus by either climbing through the fucking window or sawing a hole through the roof and abseiling in  . And therefore due to the presence of CCTV I think it's quite likely it can be easily proven how they entered the bus and that it's highly unlikely they'd lie about that bit. That's why I'd happily take it at face value .

I also hope you don't sit on anyone's job tribunal either .


----------



## scifisam (Sep 8, 2016)

You're such a fucking wankstain, Casually Red. I'm embarrassed to be on the same forum as you.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

.


scifisam said:


> You're such a fucking wankstain, Casually Red. I'm embarrassed to be on the same forum as you.



The feelings mutual. I don't whine about it though.


----------



## Athos (Sep 8, 2016)

Surely, none of us can know what happened, and, accordingly, we ought to wait until the CCTV's been considered and the bus driver's had his say before we condemn him.  But, if it's proved that he did make the backdoor comment, that's clearly homophobic, and he ought to be punished, regardless of whether or not the couple he abused had behaved like dicks in the run-up to that event.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 8, 2016)

And unless TFL don't follow employment law he won't be instantly sacked.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

Athos said:


> Surely, none of us can know what happened, and, accordingly, we ought to wait until the CCTV's been considered and the bus driver's had his say before we condemn him.  But, if it's proved that he did make the backdoor comment, that's clearly homophobic, and he ought to be punished, regardless of whether or not the couple he abused had behaved like dicks in the run-up to that event.



That's a perfectly common sense approach to this . If he actually did use that sort of abuse he deserves to be punished . But nobody on here even remotely knows whether he did or not. Despite that they've already tried and convicted him solely on the word of people they don't even know. People who would have had a definite grudge against him whether he abused them or not . It's knee jerk, turn brain off stuff .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

scifisam said:


> And unless TFL don't follow employment law he won't be instantly sacked.



You don't been know if he's guilty ? Why would you assume he'd be sacked ? And why aren't you abusing Athos for raising the very same presumption of innocence that I did ?

You prick.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

emanymton said:


> No, the correct response to someone saying they have worked all their life is 'I guess you didn't get to school much then, which probably explains why you are such a thick cunt'.



No that's not correct. People leave school early for all sorts of reasons , poverty being number one . Lack of a levels or a degree doesn't mean anyone is either thick or a cunt. Although a lot of their teachers would have told them they were while writing them off. As you just did .


----------



## Athos (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> That's a perfectly common sense approach to this . If he actually did use that sort of abuse he deserves to be punished . But nobody on here even remotely knows whether he did or not. Despite that they've already tried and convicted him solely on the word of people they don't even kno
> 
> w. People who would have had a definite grudge against him whether he abused them or not . It's knee jerk, turn brain off stuff .





Casually Red said:


> You don't been know if he's guilty ? Why would you assume he'd be sacked ? And why aren't you abusing Athos for raising the very same presumption of innocence that I did ?
> 
> You prick.



I'm not presuming innocence (other than in a strict formal sense); I'm saying we don't know, yet.  Your comments seemed to be going further than that; like you we're bending over backwards to convince yourself he was innocent.  I think that's what got people's backs up.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

Athos said:


> I'm not presuming innocence (other than in a strict formal sense); I'm saying we don't know, yet.  Your comments seemed to be going further than that; like you we're bending over backwards to convince yourself he was innocent.  I think that's what got people's backs up.



My comments are saying no such thing. I've reiterated time and time again we don't know enough to pronounce guilt , nothing more . Not a single one of my comments has stated that hes definitely not guilty, merely that the proof of guilt is very sketchy indeed from the info to hand. And that itd be perfectly normal for a bus driver to turf anyone off under those circumstances . And that it would be perfectly normal for anyone to have a grudge after a bus driver turfed them off. Id be livid . 
And I've instantly agreed with your premise the guy should be punished if he did indeed make such comments . What's gotten peoples backs up is going against the immediate assumption the driver must be guilty, that mere accusation equals guilt . Urban works like that as well you know .


----------



## Athos (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> My comments are saying no such thing. I've reiterated time and time again we don't know enough to pronounce guilt , nothing more . Not a single one of my comments has stated that hes definitely not guilty, merely that the proof of guilt is very sketchy indeed from the info to hand. And that itd be perfectly normal for a bus driver to turf anyone off under those circumstances . And that it would be perfectly normal for anyone to have a grudge after a bus driver turfed them off. Id be livid .
> And I've instantly agreed with your premise the guy should be punished if he did indeed make such comments . What's gotten peoples backs up is going against the immediate assumption the driver must be guilty, that mere accusation equals guilt . Urban works like that as well you know .



No, your willngnes to accept uncritically the parts of the story about their conduct, but not those bits about his made you appear partisan.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> You don't been know if he's guilty ? Why would you assume he'd be sacked ? And why aren't you abusing Athos for raising the very same presumption of innocence that I did ?
> 
> You prick.



Where did I say I know he's guilty? _If_ he's guilty it won't be instant sacking. It was you who said he'd be sacked (and his family thrown into poverty) - I said he wouldn't be. It's right there in the post you quoted, me saying he wouldn't automatically be sacked. Don't you read the posts you're arguing against?

Athos said we don't know, you're arguing that the men made it up. Big, big difference.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

Athos said:


> No, your willngnes to accept uncritically the parts of the story about their conduct, but not those bits about his made you appear partisan.



The bit were they admit they got on the bus by the wrong door after the driver signalled to them not to get on ? How else would they have got on the bus do you reckon ? I haven't even condemned their conduct or commented on it. Other than to state the obvious it would piss a driver off. 
That makes as much sense as stating I'm partisan because I accept they were even on the bus at all or that they were in central London..or that the bloke gave his real name and occupation .  I'm assuming they were on the bus and that they entered by the back door because that's both reasonable and provable by cctv . It also provides a valid reason as to why there was a dispute with the driver in the first place . It's what was said during that dispute that's actually the issue. Not what happened prior to it .


----------



## Athos (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> The bit were they admit they got on the bus by the wrong door after the driver signalled to them not to get on ? How else would they have got on the bus do you reckon ? I haven't even condemned their conduct or commented on it. Other than to state the obvious it would piss a driver off.
> That makes as much sense as stating I'm partisan because I accept they were even on the bus at all or that they were in central London..or that the bloke gave his real name and occupation .  I'm assuming they were on the bus and that they entered by the back door because that's both reasonable and provable by cctv . It also provides a valid reason as to why there was a dispute with the driver in the first place . It's what was said during that dispute that's actually the issue. Not what happened prior to it .



Yes, but you insisted the driver had a legitimate reason to tell them to get off, which isn't necessarily trus if we don't know why he refused to stop for them in the first place.  Fact is, your posts come accross as partisan, whether or not that was your intention.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Where did I say I know he's guilty? _If_ he's guilty it won't be instant sacking. It was you who said he'd be sacked (and his family thrown into poverty) - I said he wouldn't be. It's right there in the post you quoted, me saying he wouldn't automatically be sacked. Don't you read the posts you're arguing against?
> 
> Athos said we don't know, you're arguing that the men made it up. Big, big difference.



Where have I argued the men made it up ? Where have I argued the driver would be instantly sacked ?  Did you even read my posts before you started attacking them ? Adding " if " to your argument later on doesn't change anything either. There was no " if " first time round .

Have a look through my posts and just count how many times I said " we don't know " and " you don't know " . I emphasised it repeatedly and attacked nothing other than the immediate assumption of guilt that permeated a number of posts . There's repeated emphasis on us simply not knowing and not a single presumption of definite guilt or innocence either way. Your a liar . And that's precisely what you jumped in attacking me over , saying nothing other than we don't know .

If I'm wrong simply quote me saying otherwise. Should be pretty easy to do if your not telling massive fibs.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes, but you insisted the driver had a legitimate reason to tell them to get off, which isn't necessarily trus if we don't know why he refused to stop for them in the first place.  Fact is, your posts come accross as partisan, whether or not that was your intention.



Well maybe I'm so partisan I cant envisage a driver of a moving public transport vehicle in central London in the dark of night would be driving around trying to ...somehow, I don't know how exactly..spot gays off in the distance in order not to let any on to his bus . Obviously this might happen but to me it sounds a bit outlandish . The guy could well be a massive nutcase  who does just that and in my partisan fashion I'd overlooked that possibility . simply didn't occur to me .


----------



## scifisam (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Where have I argued the men made it up ? Where have I argued the driver would be instantly sacked ?  Did you even read my posts before you started attacking them ? Adding " if " to your argument later on doesn't change anything either. There was no " if " first time round .
> 
> Have a look through my posts and just count how many times I said " we don't know " and " you don't know " . I emphasised it repeatedly and attacked nothing other than the immediate assumption of guilt that permeated a number of posts . There's repeated emphasis on us simply not knowing and not a single presumption of definite guilt or innocence either way. Your a liar . And that's precisely what you jumped in attacking me over , saying nothing other than we don't know .
> 
> If I'm wrong simply quote me saying otherwise. Should be pretty easy to do if your not telling massive fibs.



You said "a mans job is on the line, a family could be plunged into poverty during a regime of neo liberal austerity" and repeatedly mentioned his job being on the line. Also, Gromit said that the man would definitely sacked, and my original post was not to you, because not everything is about you.

You assume that the driver had a legitimate reason for telling them to get off the bus, you assume they did get on the back door, you assume all sorts of things, except the homophobic part, where the passengers could just be "vengeful liars," your exact words.

So yes, I did read your posts. Sadly.

ETA: There was no need for me to add "if," since I started my post with "and," making it  a follow-up to Athos's post. You really do need to learn better reading comprehension skills.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

scifisam said:


> You said "a mans job is on the line, a family could be plunged into poverty during a regime of neo liberal austerity" and repeatedly mentioned his job being on the line. Also, Gromit said that the man would definitely sacked, and my original post was not to you, because not everything is about you.
> 
> You assume that the driver had a legitimate reason for telling them to get off the bus, you assume they did get on the back door, you assume all sorts of things, except the homophobic part, where the passengers could just be "vengeful liars," your exact words.
> 
> ...



I never even fucking noticed you until you started abusing me . Thats the only original post im aware of . If the man is sacked he and any of his dependents will very likely be facing poverty . It makes no difference whether that happens instantly or after a while. Unless you reckon he'll have time to save up for a bit .

I assume the passengers got on by the back door after being signalled not to because they said so . What I don't automatically accept is that they were abused in that fashion , merely on their say so . Because after that point they were in a dispute were they ended up embarrassed and angry after being put off the bus . After that point they have a motive for getting back at the driver . And that's why caution needs to be exercised especially from that point on .

I asked you to point out were I'd either called them liars or pronounced the driver innocent. You've failed to do so. I've also asked you to point out how many times I emphasised " we don't know " . You've ignored that too. Therefore you've been telling fibs and this is just outraged flannel to cover up fibs .


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 8, 2016)

People are presuming these two guys are not guilty of slander, attempting to pervert the course of justice and wasting police time.

No one is presuming the driver is guilty.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Or maybe he never even said it in the first place . Sincerely hope you're not on his tribunal . All we know for sure is 2 punters boarded a bus incorrectly after expressly being told not to .



That's not true


> "We put our hands out to get the bus but he looked at us and pointed at something and just drove on," Mr Okai told the Standard.
> 
> “We caught up with the bus at another stop. The front doors were closed but people were on the bus. The back door was open so we got on and go straight to the front and put our Oyster cards on the machine.
> 
> “He then said, the front doors were closed for a reason. We apologised and said ‘but we have paid, is it ok?’



So they didn't say they were expressly told not to get on, they weren't let on at one stop for some reason so chased the bus and got on at the next one by the only open door.  They were only expressly told they shouldn't have got on the bus once they were on the bus and had paid.  So the first question, given it doesn't sound like the bus was full, is why they weren't let on the bus.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Well maybe I'm so partisan I cant envisage a driver of a moving public transport vehicle in central London in the dark of night would be driving around trying to ...somehow, I don't know how exactly..spot gays off in the distance in order not to let any on to his bus . Obviously this might happen but to me it sounds a bit outlandish . The guy could well be a massive nutcase  who does just that and in my partisan fashion I'd overlooked that possibility . simply didn't occur to me .



Then you probably haven't been on London buses at night.  I've had half empty buses refuse to let me on for having a dog, having a kid in a buggy and what seemed little more than because I had dreadlocks (I'm white, it was before they were racist).  I've been told by a cab driver he doesn't take pikeys in his car, and back in my androgynous punk days buses quite often sailed past.  Talk to a wheelchair user about this kind of thing.

That doesn't mean its all bus drivers by the way, its a tiny fraction, but if you use buses a lot then its likely to happen and those things stand out in your memory.  The idea that a bored homophobic bus driver might maliciously excercise their prejudices in a particular circumstance where they have power over someone late at night when no-ones paying much attention is highly plausible.  Doesn't mean their claims are automatically true but its hardly outlandish.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

smokedout said:


> That's not true
> 
> 
> So they didn't say they were expressly told not to get on, they weren't let on at one stop for some reason so chased the bus and got on at the next one by the only open door.  They were only expressly told they shouldn't have got on the bus once they were on the bus and had paid.  So the first question, given it doesn't sound like the bus was full, is why they weren't let on the bus.



Well maybe the driver should have either shouted out the window while passing or maybe thrown a hastily scribbled note from the window while passing explaining why he wasn't stopping to let them on , rather than just making a vague signal . The fact is we don't know and all the Columbo impressions in the world wont change that .


----------



## TopCat (Sep 8, 2016)

The two guys involved are fucking liars.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Then you probably haven't been on London buses at night.  I've had half empty buses refuse to let me on for having a dog, having a kid in a buggy and what seemed little more than because I had dreadlocks (I'm white, it was before they were racist).  I've been told by a cab driver he doesn't take pikeys in his car, and back in my androgynous punk days buses quite often sailed past.  Talk to a wheelchair user about this kind of thing.
> 
> That doesn't mean its all bus drivers by the way, its a tiny fraction, but if you use buses a lot then its likely to happen and those things stand out in your memory.  The idea that a bored homophobic bus driver might not mailiciously excercise their prejudices in a particular circumstance where they have power over someone late at night when no-ones paying much attention is highly plausible.  Doesn't mean their claims are automatically true but its hardly outlandish.



How in the name of jesus could he possibly know they were gay ?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

TopCat said:


> The two guys involved are fucking liars.



Get off the fence


----------



## TopCat (Sep 8, 2016)

Cameras all over the bus and footage reviwed by evedidential quality lip reader.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> How in the name of jesus could he possibly know they were gay ?



It's Soho at night you tool, its a pretty safe guess, even if they werent showing signs of affection to each other.  And he doesn't have to know for sure does he.  And we don't know that's why he didn't let them on, we're not even at the alleged homophobic abuse yet, we're at the part of the story you misrepresented.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 8, 2016)

I have quoted you, CR, so stop with the liar insults.



Casually Red said:


> How in the name of jesus could he possibly know they were gay ?



Sometimes it's obvious, especially, perhaps, for the bloke who works in theatre. Though they're not actually saying he didn't stop for them because they were gay, are they? They're saying he threw them off the bus for that. He'd already spoken to them by then and that can make sexuality (or apparent sexuality -plenty of camp straight men out there and they often receive homophobic abuse too) more obvious.

Maybe it's not true - TFL definitely should not just take their word for it, and they won't - but arguing about whether he knew they were gay before they got on the bus is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> People are presuming these two guys are not guilty of slander, attempting to pervert the course of justice and wasting police time.
> 
> No one is presuming the driver is guilty.



This thread is full of posts  pronouncing the driver guilty . Up until top cats recent intervention I haven't seen anyone call his accusers liars .


----------



## TopCat (Sep 8, 2016)

It was not a routemaster either.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 8, 2016)

TopCat said:


> Cameras all over the bus and footage reviwed by evedidential quality lip reader.



When will this evidence be made public?


----------



## TopCat (Sep 8, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> When will this evidence be made public?


When someone leaks it to The Standard.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 8, 2016)

But really the press office may or may not issue something.


----------



## Cid (Sep 8, 2016)

It's not very likely the papers will pick up on it though is it?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 8, 2016)

TopCat said:


> But really the press office may or may not issue something.



Are you saying you believe they lied about everything or just that the driver made that homophic comment?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

scifisam said:


> I have quoted you, CR, so stop with the liar insults.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes you have quoted me. The relevant bit though is you were asked to quote me saying anything other than we don't know the facts of the case and shouldn't assume immediate guilt . You wee unable to do so so you quoted something completely irrelevant instead 

I'm also not in this instance even addressing an accusation made by the 2 gay blokes but instead  replying to people on here suggesting he never let them on because they were gay. And people accusing me of partisanship because I believed the first part of the story about how they got on the bus ,but not their account of the dispute after they got on . At least not unquestioningly.

You do realise there's a difference between the people posting on this forum and the 2 dudes accusing the bus driver ?


----------



## TopCat (Sep 8, 2016)

They lied about what they did, what they said, what the driver did and what he said. 
Two pissed guys get on via exit only door to avoid paying. Get into arguement with driver. They dish out abuse and general drama. They leave. One awakes next day and makes stupid complaint.


----------



## Cid (Sep 8, 2016)

TopCat said:


> They lied about what they did, what they said, what the driver did and what he said.
> Two pissed guys get on via exit only door to avoid paying. Get into arguement with driver. They dish out abuse and general drama. They leave. One awakes next day and makes stupid complaint.



Is this via actual knowledge of a subsequent investigation or opinion?


----------



## TopCat (Sep 8, 2016)

Cid said:


> It's not very likely the papers will pick up on it though is it?


I don't know about that. Recollect the woman oop north who complained a driver threw her off for breastfeeding her baby. She made the whole story up. Big press interest there was.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 8, 2016)

Cid said:


> Is this via actual knowledge of a subsequent investigation or opinion?


Knowledge.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> When will this evidence be made public?



Hopefully around the same time as you apologise for abusing the driver and calling him all sorts on nothing more than the word of some pissed up random with a grudge.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> I'm also not in this instance even addressing an accusation made by the 2 gay blokes but instead  replying to people on here suggesting he never let them on because they were gay. And people accusing me of partisanship because I believed the first part of the story about how they got on the bus ,but not their account of the dispute after they got on . At least not unquestioningly.



You invented the first part of the story and then believed what you invented.  And people aren't saying they weren't let on cause they were gay, only that thats not implausible.  Fact is they weren't let on, at two bus stops, even if that was just the bus driver being a twat for completely non-homophobic reasons it sets a scene for what might have followed.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Hopefully around the same time as you apologise for abusing the driver and calling him all sorts on nothing more than the word of some pissed up random with a grudge.



Worth mentioning the Evening Standard has lawyers by the way, and its not good practice and legally risky to publish allegations like this without pretty strong confidence that they are true.  That means there could well be corroberating evidence that can't be published, such as off the record comments from the cops or the bus company that it has been admitted by the driver.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 8, 2016)

The driver was not entirely blameless in that his customer service skills were poorly applied.


----------



## Cid (Sep 8, 2016)

TopCat said:


> I don't know about that. Recollect the woman oop north who complained a driver threw her off for breastfeeding her baby. She made the whole story up. Big press interest there was.



The famed northern city of Bristol apparently. Still, yesterday's news - probably depends how much filler they need.



TopCat said:


> Knowledge.



Assumed so, just checking.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

smokedout said:


> You invented the first part of the story and then believed what you invented.  And people aren't saying they weren't let on cause they were gay, only that thats not implausible.  Fact is they weren't let on, at two bus stops, even if that was just the bus driver being a twat for completely non-homophobic reasons it sets a scene for what might have followed.



What bit did i invent exactly ?

Your making a habit of this. Quote the bit I invented ?


----------



## TopCat (Sep 8, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Worth mentioning the Evening Standard has lawyers by the way, and its not good practice and legally risky to publish allegations like this without pretty strong confidence that they are true.  That means there could well be corroberating evidence that can't be published, such as off the record comments from the cops or the bus company that it has been admitted by the driver.


No corroborating evidence and much which undermines everything the guy asserted.


----------



## Cid (Sep 8, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Worth mentioning the Evening Standard has lawyers by the way, and its not good practice and legally risky to publish allegations like this without pretty strong confidence that they are true.  That means there could well be corroberating evidence that can't be published, such as off the record comments from the cops or the bus company that it has been admitted by the driver.



Used no names and blurred pic of driver, likely limits liability somewhat.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Worth mentioning the Evening Standard has lawyers by the way, and its not good practice and legally risky to publish allegations like this without pretty strong confidence that they are true.  That means there could well be corroberating evidence that can't be published, such as off the record comments from the cops or the bus company that it has been admitted by the driver.



Are they the same lawyers as the independent has ? Or good ones ?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 8, 2016)

TopCat said:


> The driver was not entirely blameless in that his customer service skills were poorly applied.



_Very_ diplomatic there.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> What bit did i invent exactly ?
> 
> Your making a habit of this. Quote the bit I invented ?



I already did, "All we know for sure is 2 punters boarded a bus incorrectly after expressly being told not to ."  They weren't told not to according to them, he made a vague gesture at one stop and then they got on using the open back doors after catching up the bus at the next stop.  You get on some London buses at the back.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Are they the same lawyers as the independent has ? Or good ones ?



well given both the bus company and the driver could have a potential case if this allegation turns out to be untrue if they are shit ones that could prove expensive.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 8, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> _Very_ diplomatic there.


I was a bus manager back in the day and had a driver accused of battering a passenger. Poor customer service for sure. Given the racist invective thrown at the driver though I totally sympathised and muddied the disciplinery waters. 


smokedout said:


> I already did, "All we know for sure is 2 punters boarded a bus incorrectly after expressly being told not to ."  They weren't told not to according to them, he made a vague gesture at one stop and then they got on using the open back doors after catching up the bus at the next stop.  You get on some London buses at the back.


not a route 25!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Hopefully around the same time as you apologise for *abusing the driver and calling him all sorts *on nothing more than the word of some pissed up random with a grudge.


 Oh really? Here's what I wrote...



Rutita1 said:


> Right so those kinds of aresholes do exist and you have experienced them directly. Thanks for answering. *Until I know different*, given this driver's comments I think he is that kind of *arsehole*.



Now who is making things up? You are doing the exact same thing you suspect these two guys of... Misrepresentation, exaggeration, lying etc.

 Arsehole.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

Cid said:


> Used no names and blurred pic of driver, likely limits liability somewhat.



Probably on lawyers advice . In case the accusation wasn't true .


----------



## smokedout (Sep 8, 2016)

Cid said:


> Used no names and blurred pic of driver, likely limits liability somewhat.



clearly identifiable to hs colleagues, and employer, thats enough.


----------



## Cid (Sep 8, 2016)

smokedout said:


> I already did, "All we know for sure is 2 punters boarded a bus incorrectly after expressly being told not to ."  They weren't told not to according to them, he made a vague gesture at one stop and then they got on using the open back doors after catching up the bus at the next stop.  You get on some London buses at the back.



Only routemasters (or bendy buses, but they're gone now).


----------



## smokedout (Sep 8, 2016)

Cid said:


> Only routemasters (or bendy buses, but they're gone now).



Doesn't mean they knew that, point is that its hardly a rare experience to get on the back of a bus in london, its something people are familiar with.  From the story given it wouldnt be unreasonable to think maybe the driver didn't let them on at the first stop because there was something wrong with the door, so they got on the back at the next stop.  What seems clear is they weren't expressly told not to get on the bus, and if they are to be believed they paid.  So they hadn't actually done anything wrong or unusual.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh really? Here's what I wrote...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Am i fuck . You wrote a hell of a lot more than that. You've made a string of posts all over the thread pronouncing the driver guilty of both racism and homophobia towards these 2 punters. Anyone reading the thread can see it . You took the accusations completely at face value. Never once did you doubt the merit of the accusations . And now your just throwing a fit at me for pointing it out rather than withdrawing them .
Big egos are like that.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Doesn't mean they knew that, point is that its hardly a rare experience to get on the back of a bus in london, its something people are familiar with.  From the story given it wouldnt be unreasonable to think maybe the driver didn't let them on at the first stop because there was something wrong with the door, so they got on the back at the next stop.  What seems clear is they weren't expressly told not to get on the bus, and if they are to be believed they paid.  So they hadn't actually done anything wrong or unusual.



Apart from making up a load of vindictive shit and running to the newspapers. And the cops too by the sounds of it .


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Am i fuck .


 Yes you are.



> You wrote a hell of a lot more than that. You've made a string of posts all over the thread pronouncing the driver guilty of both racism and homophobia towards these 2 punters. Anyone reading the thread can see it .


 I engaged in discussion about how and why the alledged comments can be/are racist and homphobic. Yes, that discussion is there for all to see.



> You took the accusations completely at face value. Never once did you doubt the merit of the accusations .


 I did. So what? I explicitly said until I know different. I saw no reason why they would have lied and have experienced enough casual 'isms' to know it does happen, especially when people get into heated arguments.



> And now your just throwing a fit at me for pointing it out rather than withdrawing them .
> Big egos are like that.



I am not having a fit...I am pointing out how you yourself are exaggerating and misrepresenting what I have posted. Also, don't make demands of me, you are no one I give a stuff about. You've had your 5 mins of attention.


----------



## Cid (Sep 8, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Doesn't mean they knew that, point is that its hardly a rare experience to get on the back of a bus in london, its something people are familiar with.  From the story given it wouldnt be unreasonable to think maybe the driver didn't let them on at the first stop because there was something wrong with the door, so they got on the back at the next stop.  What seems clear is they weren't expressly told not to get on the bus, and if they are to be believed they paid.  So they hadn't actually done anything wrong or unusual.



If you live in London, you know which buses you can use the back entrance on (although we're actually talking about the middle entrance). It's one of those things, like escalator etiquette.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Apart from making up a load of vindictive shit and running to the newspapers. And the cops too by the sounds of it .



And as such leaving them liable to prosecution if their version of events, no doubt witnessed by dozens of people and on CCTV, turns out to be untrue. People do make false allegations to the police, but a 51 year old theatre director risking his career and possible prosecution over a row on a bus doesn't strike me as more plausible than a grumpy homophobic bus driver acting like an arse on a late shift.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 8, 2016)

Cid said:


> If you live in London, you know which buses you can use the back entrance on (although we're actually talking about the middle entrance). It's one of those things, like escalator etiquette.



I've lived in London over 20 years, use buses all the time, I wouldn't find it unusual to get on any bus at the back, particularly if I thought the driver had gestured the front doors weren't working, or I'd chased a bus down the road because it hadn't stopped for some reason.


----------



## Cid (Sep 8, 2016)

smokedout said:


> I've lived in London over 20 years, use buses all the time, I wouldn't find it unusual to get on any bus at the back, particularly if I thought the driver had gestured the front doors weren't working, or I'd chased a bus down the road because it hadn't stopped for some reason.



A bus like this:







I'd expect to get kicked off and have seen people kicked off. It's a classic fare dodger's trick.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2016)

smokedout said:


> And as such leaving them liable to prosecution if their version of events, no doubt witnessed by dozens of people and on CCTV, turns out to be untrue. People do make false allegations to the police, but a 51 year old theatre director risking his career and possible prosecution over a row on a bus doesn't strike me as more plausible than a grumpy homophobic bus driver acting like an arse on a late shift.


people do stupid things for all manner of reasons, and if they paused for but a moment to think 'what might the consequences be' then lots of things wouldn't have happened. 

see for example


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Yes you are.
> 
> I engaged in discussion about how and why the alledged comments can be/are racist and homphobic. Yes, that discussion is there for all to see.
> 
> ...



You'd make a good politician with evasions like that, that's for sure.

And no demand was made of you at all. I'd assumed you'd have the good grace to admit you'd wrongfully abused and smeared an ordinary worker on the basis of a pack of lies you were foolish to accept apt face value. Plainly I was wrong. Maybe you should have spent 6 minutes .


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2016)

Cid said:


> If you live in London, you know which buses you can use the back entrance on (although we're actually talking about the middle entrance). It's one of those things, like escalator etiquette.


different rules apply for those travelling with push chairs, who often enter through the rear doors for convenience's sake.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2016)

smokedout said:


> I've lived in London over 20 years, use buses all the time, I wouldn't find it unusual to get on any bus at the back, particularly if I thought the driver had gestured the front doors weren't working, or I'd chased a bus down the road because it hadn't stopped for some reason.


The card-reader's only at the front on non-routemasters, though, no? So if you got on in the middle, you would have to go to the front to pay.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

smokedout said:


> I already did, "All we know for sure is 2 punters boarded a bus incorrectly after expressly being told not to ."  They weren't told not to according to them, he made a vague gesture at one stop and then they got on using the open back doors after catching up the bus at the next stop.  You get on some London buses at the back.



This is desperately splitting hairs in search of Internet win. The actual issue is whether the 2 theatre punters were telling the truth. Seems very much like they weren't and these accusations were wholly vindictive with the intention of causing the driver as much grief as possible. That's the actual issue at hand .


----------



## Cid (Sep 8, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> different rules apply for those travelling with push chairs, who often enter through the rear doors for convenience's sake.



True, there are exceptions.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> This is desperately splitting hairs in search of Internet win. The actual issue is whether the 2 theatre punters were telling the truth. Seems very much like they weren't and these accusations were wholly vindictive with the intention of causing the driver as much grief as possible. That's the actual issue at hand .


you missed out entitled and class privilege, use of


----------



## smokedout (Sep 8, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> people do stupid things for all manner of reasons, and if they paused for but a moment to think 'what might the consequences be' then lots of things wouldn't have happened.
> 
> see for example
> View attachment 92201



V true, that applies to the bus driver as well though.  On the balance of probabalities I don't find it implausible that a bus driver made  a homophobic comment in the middle of an argument, even if lots of other words were said that we don't know about.  That's the allegation, it happened in front of lots of witnesses, it seems more likely this happened in the heat of the moment then someone acted in the cold sober light of day to risk prosecution themselves over a row on a bus.  Doesn't mean its case proved, just that there is nothing exceptional about what is alleged.  And a kneejerk reaction that someone must be a liar when making what's a very plausible allegation of homophobia is not a great look.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 8, 2016)

I'd still be more sympathetic to "theatre punters" than a well known homophobe who reckons they were lying.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2016)

smokedout said:


> V true, that applies to the bus driver as well though.  On the balance of probabalities I don't find it implausible that a bus driver made  a homophobic comment in the middle of an argument, even if lots of other words were said that we don't know about.  That's the allegation, it happened in front of lots of witnesses, it seems more likely this happened in the heat of the moment then someone acted in the cold sober light of day to risk prosecution themselves over a row on a bus.  Doesn't mean its case proved, just that there is nothing exceptional about what is alleged.  And a kneejerk reaction that someone must be a liar when making what's a very plausible allegation of homophobia is not a great look.


i have every confidence in TopCat's information, he's never let me down. the point is that it seems the episode did not play out as the complainant alleges.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 8, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i have every confidence in TopCat's information, he's never let me down. the point is that it seems the episode did not play out as the complainant alleges.



fair enough, I couldn't tell whether TopCat was being sarky or not


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 8, 2016)

smokedout said:


> fair enough, I couldn't tell whether TopCat was being sarky or not



I don't think so.

He also said this...



> The driver was not entirely blameless in that his customer service skills were poorly applied.



So I think it's a wait and see moment because I am not sure what that means in terms of what the driver actually did do or say.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2016)

smokedout said:


> And a kneejerk reaction that someone must be a liar when making what's a very plausible allegation of homophobia is not a great look.


the best lies are always plausible. but as Rutita1 says, let's wait for the truth to out.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Yes you have quoted me. The relevant bit though is you were asked to quote me saying anything other than we don't know the facts of the case and shouldn't assume immediate guilt . You wee unable to do so so you quoted something completely irrelevant instead
> 
> I'm also not in this instance even addressing an accusation made by the 2 gay blokes but instead  replying to people on here suggesting he never let them on because they were gay. And people accusing me of partisanship because I believed the first part of the story about how they got on the bus ,but not their account of the dispute after they got on . At least not unquestioningly.
> 
> You do realise there's a difference between the people posting on this forum and the 2 dudes accusing the bus driver ?



Oh, FFS, stop moving the goalposts. You asked me for examples of two types of comment - that you argued that the men were making it up and that you claimed the bloke could be sacked - and I gave quotes of that, and now you're asking for something completely different? I really cannot be arsed with that.

And how come you're not jumping all over Topcat for his certainty, too? TFL conducts its investigations remarkably quickly, and send all the results to all staff immediately, if he's to be believed. OR just possibly he's siding with a colleague. Stranger things have been known and I think even you would admit to that.

TBH I hope Topcat is right, because I'd prefer bus travel to be safe. If they were telling outright lies then that should be publicised; if it's a case of the bus driver denying it and nobody being able to prove he did, because frankly I'm not sure how anyone could prove it either way using CCTV, then it's tricky but I'd err on the side of caution - no reprimand. But that doesn't excuse anyone who immediately assumed that these gay men were "acting up" or that this sort of thing couldn't happen, or that such a comment from a bus driver to a passenger would be "mild".


----------



## Cid (Sep 8, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I'd still be more sympathetic to "theatre punters" than a well known homophobe who reckons they were lying.



I don't think anyone's basing their opinion on CR's posts here.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you missed out entitled and class privilege, use of



In fairness I'd alluded to it earlier when I referred to a possible scenario of the accusers being outraged at a mere bus drivers uppityness, and defending the less formally educated in general . But ever since doing that I've had to defend myself from all sorts of abuse and accusation so it sort of slipped my mind.
Not very hard though to imagine how a theatre manager, who would presumably hob nob with all sorts of theatre critics and the like , could get ready and unquestioningly favourable access to the media . Who seemed to have immediately taken his..theatre manger..word at face value over a mere bus driver . But that's probably how prejudice works .


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2016)

scifisam said:


> I'm not sure how anyone could prove it either way using CCTV


lipreading apparently


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 8, 2016)

Cid said:


> I don't think anyone's basing their opinion on CR's posts here.



For sure. If the lads were making it all up; then they should be exposed as liars. If the driver did come out with a homophobic comment - then he should be sacked. Or suspended & sent on a course on how to join the 21st century.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 8, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I'd still be more sympathetic to "theatre punters" than a well known homophobe who reckons they were lying.


Topcat's a well known homophobe?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 8, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Topcat's a well known homophobe?



No, not Topcat


----------



## TopCat (Sep 8, 2016)

Yopcat?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 8, 2016)

TopCat said:


> Yopcat?


Clearly a typo


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 8, 2016)

TopCat said:


> Yopcat?


 Sorrry! Changing now!


----------



## Cid (Sep 8, 2016)

The flavoured yoghurt version of TopCat.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> In fairness I'd alluded to it earlier when I referred to a possible scenario of the accusers being outraged at a mere bus drivers uppityness, and defending the less formally educated in general . But ever since doing that I've had to defend myself from all sorts of abuse and accusation so it sort of slipped my mind.
> Not very hard though to imagine how a theatre manager, who would presumably hob nob with all sorts of theatre critics and the like , could get ready and unquestioningly favourable access to the media . Who seemed to have immediately taken his..theatre manger..word at face value over a mere bus driver . But that's probably how prejudice works .



Actually from a quick search it seems the theatre he's a director of is actually a pub.  And he's currently working on a  production (signing on) according to his twitter feed.  We don't know much about hs partner, but a 51 year old guy from Bethnal Green doing a bit of part time theatre production in a pub and having to jump the bus fare (if true) does not shout pampered middle class to me.  Working class blagger who likes the theatre and has managed to work on a few shows at small theatres seems more likely.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Oh, FFS, stop moving the goalposts. You asked me for examples of two types of comment - that you argued that the men were making it up and that you claimed the bloke could be sacked - and I gave quotes of that, and now you're asking for something completely different? I really cannot be arsed with that.
> 
> And how come you're not jumping all over Topcat for his certainty, too? TFL conducts its investigations remarkably quickly, and send all the results to all staff immediately, if he's to be believed. OR just possibly he's siding with a colleague. Stranger things have been known and I think even you would admit to that.
> 
> TBH I hope Topcat is right, because I'd prefer bus travel to be safe. If they were telling outright lies then that should be publicised; if it's a case of the bus driver denying it and nobody being able to prove he did, because frankly I'm not sure how anyone could prove it either way using CCTV, then it's tricky but I'd err on the side of caution - no reprimand. But that doesn't excuse anyone who immediately assumed that these gay men were "acting up" or that this sort of thing couldn't happen, or that such a comment from a bus driver to a passenger would be "mild".



Topcat has a proven record of reliability and truthfulness on these forums is why. And I'm certainly not the only person who'd tell you that . Especially on these matters.
He's not a disingenuous hair splitting so and so desperate for an Internet win either for instance. And if you'd paid attention you'd be aware this also became the subject of a police investigation due to the gravity of the accusations . Which is presumably why a forensics grade lip reader was brought into study the CCTV imagery. And which is why Topcat is so certain the driver has been fully exonerated of the charges of racist and homophobic abuse towards these 2 characters . Because it has been a proven falsehood .
I'm also not aware of anyone on the thread who characterised the alleged abuse as mild. As far as I can see everyone agreed the allegations were pretty serious. It was the veracity which was questioned . By a few at least .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Actually from a quick search it seems the theatre he's a director of is actually a pub.  And he's currently working on a  production (signing on) according to his twitter feed.  We don't know much about hs partner, but a 51 year old guy from Bethnal Green doing a bit of part time theatre production in a pub and having to jump the bus fare (if true) does not shout pampered middle class to me.  Working class blagger who likes the theatre and has managed to work on a few shows at small theatres seems more likely.



Or shit theatre director who's as good at theatre directing as he is stitching up innocent public transport workers. If he is working class a lesson or 2 in class solidarity mightn't hurt. Although chances are he could be learning the roundabout way if plod get a bee in their odd shaped bonnet .


----------



## bimble (Sep 8, 2016)

15 pages on whether or not a bus driver said a homophobic comment. Impressive.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 8, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> No, not Topcat


But it was him who out and out said they were lying. Before his post everyone was acknowleding that we would have to wait and see what the actual evidence shows to some degree or another.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 8, 2016)

emanymton said:


> But it was him who out and out said they were lying. Before his post everyone was acknowleding that we would have to wait and see what the actual evidence shows to some degree or another.



He did say that, yes. And I don't agree. But we'll have to wait & see. But I don't ever recall reading anything _homophobic_ from that particular poster.

Those of us here who have suffered homophobic abuse, I would guess, we might tend to believe the alleged victims more than the alleged abuser. I'd definitely be wary of those who have a track record of homophobia here, defending the alleged abuser.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 8, 2016)

bimble said:


> 15 pages on whether or not a bus driver said a homophobic comment. Impressive.


You weren't here for bints on a plane where you. 

https://www.urban75.net/forums/thre...for-fresh-air-mid-flight.185609/#post-6428230


----------



## emanymton (Sep 8, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> He did say that, yes. And I don't agree. But we'll have to wait & see. But I don't ever recall reading anything _homophobic_ from that particular poster.
> 
> Those of us here who have suffered homophobic abuse, I would guess, we might tend to believe the alleged victims more than the alleged abuser. I'd definitely be wary of those who have a track record of homophobia here, defending the alleged abuser.


When I read your post I was 90% sure you were referring to CR. But since it was Topcat not CR who accused them of lying (apparently from a position of greater knowledge than the rest of us) I did wonder if you were accusing Topcat of being homophobic. If you want to chuck accusations like that around, you had better be bloody careful about how you do it.


----------



## bimble (Sep 8, 2016)

emanymton said:


> You weren't here for bints on a plane where you.
> 
> https://www.urban75.net/forums/thre...for-fresh-air-mid-flight.185609/#post-6428230


Breaks my heart to have missed that one. But the legend of Edie lives on, I've heard tell of her.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 8, 2016)

emanymton said:


> When I read your post I was 90% sure you were referring to CR. But since it was Topcat not CR who accused them of lying (apparently from a position of greater knowledge than the rest of us) I did wonder if you were accusing Topcat of being homophobic. If you want to chuck accusations like that around, you had better be bloody careful about how you do it.



I 100% was not accusing Topcat of being homophobic.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 8, 2016)

emanymton said:


> But it was him who out and out said they were lying. Before his post everyone was acknowleding that we would have to wait and see what the actual evidence shows to some degree or another.


What are you accusing me of? Homophobia? Oh please.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 8, 2016)

TopCat said:


> What are you accusing me of? Homophobia? Oh please.


Quite the opposite.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Quite the opposite.


Homophilia?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 8, 2016)

TopCat said:


> What are you accusing me of? Homophobia? Oh please.



They aren't. They are misunderstanding another poster and assuming that they were. Which they aren't.



emanymton said:


> Quite the opposite.



How many times does krtek  have to post saying you have misunderstood. 

I have worked out who they are talking about for example. He is not refering to Topcat. That is clear.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Topcat has a proven record of reliability and truthfulness on these forums is why. And I'm certainly not the only person who'd tell you that . Especially on these matters.
> He's not a disingenuous hair splitting so and so desperate for an Internet win either for instance. And if you'd paid attention you'd be aware this also became the subject of a police investigation due to the gravity of the accusations . Which is presumably why a forensics grade lip reader was brought into study the CCTV imagery. And which is why Topcat is so certain the driver has been fully exonerated of the charges of racist and homophobic abuse towards these 2 characters . Because it has been a proven falsehood .
> I'm also not aware of anyone on the thread who characterised the alleged abuse as mild. As far as I can see everyone agreed the allegations were pretty serious. It was the veracity which was questioned . By a few at least .



You know all of this to be fact already, do you? Forensic lipreader? That's a fact, is it? All I saw was Topcat saying it could happen (I also know that forensic lipreaders are about as reliable as lie detectors). How many weeks has it been since this incident happened? Less than a week, you say? Do they keep a forensic lipreader on staff?

Whatever the facts of this case are I call total bullshit on the lipreader thing. I wouldn't trust that evidence to back up or dispute anything if any forensic lipreaders were ever employed. Especially since the difference between something like "you got on in the back door" rather than "you like it in the back door" would be impossible to reliably distinguish.

If you didn't see anyone saying in this thread the alleged insults were mild then you are, again, failing at reading comprehension. And no, I'm not going to quote the posts for you when the thread is right there in front of you as much as it is me.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 8, 2016)

Oh for heaven's sake. I was referring to this poster who used the term "theatre punters"



Which led me to post:


----------



## emanymton (Sep 8, 2016)

TopCat said:


> What are you accusing me of? Homophobia? Oh please.


For clarity,  now I have a bit more time. I wanted to confirm who krtek was accusing of homophobia. I have not called anyone a homophobe. 

Sorry if you misunderstood, I'm obviously guilty of the same lack of clarity I accused krtek of. 

Hopefully this little diversion I have caused can be put to one side and the thread can get back on track.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 8, 2016)

emanymton said:


> and the thread can get back on track.....


----------



## TopCat (Sep 8, 2016)

Never has a huge row been so ill informed etc. It will all come out no doubt. Until then, do please continue cunt ing all and sundry off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2016)

.


----------



## maomao (Sep 8, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> For sure. If the lads were making it all up; then they should be exposed as liars. If the driver did come out with a homophobic comment - then he should be sacked. Or suspended & sent on a course on how to join the 21st century.


How do you know the driver's not gay?


----------



## maomao (Sep 8, 2016)

TopCat said:


> The driver was not entirely blameless in that his customer service skills were poorly applied.


Fuck customer service skills. He's a bus driver not a maitre d'. ANd they're would be passengers not customers.


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 8, 2016)

People insulting each other and behaving like wankers on London public transport. Shocking and appalling. Hell in a handcart etc.

Shit like this was very much behind me leaving when I did.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 8, 2016)

mojo pixy said:


> People insulting each other and behaving like wankers on London public transport. Shocking and appalling. Hell in a handcart etc.
> 
> Shit like this was very much behind me leaving when I did.



bye then


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 8, 2016)

_when I did_. already gone. bye bye london. turns out it isn't the only place in the world, whodathunkit.


----------



## alfajobrob (Sep 8, 2016)

mojo pixy said:


> _when I did_. already gone. bye bye london. turns out it isn't the only place in the world, whodathunkit.



sCUNThorpe???


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 8, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Do gay people carry a flag identifying their sexuality?


sometimes yes, or a badge or a tshirt, or a big pink tutu sometimes. I find having my dykey looking girlfriend with me generally identifies me as queer. So much much convenient than flag waving. 



DrRingDing said:


> Time for a big gay disco on the No. 25


 Ring my bell!


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 8, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> I find having my dykey looking girlfriend with me generally identifies me as queer.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Oh for heaven's sake. I was referring to this poster who used the term "theatre punters"
> 
> View attachment 92205
> 
> ...



Stop tormenting me please. I'm not well .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

mojo pixy said:


> People insulting each other and behaving like wankers on London public transport. Shocking and appalling. Hell in a handcart etc.
> 
> Shit like this was very much behind me leaving when I did.



I blame that brexit business. 

Driver was probably old and all .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

maomao said:


> Fuck customer service skills. He's a bus driver not a maitre d'. ANd they're would be passengers not customers.



And a pair of lying,  vindictive, immensely self entitled cunts by the sounds of it.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 8, 2016)

i have absolutely no idea what really happened, but can i just say how outraged i am by it all?


----------



## Skyfallsz (Sep 8, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> i have absolutely no idea what really happened, but can i just say how outraged i am by it all?



It beggars belief quite frankly


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 8, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> It beggars belief quite frankly


 
or possibly buggers it


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> or possibly buggers it


Careful, you'll be accused of homophobia


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 8, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> or possibly buggers it


there's not nearly enough campery or double entendres on this thread for my liking.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

Hardly surprising. The central premise of the entire busgate incident was an alleged double entendre about an unsolicited and unwelcome  double entrance by the back door. Although it turned out later the accusers were merely well oiled and up to no good .

Not surprised there's been no takers after that .


----------



## snadge (Sep 8, 2016)

Is this thread an all your base belong to us?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 8, 2016)

snadge said:


> Is this thread an all your base belong to us?


 
or all your bus are belong to us?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> or all your bus are belong to us?



 It's all about the base .


----------



## keybored (Sep 8, 2016)

You have no chance to embark, make your time.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 9, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Careful, you'll be accused of homophobia


no, you'll only be accused of homophobia if you're actually LGBT.


----------



## andysays (Sep 9, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> no, you'll only be accused of homophobia if you're actually LGBT.



So the bus driver involved in this incident and CR are both "actually LGBT". 

Would you like to explain how you know this?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 9, 2016)

maomao said:


> How do you know the driver's not gay?



I like the way the thread has turned around and the alleged victims are scum and the driver is practically a hero.



Casually Red said:


> Stop tormenting me please. I'm not well .



I see what you did there. Very clever. You are correct; mind. Your illness is called homophobia. You also suffer from an affliction of racism and misogyny. Have a big weird gay smile from me to compensate.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2016)

> How do you know the driver's not gay?






krtek a houby said:


> I like the way the thread has turned around and the alleged victims are scum and the driver is practically a hero.
> .



That's a horrible thing to say. You need to stop this,


----------



## Athos (Sep 9, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> no, you'll only be accused of homophobia if you're actually LGBT.


Demonstrably a lie.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 9, 2016)

more lies?

Bus driver arrested after claims he 'barred gay couple'
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bus-driver-barred-gay-couple-8223299
Bus driver throws gay couple off for kissing


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> more lies?
> 
> Bus driver arrested after claims he 'barred gay couple'
> Bus driver throws gay couple off for kissing


What does that have to do with this thread?


----------



## andysays (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> more lies?
> 
> Bus driver arrested after claims he 'barred gay couple'
> Bus driver throws gay couple off for kissing



No one has denied that homophobic abuse happens, or that bus drivers can't be responsible for it, but neither of those stories (both of which seem to refer to allegations rather than matters of legally established fact) justify in any way the lies and misrepresentation that you and AS have thrown around here.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 9, 2016)

andysays said:


> No one has denied that homophobic abuse happens, or that bus drivers can't be responsible for it, but neither of those stories (both of which seem to refer to allegations rather than matters of legally established fact) justify in any way the lies and misrepresentation that you and AS have thrown around here.



What lies, in particular?


----------



## andysays (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> What lies, in particular?





krtek a houby said:


> I like the way the thread has turned around and the alleged victims are scum and the driver is practically a hero...





AuntiStella said:


> ...you'll only be accused of homophobia if you're actually LGBT.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2016)

****


----------



## Gromit (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> more lies?
> 
> Bus driver arrested after claims he 'barred gay couple'
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bus-driver-barred-gay-couple-8223299
> Bus driver throws gay couple off for kissing


Funnily enough those stories seem convincing. I'd still like to know the outcomes of the official investigations before I grab my pitchfork and burning torch but if reported accurately is disgusting. 

I'm still very dubious about the incident in the OP. I'm suspecting that it was an off the cuff remark from a driver frustrated by ignorant passengers rather than homophobia and that he ordered them off for safety reasons i.e. That they wouldn't let the argument drop and you don't drive with disruptive passengers who could distract you at the wrong time. The whole thing has been escalated. 

If the remark is proven it will be an off the cuff remark he wishes he'd never made as it will cost him his job. Silly boy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Funnily enough those stories seem convincing. I'd still like to know the outcomes of the official investigations before I grab my pitchfork and burning torch but if reported accurately is disgusting.
> 
> I'm still very dubious about the incident in the OP. I'm suspecting that it was an off the cuff remark from a driver frustrated by ignorant passengers rather than homophobia and that he ordered them off for safety reasons i.e. That they wouldn't let the argument drop and you don't drive with disruptive passengers who could distract you at the wrong time. The whole thing has been escalated.
> 
> If the remark is proven it will be an off the cuff remark he wishes he'd never made as it will cost him his job. Silly boy.


And I am sure everyone on the thread will concur when I say I'm sure we'll give your post the consideration it deserves


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 9, 2016)

andysays You seem incapable of distinguishing between statements of fact and sarcasm. I suggest you think about that before accusing people of lying.


----------



## Athos (Sep 9, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Funnily enough those stories seem convincing. I'd still like to know the outcomes of the official investigations before I grab my pitchfork and burning torch but if reported accurately is disgusting.
> 
> I'm still very dubious about the incident in the OP. I'm suspecting that it was an off the cuff remark from a driver frustrated by ignorant passengers rather than homophobia and that he ordered them off for safety reasons i.e. That they wouldn't let the argument drop and you don't drive with disruptive passengers who could distract you at the wrong time. The whole thing has been escalated.
> 
> If the remark is proven it will be an off the cuff remark he wishes he'd never made as it will cost him his job. Silly boy.


Off the cuff and homophobic aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## Athos (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> What lies, in particular?



Here's three:



AuntiStella said:


> The truth is that Athos tried to tell me how to be trans and dismissed my lived experience and I called him on it and since then he's been on my case. I chose to ignore him rather than rising to it and he hates me for that.





AuntiStella said:


> Athos maintains that he isn't phobic but that were all just doing being LGBT wrong





AuntiStella said:


> no, you'll only be accused of homophobia if you're actually LGBT.


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> more lies?
> 
> Bus driver arrested after claims he 'barred gay couple'
> Bus driver throws gay couple off for kissing


Those are completely different (and extremely nasty) events that I would condemn completely. Or are you prejudiced against bus drivers in general? My question had a point by the way.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 9, 2016)

So from the above quotes one could assume that the alleged victims are to be regardes as scum and the alleged abuser as a hero.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 9, 2016)

(((thread)))


----------



## andysays (Sep 9, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> andysays You seem incapable of distinguishing between statements of fact and sarcasm. I suggest you think about that before accusing people of lying.



And you seem to be incapable of recognising that some posters have a long and well-established history of misrepresenting and plain lying about posters who express opinions they don't agree with, often leading to accusations of bullying and various kinds of prejudice if those who are being lied about don't recant and/or apologise.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 9, 2016)

andysays said:


> And you seem to be incapable of recognising that some posters have a long and well-established history of misrepresenting and plain lying about posters who express opinions they don't agree with, often leading to accusations of bullying and various kinds of prejudice if those who are being lied about don't recant and/or apologise.



So who was lying again?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 9, 2016)

maomao said:


> Those are completely different (and extremely nasty) events that I would condemn completely. Or are you prejudiced against bus drivers in general? My question had a point by the way.



LOL! Yes; that's the ticket! Justice for unfairly maligned bus drivers!

No is the answer to your question. But I think we've all learned a valuable lesson here. Homophobia and alleged homophobia is a minefield and something that shouldn't be discussed in future.


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> View attachment 92298
> 
> View attachment 92299
> 
> ...


If they're lying (which seems to be the case from information provided on this thread, as if it wasn't obvious from the paper thin story which never made sense in the first place) then yes, they're scum. Don't know where you're getting the hero bit from.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> Here's three:



I don't see any lies there. And none of the alleged lies are from me.

I just see a continuation of your war on AuntiStella.


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> LOL! Yes; that's the ticket! Justice for unfairly maligned bus drivers!



You're the one providing links to cases of genuinely homophobic incidents involving other bus drivers in an odd attempt to prove something about this one. If that's not prejudice I don't know what is. 



> No is the answer to your question. But I think we've all learned a valuable lesson here. Homophobia and alleged homophobia is a minefield and something that shouldn't be discussed in future.



Don't be silly.


----------



## Athos (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I don't see any lies there. And none of the alleged lies are from me.
> 
> I just see a continuation of your war on AuntiStella.


None so blind as those who will not see. 

If they're not lies, perhaps you could point towards any evidence of the truth of those statements?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 9, 2016)

maomao said:


> If they're lying (which seems to be the case from information provided on this thread, as if it wasn't obvious from the paper thin story which never made sense in the first place) then yes, they're scum. Don't know where you're getting the hero bit from.



Well, for some posters, it seems he's being absolved of any possible wrongdoings, which would make him the hero for some here. You know; the type of poster who would ignore, deny or play down inccidents of homophobia. 

As I said before, if the driver is innocent - fine. If the 2 lads are making it all up - they should be exposed as such.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 9, 2016)

maomao said:


> You're the one providing links to cases of genuinely homophobic incidents involving other bus drivers in an odd attempt to prove something about this one. If that's not prejudice I don't know what is.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.



LOL; hilighting predjudice is prejudiced. Clever.


----------



## Cid (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I don't see any lies there. And none of the alleged lies are from me.
> 
> I just see a continuation of your war on AuntiStella.



Well you've just lumped TopCat in with CR, which is pretty dishonest.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> None so blind as those who will not see.
> 
> If they're not lies, perhaps you could point towards any evidence of the truth of those statements?



Why don't you just leave her the fuck alone, instead?


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> LOL; hilighting predjudice is prejudiced. Clever.


How did you highlight prejudice?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 9, 2016)

Cid said:


> Well you've just lumped TopCat in with CR, which is pretty dishonest.



Oh hell's bells. They are completely different posters but I'm just giving examples of how the lads are being dismissed.


----------



## Athos (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Well, for some posters, it seems he's being absolved of any possible wrongdoings, which would make him the hero for some here. You know; the type of poster who would ignore, deny or play down inccidents of homophobia.
> 
> As I said before, if the driver is innocent - fine. If the 2 lads are making it all up - they should be exposed as such.


If he's shown not to have been homophobic, that's not the most obvious qualification to be regarded as a hero by homophobes.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 9, 2016)

maomao said:


> How did you highlight prejudice?



I posted 2 stories of gay people being abused. What an odd question.


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> As I said before, if the driver is innocent - fine. If the 2 lads are making it all up - they should be exposed as such.



Are they scum? Will you condemn them? What for? trying to lose someone's job or the wider insult to the gay community?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 9, 2016)

maomao said:


> Are they scum? Will you condemn them? What for? trying to lose someone's job or the wider insult to the gay community?



I've twice on this thread said if they're lying they deserve to be exposed. What exact wording would you like me to use, sir?


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I posted 2 stories of gay people being abused. What an odd question.


It's not an odd question at all. You posted them along with the comment 'more lies'. Your implication was that if people don't believe this pair of lying twats then we can't believe that homophobic abuse happens at all. You weren't highlighting anything, you were mudslinging.


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I've twice on this thread said if they're lying they deserve to be exposed. What exact wording would you like me to use, sir?


I'd like you to condemn their behaviour and acknowledge the damage that this sort of behaviour does to the LGBT community. In your own words though.


----------



## Athos (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Why don't you just leave her the fuck alone, instead?


Well, for one thing, there's the lies she's told about me (for which, like her, you've failed to provide a shed of evidence).


----------



## Cid (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Oh hell's bells. They are completely different posters but I'm just giving examples of how the lads are being dismissed.



Yes, in one case dismissed by a homophobe, in the other case dismissed by someone who is in a position to know more about the complaint (factually) than anyone else on here. They are dismissing 'the lads' from two completely different perspectives.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 9, 2016)

maomao said:


> I'd like you to condemn their behaviour and acknowledge the damage that this sort of behaviour does to the LGBT community. In your own words though.



So, they've definitely told a load of porkies, then?



Athos said:


> Well, for one thing, there's the lies she's told about me (for which, like her, you've failed to provide a shed of evidence).



Why should I? I can see with my own eyes that you just can't leave her alone. 



Cid said:


> Yes, in one case dismissed by a homophobe, in the other case dismissed by someone who is in a position to know more about the complaint (factually) than anyone else on here. They are dismissing 'the lads' from two completely different perspectives.



I'm not disputing that - I gave 2 different posters coming from different approaches both dimissing the lads and taking the side of the driver. As I've said, several times, I don't believe that Topcat is anything like CR.


----------



## Athos (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Why should I? I can see with my own eyes that you just can't leave her alone.




AKA there is no evidence, because she's lying. Lol.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> AKA there is no evidence, because she's lying. Lol.



She's lying that you won't or can't leave her in peace?


----------



## snadge (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> She's lying that you won't or can't leave her in peace?




You really are a blithering fool.


----------



## Athos (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> She's lying that you won't or can't leave her in peace?



No, she's lying about the the very specific points I quoted.


----------



## Cid (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm not disputing that - I gave 2 different posters coming from different approaches both dimissing the lads and taking the side of the driver. As I've said, several times, I don't believe that Topcat is anything like CR.



Except that you also said they gave the impression that 'the lads' are scum and that the driver is a hero. Which sort of implies they share a position, or at least that the actual meaning of their posts is shared. Which it isn't, far as I can tell anyway.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 9, 2016)

I'm just appalled by anyone being thrown off a bus for being gay (referring to the OP). Absolute disgrace. I hope that busdriver was sacked.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 9, 2016)

Cheesypoof said:


> I'm just appalled by anyone being thrown off a bus for being gay (referring to the OP). Absolute disgrace. I hope that busdriver was sacked.


 It didn't happen. Read the thread.


----------



## snadge (Sep 9, 2016)

Cheesypoof said:


> I'm just appalled by anyone being thrown off a bus for being gay (referring to the OP). Absolute disgrace. I hope that busdriver was sacked.




Which was what the pair of liars were trying for.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 9, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> It didn't happen. Read the thread.



sorry.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 9, 2016)

snadge said:


> Which was what the pair of liars were trying for.



Okay sorry.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 9, 2016)

Cheesypoof said:


> sorry.


Don't be sorry. Your mini fail just punctured three pages of epic fail.


----------



## Cid (Sep 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't be sorry. Your fail just punctured three pages of epic fail.



18. The whole thread is pretty shitty. Unedifying.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 9, 2016)

snadge said:


> You really are a blithering fool.



Excellent contribution. 



Athos said:


> No, she's lying about the the very specific points I quoted.



I'll leave you to it. You've been asked to leave her alone. Ball's in your court.



Cid said:


> Except that you also said they gave the impression that 'the lads' are scum and that the driver is a hero. Which sort of implies they share a position, or at least that the actual meaning of their posts is shared. Which it isn't, far as I can tell anyway.



Cid, you're wifully trying to make out that I consider CR and TC to be of the exact same leanings. I've stated several times they're not. I've told you the reason I quoted TWO VERY DIFFERENT POSTERS; they both see the lads (dunno why you insist on using quotation marks) as liars. And I'd imagine most people see liars - especially malicious ones - as scum.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 9, 2016)

...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> It didn't happen. Read the thread.


well said, pa


----------



## scifisam (Sep 9, 2016)

TopCat said:


> *Never has a huge row been so ill informed etc. *It will all come out no doubt. Until then, do please continue cunt ing all and sundry off.



Really? On Urban? 

TBH I'm still sceptical about taking what you say with 100% confidence even though, like I said, I do hope you're right. Sorry (honestly), but when it's your colleague and it's so soon after the events it's hard to just take you at your word. I mean, if taking people at their word was so acceptable then this bus driver would have been reprimanded regardless of whether he did it or not, wouldn't he?

BTW, to repeat what he said before, if the men were lying that should be widely publicised. If it's a matter of the driver not being able to prove he didn't say it, and the passengers not being able to prove he did, then the driver shouldn't be reprimanded but neither should the passengers be vilified.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Really? On Urban?
> 
> TBH I'm still sceptical about taking what you say with 100% confidence even though, like I said, I do hope you're right. Sorry (honestly), but when it's your colleague and it's so soon after the events it's hard to just take you at your word. I mean, if taking people at their word was so acceptable then this bus driver would have been reprimanded regardless of whether he did it or not, wouldn't he?
> 
> BTW, to repeat what he said before, if the men were lying that should be widely publicised. If it's a matter of the driver not being able to prove he didn't say it, and the passengers not being able to prove he did, then the driver shouldn't be reprimanded but neither should the passengers be vilified.


so you're accusing TopCat of partiality lying. grand.


----------



## Cid (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Cid, you're wifully trying to make out that I consider CR and TC to be of the exact same leanings. I've stated several times they're not. I've told you the reason I quoted TWO VERY DIFFERENT POSTERS; they both see the lads (dunno why you insist on using quotation marks) as liars. And I'd imagine most people see liars - especially malicious ones - as scum.



It's weird arguing with you. You clearly think there is some similarity in the effect and the meaning of the things you quoted. Obviously you don't think they have exactly the same leanings, that would be phenomenally stupid. I read TopCats posts and, yeah, the first one is somewhat aggressive but taken in the context of his subsequent posts I see absolutely no reason to assume he thinks 'the lads' (who get quotation marks as I assume they're not actually your mates) are scum (he might, can't read minds). Nor that the driver is a hero. Basically you're extrapolating a fuck of a lot from 'they're fucking liars'.


----------



## Athos (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I'll leave you to it. You've been asked to leave her alone. Ball's in your court



She's on a public forum; why shouldn't I point out her bullshit? She can ignore me if she doesn't like it .


----------



## bimble (Sep 9, 2016)

this thread deserves some kind of medal, or to be moved entirely into the wasting your bandwidth one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> this thread deserves some kind of medal, or to be moved entirely into the wasting your bandwidth one.


urban has been awarded a purple heart on the basis of this thread.


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Really? On Urban?
> 
> TBH I'm still sceptical about taking what you say with 100% confidence even though, like I said, I do hope you're right. Sorry (honestly), but when it's your colleague and it's so soon after the events it's hard to just take you at your word. I mean, if taking people at their word was so acceptable then this bus driver would have been reprimanded regardless of whether he did it or not, wouldn't he?
> 
> BTW, to repeat what he said before, if the men were lying that should be widely publicised. If it's a matter of the driver not being able to prove he didn't say it, and the passengers not being able to prove he did, then the driver shouldn't be reprimanded but neither should the passengers be vilified.


Well it's been clear since day one they were lying about 'a homophobic rant' and being thrown off the bus for being gay. Can we villify them for that?


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2016)

Also given that we have already established on this thread that it's absolutely fine for gay people to joke about 'back doors' and none of us can ever be sure about the bus drivers sexuality there's a decent sized possibility that he made the comment and is gay, bisexual or msm himself? At which point on the spectrum of human sexuality does this particular cheap double entendre become acceptable?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 9, 2016)

maomao said:


> none of us can ever be sure about the bus drivers sexuality there's a decent sized possibility that he made the comment and is gay, bisexual or msm himself?



How big is a 'decent-sized possibility'?


----------



## scifisam (Sep 9, 2016)

Not calling TC a liar, no. I actually think he's generally fairly trustworthy.

But it seems a bit odd that TFL has conducted its investigation and released details to all staff _so_ quickly. Especially with the detail that the men were "lying" rather than that the driver's not being reprimanded - they're not the exact same thing. It's be easy to take rumours, or the word of the driver, at face value if they were your colleague and you worked somewhere customer-facing. 

Also it is hypocritical to say "you can't take these passengers' word for it! But you can take _my_ word for it. You should never simply believe people. Except me. Believe me instantly."



maomao said:


> Well it's been clear since day one they were lying about 'a homophobic rant' and being thrown off the bus for being gay. Can we villify them for that?



Nah, because they didn't say the first bit, that was the newspaper. And if they were lying about the comment from the driver then they were lying about being thrown off, but did you know from the start that they were lying? Know for certain? Bullshit. You're the one who actually argued that saying "bet you like it in the back entrance" would, if it had been said, be a mild comment, so I'm not sure I'd trust you on anything when it comes to gay people now, TBH.


----------



## bimble (Sep 9, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> How big is a 'decent-sized possibility'?


anything above 13.7% I'd say, qualifies as decent.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 9, 2016)

So let's see where we're at:

 A possibly gay [by a decent-sized possibility] bus driver made a comment in jest to two passengers who may or may not have been kissing, and who may or may not have, by outward appearance, looked gay to the average person on the street - except that maybe the two bus riders were actually bad characters who made the whole thing up, including the comment made in jest?


----------



## scifisam (Sep 9, 2016)

maomao said:


> Also given that we have already established on this thread that it's absolutely fine for gay people to joke about 'back doors' and none of us can ever be sure about the bus drivers sexuality there's a decent sized possibility that he made the comment and is gay, bisexual or msm himself? At which point on the spectrum of human sexuality does this particular cheap double entendre become acceptable?



It's already been explained to you that comments on a forum where you're widely known to be gay and the forum is only semi-public anyway are very different to comments made to strangers while at work. If the driver were gay and he had said that stupid comment then it would have been well out of order same as if he were straight.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 9, 2016)

maomao said:


> Also given that we have already established on this thread that it's absolutely fine for gay people to joke about 'back doors' and none of us can ever be sure about the bus drivers sexuality there's a decent sized possibility that he made the comment and is gay, bisexual or msm himself? At which point on the spectrum of human sexuality does this particular cheap double entendre become acceptable?



Surely you know that such comments are to be taken in context. Surely you realize that the two contexts of refusing people public services and the environment of an urban75 thread are not comparable? It's almost like you're deliberately being argumentative.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 9, 2016)

maomao said:


> Also given that we have already established on this thread that it's absolutely fine for gay people to joke about 'back doors' and none of us can ever be sure about the bus drivers sexuality there's a decent sized possibility that he made the comment and is gay, bisexual or msm himself? At which point on the spectrum of human sexuality does this particular cheap double entendre become acceptable?


Still waiting for someone to explain why are only gay men allowed to comment on an activity enjoyed by straight men and women?


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 9, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Still waiting for some to explain why are only gay men allowed to comment on an activity enjoyed by straight men and women?



It's in the Gay Agenda, Section 7(ii).


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> It's almost like you're deliberately being argumentative.



On a bulletin board? Moi?


----------



## andysays (Sep 9, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Not calling TC a liar, no. I actually think he's generally fairly trustworthy.
> 
> But it seems a bit odd that TFL has conducted its investigation and released details to all staff _so_ quickly...



I think you may have misunderstood (quite innocently and probably understandably) what TC was saying. 

He wasn't saying TFL have conducted an investigation or that details have been released to all staff. I'm not going to elborate though, I'll let him do that if he chooses.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 9, 2016)

andysays said:


> I think you may have misunderstood (quite innocently and probably understandably) what TC was saying.
> 
> He wasn't saying TFL have conducted an investigation or that details have been released to all staff. I'm not going to elborate though, I'll let him do that if he chooses.



He was saying that the passengers were liars. How could he say that for definite without an investigation and the details being released to staff? He wasn't just offering an opinion.


----------



## andysays (Sep 9, 2016)

scifisam said:


> He was saying that the passengers were liars. How could he say that for definite without an investigation and the details being released to staff? He wasn't just offering an opinion.



I suggest you go back and read his comments again, and if it's still not clear you'll have to take it up with him.


----------



## JimW (Sep 9, 2016)

scifisam said:


> He was saying that the passengers were liars. How could he say that for definite without an investigation and the details being released to staff? He wasn't just offering an opinion.


I presume because he knows the driver and has heard his side and believes it.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 9, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> How big is a 'decent-sized possibility'?


don't be a size queen


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 9, 2016)

JimW said:


> I presume because he knows the driver and has heard his side and believes it.



One bus driver vouching for another seems reminiscent of one cop hearing the story of another cop, and then vouching for him/her.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 9, 2016)

andysays said:


> I suggest you go back and read his comments again, and if it's still not clear you'll have to take it up with him.



Um, this is what TC said is his reason for believing the men were liars:

"Cameras all over the bus and footage reviwed by evedidential quality lip reader."

I don't think it's me not reading his posts. He was claiming that TFL had done all of that and released the results to staff (since TFL is staff) already. Remarkably fast response from TFL there.

There is no such thing as an evidentiary quality lipreader. When used in court the evidence of lipreaders has no many caveats saying not to rely on it that it's worthless. Different accents and idiolects make small differences in mouth movements impossible to distinguish, whereas the difference between "yes" and "no" doesn't require any special skills.


----------



## keybored (Sep 9, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> One bus driver vouching for another seems reminiscent of one cop hearing the story of another cop, and then vouching for him/her.


Yes, that famed Red Wall of Silence.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 9, 2016)

The Evening Standard story appeared five days ago.

If TFL got the tapes, then got quality lipreaders in do the analysis in that short period of time - well, it's edifying to hear that your bloated transit organization functions a hell of a lot more quickly and efficiently than our bloated transit organization.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 9, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Um, this is what TC said is his reason for believing the men were liars:
> 
> "Cameras all over the bus and footage reviwed by evedidential quality lip reader."
> 
> ...


Where's the big newspaper article about that?


----------



## Gromit (Sep 9, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The Evening Standard story appeared five days ago.
> 
> If TFL got the tapes, then got quality lipreaders in do the analysis in that short period of time - well, it's edifying to hear that your bloated transit organization functions a hell of a lot more quickly and efficiently than our bloated transit organization.


7 days ago on another site. 

When was the complaint to TFL made?
That's when the investigation would have begun. 
Not when the papers got around to reporting it.


----------



## keybored (Sep 9, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The Evening Standard story appeared five days ago.


Do you think that's how TfL learned of the incident?


----------



## JimW (Sep 9, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The Evening Standard story appeared five days ago.
> 
> If TFL got the tapes, then got quality lipreaders in do the analysis in that short period of time - well, it's edifying to hear that your bloated transit organization functions a hell of a lot more quickly and efficiently than our bloated transit organization.


Again, I think the suggestion is that if it comes to that in a full investigation, the driver's story will be borne out, not a claim that it's happened yet. But Topcat can speak for himself.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 9, 2016)

scifisam said:


> There is no such thing as an evidentiary quality lipreader. When used in court the evidence of lipreaders has no many caveats saying not to rely on it that it's worthless. Different accents and idiolects make small differences in mouth movements impossible to distinguish, whereas the difference between "yes" and "no" doesn't require any special skills.



The lip-reading thing is bollocks. The CCTV used on buses has a ridiculously low frame rate. It's simply not possible for anyone to read anything from lip movements.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 9, 2016)

Gromit said:


> 7 days ago on another site.
> 
> When was the complaint to TFL made?
> That's when the investigation would have begun.
> Not when the papers got around to reporting it.





> Omar Okai said the “humiliating” incident happened after he had enjoyed an evening out with his boyfriend in central London *on Friday*.



The story's byline in the ES:



> FRANCESCA GILLETT
> Monday 5 September 2016



So, the incident happened seven days ago.

In other words, five working days, plus a weekend.

Damn good turnaround on an investigation.


----------



## Skyfallsz (Sep 9, 2016)

I personally feel this kind of thing leaves a nasty taste in one’s mouth, and that the perpetrators need to be taken firmly in hand.


----------



## snadge (Sep 9, 2016)

This thread is why I think urban has been taken over by the windowlickers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The Evening Standard story appeared five days ago.
> 
> If TFL got the tapes, then got quality lipreaders in do the analysis in that short period of time - well, it's edifying to hear that your bloated transit organization functions a hell of a lot more quickly and efficiently than our bloated transit organization.


Don't know how things are in Canada but in the UK you don't need to wait weeks for trained lipreaders to turn up


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

snadge said:


> This thread is why I think urban has been taken over by the windowlickers.


No, it's the same people but they've taken up licking windows


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> It's simply not possible for anyone to read anything from lip movements.


That's a pity because deaf people have been doing it for years and hearing people have too


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 9, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Don't know how things are in Canada but in the UK you don't need to wait weeks for trained lipreaders to turn up



The main hold-back here is getting the dog sled teams outfitted to bring the readers in.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The main hold-back here is getting the dog sled teams outfitted to bring the readers in.


Why, can't one of the millions of car drivers in Canada do the job?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 9, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Why, can't one of the millions of car drivers in Canada do the job?



You know: that's a good idea!


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Sep 9, 2016)

So after 19 pages most people are agreed that the not-phobic driver told a couple of pissed ups to vacate the vicinity.

Is that right?


----------



## Sirena (Sep 10, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> So after 19 pages most people are agreed that the not-phobic driver told a couple of pissed ups to vacate the vicinity.
> 
> Is that right?


No


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 10, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> So after 19 pages most people are agreed that the not-phobic driver told a couple of pissed ups to vacate the vicinity.
> 
> Is that right?


 
I think we've got as far as agreeing that route 25 does not have boris buses on it

We have not agreed whether 'boris buses' is the appropriate term to use.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> That's a pity because deaf people have been doing it for years and hearing people have too



From 1 frame per second CCTV? Try not quoting me out of context next time.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 10, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I like the way the thread has turned around and the alleged victims are scum and the driver is practically a hero.
> 
> 
> 
> I see what you did there. Very clever. You are correct; mind. Your illness is called homophobia. You also suffer from an affliction of racism and misogyny. Have a big weird gay smile from me to compensate.



I'm on the edge. Please......stop.

Please.

I beg you


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 10, 2016)




----------



## Casually Red (Sep 10, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Really? On Urban?
> 
> TBH I'm still sceptical about taking what you say with 100% confidence even though, like I said, I do hope you're right. Sorry (honestly), but when it's your colleague and it's so soon after the events it's hard to just take you at your word. I mean, if taking people at their word was so acceptable then this bus driver would have been reprimanded regardless of whether he did it or not, wouldn't he?
> 
> BTW, to repeat what he said before, if the men were lying that should be widely publicised. If it's a matter of the driver not being able to prove he didn't say it, and the passengers not being able to prove he did, then the driver shouldn't be reprimanded but neither should the passengers be vilified.


They're 2 cunts. Shut up and stop defending them . You're almost as bad as "dddddrrraaaaaama " there.

Actually you'd have a fair bit to go to be in the same league but shut up anyway .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 10, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Still waiting for someone to explain why are only gay men allowed to comment on an* activity enjoyed by straight men and women*?



Arguing like fuck ?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> urban has been awarded a purple heart on the basis of this thread.



I thought it went badly downhill after Rutita bailed. Wasn't the same .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 10, 2016)

E="Johnny Canuck3, post: 14694035, member: 48221"]How big is a 'decent-sized possibility'?[/QUOTE]

How big would you like it to be ?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 10, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> One bus driver vouching for another seems reminiscent of one cop hearing the story of another cop, and then vouching for him/her.




Indeed.

This is typical







Typical.


Funny enough I think they're attempting to lip read and all.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 10, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> the lads .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 10, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> One bus driver vouching for another seems reminiscent of one cop hearing the story of another cop, and then vouching for him/her.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> From 1 frame per second CCTV? Try not quoting me out of context next time.


Why do you believe the cab camera's frame rate is slower now than it was five years ago? I think it's because you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 10, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> I'm on the edge. Please......stop.
> 
> Please.
> 
> I beg you



Can't you just fucking stop that?


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Why do you believe the cab camera's frame rate is slower now than it was five years ago? I think it's because you don't know what you're talking about.



Show me some London bus CCTV where the frame rate is sufficient to lipread.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2016)

Scifisam said:
			
		

> Nah, because they didn't say the first bit, that was the newspaper. And if they were lying about the comment from the driver then they were lying about being thrown off ...



Nonsense. They were lying about the comment from the driver _because_ they were thrown off.

The passengers story has stunk from the beginning. First we're expected to believe that the driver picked them as gay from driving past them. Ok, they my have been snogging or wearing some other identifier that he picked up on, but I doubt it. The fact that Okai wanted "_an explanation_, as well as an apology" rang more alarm bells, as did his account of how it played out. It's just not the kind of language I'd expect someone to use in a genuine situation. It's embellished. And why aren't there any witnesses from all the other passengers?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Show me some London bus CCTV where the frame rate is sufficient to lipread.


And I'll take that as an admission you don't


----------



## two sheds (Sep 10, 2016)

What surprises me most about this whole sorry affair is that the  CCTV cameras don't have a microphones.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> And I'll take that as an admission you don't



You made the assertion that deaf people have been lip reading London bus CCTV for years, so you're the one who needs to back it up.


----------



## Skyfallsz (Sep 10, 2016)

It's amazing how a thread like 'Putin murders bodyguard' or 'Japan triples military spending' will be two or three pages long, but 'two gay men thrown off a bus, claim it's discrimination' is 20


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> You made the assertion that deaf people have been lip reading London bus CCTV for years, so you're he one who needs to back it up.


No, I said it was possible to see what people were saying from their lip movements. And it is, dander down the road today and if you've an ounce of wit you should be able to pick up a word or two from observing other people.


----------



## Athos (Sep 10, 2016)

My understanding is that the minimum requirement for bus cab cctv is a frame rate of four, which is about a tenth of what would be required to lip read.  But, it's possible that the frame rate in this instance was greater. And, given another trusted poster has said that a lip reader was able to analyse the footage, that seems probable. But we won't know for sure until the evidence is released.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2016)

Start those threads and let's see what happens Skyfallsz


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> No, I said it was possible to see what people were saying from their lip movements. And it is, dander down the road today and if you've an ounce of wit you should be able to pick up a word or two from observing other people.



yes you quoted only the last sentence of my post to completely twist the meaning. Well done.



bi0boy said:


> The lip-reading thing is bollocks. The CCTV used on buses has a ridiculously low frame rate. It's simply not possible for anyone to read anything from lip movements.





Pickman's model said:


> > It's simply not possible for anyone to read anything from lip movements.
> 
> 
> That's a pity because deaf people have been doing it for years and hearing people have too


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> yes you quoted only the last sentence of my post to completely twist the meaning. Well done.


Being as you had already picked up on my only quoting your second sentence the reasons I can see for your post 575 are stupidity, dishonesty or forgetfulness. Which is it - or is it a combination?


----------



## andysays (Sep 10, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The passengers story has stunk from the beginning. First we're expected to believe that the driver picked them as gay from driving past them. Ok, they my have been snogging or wearing some other identifier that he picked up on, but I doubt it. The fact that Okai wanted "an explanation, as well as an apology" rang more alarm bells, as did his account of how it played out, and why aren't there any witnesses from all the other passengers?



I think what this thread has highlighted more than anything else is that in situations like this where allegations are being thrown around, there are always people who are inclined immediately to believe or disbelieve on the basis of whether they identify or not with the person doing the accusing, or the one who is being accused, on the basis of very little hard information.

All that's really in the public domain so far are the original accusations and versions of them in various media. There hasn't yet been any opportunity to properly test those accusations, including full examination of any CCTV footage or the testimony of potential witness.

Anyone who claims at this stage to know exactly what happened, exactly what is significant or exactly where the blame lies is either a fool or a rogue.

So far, so typically fucking Urban...

(that's not directed at you Spy, just sort of follows on from your post, particularly the bit about possible witnesses)


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Being as you had already picked up on my only quoting your second sentence the reasons I can see for your post 575 are stupidity, dishonesty or forgetfulness. Which is it - or is it a combination?



A presumption that your selective quoting was done accidentally rather than as some kind of twattery. Obviously I should have known better.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2016)

andysays said:


> I think what this thread has highlighted more than anything else is that in situations like this where allegations are being thrown around, there are always people who are inclined immediately to believe or disbelieve on the basis of whether they identify or not with the person doing the accusing, or the one who is being accused, on the basis of very little hard information.
> 
> All that's really in the public domain so far are the original accusations and versions of them in various media. There hasn't yet been any opportunity to properly test those accusations, including full examination of any CCTV footage or the testimony of potential witness.
> 
> ...


Well yes, and there's nothing that gets the Urban juices flowing quite like accusations of homophobia or racism but a little bit of critical thought wouldn't have gone amiss here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> A presumption that your selective quoting was done accidentally rather than as some kind of twattery. Obviously I should have known better.


Ah: stupidity. Especially as all quotes are by definition selective.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well yes, and there's nothing that gets the Urban juices flowing quite like accusations of homophobia or racism but a little bit of critical thought wouldn't have gone amiss here.


Or misogyny pa


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Or misogyny pa


Well done son, just keeping you on your toes.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 10, 2016)

We clearly need better CCTV on Routemasters. Perhaps we could call them Spymasters


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 10, 2016)

maomao said:


> Well it's been clear since day one they were lying about 'a homophobic rant' and being thrown off the bus for being gay. Can we villify them for that?


Yes.


----------



## campanula (Sep 10, 2016)

When a swinish bus-driver threw me off several stops before mine (because I was 20p short) I was pissed...but knowing they work 12hour shifts for the Stagecoach grifters mollified my rage somewhat - less pleased when another bus-driver squashed my bike wheel at a roundabout but you know...bus-drivers! Almost as bad as taxi-drivers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2016)

campanula said:


> When a swinish bus-driver threw me off several stops before mine (because I was 20p short) I was pissed


often found a walk helped me sober up


----------



## A380 (Sep 10, 2016)

Yeah bus drivers, uppity working class oikes not knowing their place. Need a damn good media thrashing for throwing me of the bus, I'm a fucking THEATRE DIRECTOR I'll have you know.


----------



## Skyfallsz (Sep 10, 2016)

A380 said:


> Yeah bus drivers, uppity working class oikes not knowing their place. Need a damn good media thrashing for throwing me of the bus, I'm a fucking THEATRE DIRECTOR I'll have you know.



Probably voted Brexit, the shit


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 10, 2016)

A380 said:


> Yeah bus drivers, uppity working class oikes not knowing their place. Need a damn good media thrashing for throwing me of the bus, I'm a fucking THEATRE DIRECTOR I'll have you know.



It's always so edifying when people criticize the potential victims of alleged crimes before any official investigation is complete.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> It's always so edifying when people criticize the potential victims of alleged crimes before any official investigation is complete.


what crime do you believe may have been committed?


----------



## A380 (Sep 10, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> It's always so edifying when people criticize the potential victims of alleged crimes before any official investigation is complete.


Sorry not read anything in any of the above that suggests either party was alleged of committing any crimes. Possiblely civil issues arising from either alleged course of actions.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> what crime do you believe may have been committed?



The one that the police are investigating


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 10, 2016)

A380 said:


> Sorry not read anything in any of the above that suggests either party was alleged of committing any crimes. Possiblely civil issues arising from either alleged course of actions.



Really? How about Section 29 of the Equality Act 2010?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> The one that the police are investigating


And you believe that's a crime. The crime that dare not speak its name.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Really? How about Section 29 of the Equality Act 2010?


And that is...


----------



## A380 (Sep 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> And that is...


A requirement to provide equal access if you are a provider of services to the public * . A great piece of equality legislation, but contravention is not criminal.


*Unless you are a religion or, for some reason, an airline.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2016)

A380 said:


> A requirement to provide equal access if you are a provider of services to the public * . A great piece of equality legislation, but contravention is not criminal.
> 
> 
> *Unless you are a religion or, for some reason, an airline.


there is of course a crime the police might investigate, namely wasting police time. but that wouldn't be against the bus driver.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 10, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> I'm on the edge. Please......stop.
> 
> Please.
> 
> I beg you



Extraordinary. You're mocking my illness, in order to justify your homophobia? Magnificent work.

And what's wrong with referring to them as _the lads? _Does their homosexuality negate that term, some how?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2016)

bi0boy fail it appears.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> bi0boy fail it appears.



Verbal homophobic abuse in public is a hate crime. It would be Section 5 Public Order Act 1988 which would be aggravated by virtue of Section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Happy now?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2016)

He's got you there, son.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Verbal homophobic abuse in public is a hate crime. It would be Section 5 Public Order Act 1988 which would be aggravated by virtue of Section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Happy now?


there is no public order act 1988.


Spymaster said:


> He's got you there, son.


no he doesn't, pa


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> there is no public order act 1988.
> 
> no he doesn't, pa


Good lad.

Brings a tear to me eye.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 10, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Verbal homophobic abuse in public is a hate crime. It would be Section 5 *Public Order Act 1988* which would be aggravated by virtue of Section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Happy now?



1986 I think?



> *5Harassment, alarm or distress.*
> (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
> 
> F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
> ...



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64

Would this apply if someone was at work at the time?
I would imagine employment procedures and conditions of employment would be expected to cover any such behaviour?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> 1986 I think?


bingo


----------



## Athos (Sep 10, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> 1986 I think?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, it would apply to someone at work.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 10, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> And what's wrong with referring to them as _the lads? _Does their homosexuality negate that term, some how?



Not in the slightest . I'm sure there are plenty of gay venues were lads regularly hang out .

However why your coninually using this term to describe men in their 50s , who aren't from Tyne and Wear , and whom you don't remotely know ...all of which are grounds to negate its commonly understood usage...is a bit of a mystery .


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 10, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> It's amazing how a thread like 'Putin murders bodyguard' or 'Japan triples military spending' will be two or three pages long, but 'two gay men thrown off a bus, claim it's discrimination' is 20



It could be that while those things are interesting in their own right, they seem kind of remote, kind of tangential.

People getting treated like shit by the local bus driver, is something that feels very immediate and relevant to our daily lives.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 10, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Not in the slightest . I'm sure there are plenty of gay venues were lads regularly hang out .
> 
> However why your coninually using this term to describe *men in their 50s* , who aren't from *Tyne and Wear *, and whom you don't remotely know ...all of which are grounds to negate its commonly understood usage...is a bit of a mystery .



I'm sure with your exhaustive network of LGBT folks in the Republic & the UK, you can tell me what the proper term is.

Here's a clue: there is no proper term. Blokes from 18 to 88 are called "lads" all over the place. Straight, gay or otherwise. Men in their 50s. Tchh.

Well, fuck my rusty sherrif's badge. Looks like you can add ageism to your list of sins. 

Facepalm, indeed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 10, 2016)

Think this is definitely the shittest thread of the year.

I can only take a small part of the credit, but I did my small bit.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 10, 2016)

ooooo I don't know, there's stiff competition from threads like Does Israel have the right to exist?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 10, 2016)

two sheds said:


> ooooo I don't know, there's stiff competition from threads like Does Israel have the right to exist?



The "good egg" thread isn't too far behind...


----------



## A380 (Sep 10, 2016)

Hate crimes are just a category the old bill have made up, they  have no statutory existence at all. For a section Five a bit more than being unpleasant is required, quite rightly. Even calling someone a cunt a few times is unlikely to get you charged so I doubt the alleged comments by the working class bus driver would meet the CPS threshold. The theatre director was probably guilty of a technical drunk and disorderly but that would never get charged either. Either version amounts to twatish behaviour but we haven't criminalised that yet.


----------



## snadge (Sep 10, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> The "good egg" thread isn't too far behind...




Good egg thread contributions are intellectual compared to some of the me me me contributions in this thread.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 10, 2016)

snadge said:


> Good egg thread contributions are intellectual compared to some of the me me me contributions in this thread.



Excellent contribution. Once again.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 10, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> The "good egg" thread isn't too far behind...



I've missed that one


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 10, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I've missed that one


It's got one poster offering out another. It may be shit but it has highlights.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2016)

A380 said:


> ... twatish behaviour but we haven't criminalised that yet.


Thank the lord!

DingDong would be doing life.


----------



## Skyfallsz (Sep 11, 2016)

two sheds said:


> ooooo I don't know, there's stiff competition from threads like Does Israel have the right to exist?



That ome is just boring pedantry for the most part. This one is a massive discussion based on something that nobody knows what even happened, much sillier


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 11, 2016)

When I see the title of this thread, I expect it to be followed up with 'one turns to the other and says...' (cue punchline).


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 11, 2016)

And regardless of whether what's being reported actually happened, why are some people talking as if this kind of thing can be eradicated completely? 

Sure enough it's wrong, but just because 'hate speech' etc is now deemed unacceptable, it doesn't mean that people aren't still thinking the bigoted thoughts they've always had. They're still bound to be expressed on occasion.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 11, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> And regardless of whether what's being reported actually happened, why are some people talking as if this kind of thing can be eradicated completely?
> 
> Sure enough it's wrong, but just because 'hate speech' etc is now deemed unacceptable, it doesn't mean that people aren't still thinking the bigoted thoughts they've always had. They're still bound to be expressed on occasion.



I'd like to think one day it will be a thing of the past. Naive, I know but the more people stand up to homophobia, say such comments and jokes are unacceptable - the more it's highlighted - the message should get across.

Of course you can't stop people thinking such things - that's down to them!


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 11, 2016)

Maybe a lot of people are pissed off at constantly being told what is and isn't acceptable? It seems to make some people worse. It's a bit like having a patronising schoolteacher on your back all the time. 

Most people are actually very tolerant despite personal attitudes. At least in my experience.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 11, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> Maybe a lot of people are pissed off at constantly being told what is and isn't acceptable? It seems to make some people worse. It's a bit like having a patronising schoolteacher on your back all the time.
> 
> Most people are actually very tolerant despite personal attitudes. At least in my experience.



Do _you_ think making unpleasant comments about people's sexuality is acceptable?


----------



## snadge (Sep 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I'd like to think one day it will be a thing of the past. Naive, I know but the more people stand up to homophobia, say such comments and jokes are unacceptable - the more it's highlighted - the message should get across.
> 
> Of course you can't stop people thinking such things - that's down to them!



And a lot of people just spout a torrent of consciousness.


----------



## snadge (Sep 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Do _you_ think making unpleasant comments about people's sexuality is acceptable?



No, next?


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Do _you_ think making unpleasant comments about people's sexuality is acceptable?


 No.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 11, 2016)

A380 said:


> Hate crimes are just a category the old bill have made up, they  have no statutory existence at all.



complete bollocks

why do you bother?


----------



## snadge (Sep 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Do _you_ think making unpleasant comments about people's sexuality is acceptable?




In some cases yes, would you say rape was a type of sexuality? Or sex pesting? peadophillia?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 11, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> No.



And are you, personally, constantly being told what is and isn't acceptable??


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 11, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> Maybe a lot of people are pissed off at constantly being told what is and isn't acceptable? It seems to make some people worse. It's a bit like having a patronising schoolteacher on your back all the time.



You joined today just to tell us that?



> *Most people are actually very tolerant despite personal attitudes.* At least in my experience.



I think you will find that _personal attitudes_ are what make people tolerant or not.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 11, 2016)

snadge said:


> In some cases yes, would you say rape was a type of sexuality? Or sex pesting? peadophillia?



You need to distinguish between sexual behaviour and sexuality. Your question therefore doesn't make any sense.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 11, 2016)

snadge said:


> In some cases yes, would you say rape was a type of sexuality? Or sex pesting? peadophillia?



Is this particular thread about rapists, paedophiles or predators? Do you think that's what I was referring to?


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 11, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> You joined today just to tell us that?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you will find that _personal attitudes_ are what make people tolerant or not.


 Everybody joins some day or other and tells somebody something.

Personal attitudes can't be regulated. I know one or two fairly bigoted people, but they rarely seem to offend anybody.Partly lack of courage, partly self-doubt etc, and a multitude of other reasons.  So it isn't personal attitudes that count primarily.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> And are you, personally, constantly being told what is and isn't acceptable??


Yes, most people are now that the chattering busybodys have gained control.

Most people seem to just laugh it off and carry on doing and thinking what they always have.


----------



## Athos (Sep 11, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> You joined today just to tell us that?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you will find that _personal attitudes_ are what make people tolerant or not.


I think they're trying to express the difference between e.g. someone who doesn't think homosexuality is wrong, and someone who thinks it is, but shows tolerance to others' sexuality i.e. doesn't consciously treat gay people any differently. Literally the difference between embracing difference and merely tolerating it. At best, the law can hope to mandate tolerant behaviour; it can't address the underlying issue.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> I think they're trying to express the difference between e.g. someone who doesn't think homosexuality is wrong, and someone who thinks it is, but shows tolerance to others' sexually i.e. doesn't consciously treat gay people any differently. Literally the difference between embracing difference and merely tolerating it. At best, the law can hope to mandate tolerant behaviour; it can't address the underlying issue.


That's what I mean. Some people are bound to think it's wrong. You can't do anything about that other than force people not to discriminate.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 11, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> Yes, most people are now that the chattering busybodys have gained control.
> 
> Most people seem to just laugh it off and carry on doing and thinking what they always have.



So - most people are constantly being told what is acceptable or not? How often does it happen to you? 

I get the "jokes" and stupid comments quite often. Sometimes I laugh it off & sometimes I say that it's not on, it's offensive. Am I one of the "chattering busybodys"?

And are said "chattering busybodys" related to the PC Brigade, by any chance?


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> So - most people are constantly being told what is acceptable or not? How often does it happen to you?
> 
> I get the "jokes" and stupid comments quite often. Sometimes I laugh it off & sometimes I say that it's not on, it's offensive. Am I one of the "chattering busybodys"?
> 
> And are said "chattering busybodys" related to the PC Brigade, by any chance?


Every day, it seems sometimes.

Yes, you do come across as one of the chattering busybodys, but I wouldn't bother yourself too much about the fact that some people will think that. It's all part of life's rich tapestry.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 11, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> Every day, it seems sometimes.
> 
> Yes, you do come across as one of the chattering busybodys, but I wouldn't bother yourself too much about the fact that some people will think that. It's all part of life's rich tapestry.



"It seems". And do these comments hurt? Do you yearn for a better world where people have the freedom to denigrate others because of their sexuality without fear of persecution from the chattering busybodys?


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> "It seems". And do these comments hurt? Do you yearn for a better world where people have the freedom to denigrate others because of their sexuality without fear of persecution from the chattering busybodys?


No, they don't hurt, these comments.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 11, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> No, they don't hurt, these comments.



So, what are you complaining about, then? You're free to call me a "chattering busybody".

You didn't explain why (and I imagine you won't be able to properly back up any of your comments before you get rumbled) but you're still free to do it.

Nobody will beat you up, spit on you, denigrate your sexuality for it.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 11, 2016)

I'm not complaining particularly, just making a few observations.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 11, 2016)

I wonder ..given the theatre background...will there ever be a play made about this brouhaha ? And what the title will be ?

A Streetcar Named Massive fucking Liar ?

Shitstorm on the Buses ?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 11, 2016)

smokedout said:


> And as such leaving them liable to prosecution if their version of events, no doubt witnessed by dozens of people and on CCTV, turns out to be untrue. People do make false allegations to the police, but a 51 year old theatre director risking his career and possible prosecution over a row on a bus doesn't strike me as more plausible than a grumpy homophobic bus driver acting like an arse on a late shift.



What's this hierchical crap?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 11, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> Maybe a lot of people are pissed off at constantly being told what is and isn't acceptable? ...





Jurrihahay said:


> Yes, most people are now that the chattering busybodys have gained control...





Jurrihahay said:


> I'm not complaining particularly, just making a few observations.



No, I'd say you're making a lot of generalisations. You clearly have a complaint to make. 

You just haven't found your feet yet, I imagine. I'm sure we'll see.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 11, 2016)

Is there some kind of appeals panel I can make this obvious complaint to?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 11, 2016)




----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 11, 2016)

A380 said:


> Hate crimes are just a category the old bill have made up, they  have no statutory existence at all. For a section Five a bit more than being unpleasant is required, quite rightly. Even calling someone a cunt a few times is unlikely to get you charged so I doubt the alleged comments by the working class bus driver would meet the CPS threshold. The theatre director was probably guilty of a technical drunk and disorderly but that would never get charged either. Either version amounts to twatish behaviour but we haven't criminalised that yet.


We need to be more like Europe, where this kind of things doesn't happen and they have civilized drinking and take their kids in bars and all that.


----------



## Ole (Sep 11, 2016)

smokedout said:


> And as such leaving them liable to prosecution if their version of events, no doubt witnessed by dozens of people and on CCTV, turns out to be untrue. People do make false allegations to the police, but a 51 year old theatre director risking his career and possible prosecution over a row on a bus doesn't strike me as more plausible than a grumpy homophobic bus driver acting like an arse on a late shift.



Dumb prole homophobic bus driver vs gentleman middle-aged theatre director. 

Bus driving vs. 'a career'.

Fuck the facts. It's already obvious who is in the right and who is in the wrong.


----------



## Ole (Sep 11, 2016)

This forum is a fucking cuntsoup sometimes.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 11, 2016)

Ole said:


> Dumb prole homophobic bus driver vs gentleman middle-aged theatre director.
> 
> Bus driving vs. 'a career'.
> 
> Fuck the facts. It's already obvious who is in the right and who is in the wrong.




Doesn't even think of asking why a bus driver would risk his career and pension homophobically and racially abusing passengers for no reason. And assumes it was the sober worker who was " acting the arse " and not the 2 punters who'd been out drinking for the night .

Stinking


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 11, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Doesn't even think of asking why a bus driver would risk his career and pension homophobically and racially abusing passengers for no reason.



Like it's never happened before


----------



## Ole (Sep 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Like it's never happened before


Have two blokes on a night out ever acted like nobheads before? 

What's more of a regular occurrence, you reckon?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Like it's never happened before



That bus driver has been accused of this before ?


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 11, 2016)

Ole said:


> Have two blokes on a night out ever acted like nobheads before?
> 
> What's more of a regular occurrence, you reckon?



Great comparison there 

You should compare instances of homophobia with instances of gay people falsely claiming they were subject to homophobia

Maybe you can then move on to look at instances of rape vs instances of falsified rape allegations. Classy


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Great comparison there
> 
> You should compare instances of homophobia with instances of gay people falsely claiming they were subject to homophobia
> 
> Maybe you can then move on to look at instances of rape vs instances of falsified rape allegations. Classy



Ok there's one

Woman jailed for attributing false homophobic remarks to DUP’s Jim Wells

Does that now give everyone license to assume gay people are inveterate liars ? Just you think bus drivers are probably racist homophobes. Because it's a drunken theatre managers word against his ?


----------



## Ole (Sep 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Great comparison there
> 
> You should compare instances of homophobia with instances of gay people falsely claiming they were subject to homophobia
> 
> Maybe you can then move on to look at instances of rape vs instances of falsified rape allegations. Classy



I'd rather just judge every situation on the facts once they've presented themselves. You stick to picking sides based on the socioeconomic backgrounds of the people involved, you little shit.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 11, 2016)

Ole said:


> I'd rather just judge every situation on the facts once they've presented themselves. You stick to picking sides based on the socioeconomic backgrounds of the people involved, you little shit.



I've never mentioned anyone's socioeconomic background, nor have I picked sides 

But yeah - stick to the facts


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 11, 2016)

..


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 11, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Ok there's one
> 
> Woman jailed for attributing false homophobic remarks to DUP’s Jim Wells



woosh


----------



## Ole (Sep 11, 2016)

Righto. Stop wasting my fucking time.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 11, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Does that now give everyone license to assume gay people are inveterate liars ? Just you think bus drivers are probably racist homophobes. Because it's a drunken theatre managers word against his ?



Keep on asking yourself rhetorical questions and convince yourself you are right


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 11, 2016)

Ole said:


> Righto. Stop wasting my fucking time.



So why are you on the thread exactly?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 11, 2016)

I am right. The 2 dickheads were telling lies. And you're a fucking snob .


----------



## Ole (Sep 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> So why are you on the thread exactly?



Two gay men thrown off a London bus



bi0boy said:


> I've never mentioned anyone's socioeconomic background, nor have I picked sides
> 
> But yeah - stick to the facts



You said bus drivers have been homophobic before, implying it was fair to presume guilt in this instance. I asked you whether two blokes on a night out have acted like nobheads before. It was intended to demonstrate why your argument was trash. 

I'm done with you.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 11, 2016)

Ole said:


> Two gay men thrown off a London bus
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If that's your reading of what I posted, good.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 11, 2016)

snadge said:


> In some cases yes, would you say rape was a type of sexuality? Or sex pesting? peadophillia?


Just fuck off. Please.



Jurrihahay said:


> Everybody joins some day or other and tells somebody something.
> 
> Personal attitudes can't be regulated. I know one or two fairly bigoted people, but they rarely seem to offend anybody.Partly lack of courage, partly self-doubt etc, and a multitude of other reasons.  So it isn't personal attitudes that count primarily.


Attitudes cannot be regulated no - but actions can. I expect I might have someone shout dyke at me on a bus again, but since the Equality Act I don't expect to be denied access to a bus or thrown off a bus for being a dyke or acting dykey.  Or denied access to any goods or services. (I've no idea of the rights or wrongs of this particular case.)

Attitudes can be changed too.  I often can't beleive the the shift in public attitudes that have taken place in my lifetime.



Jurrihahay said:


> Every day, it seems sometimes.
> 
> Yes, you do come across as one of the chattering busybodys, but I wouldn't bother yourself too much about the fact that some people will think that. It's all part of life's rich tapestry.


  I never found homophobia, or discrimation or bigotry of any kind to be a pleasant part of 'life's rich tapestry'.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 11, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> Just fuck off. Please.
> 
> 
> Attitudes cannot be regulated no - but actions can. I expect I might have someone shout dyke at me on a bus again, but since the Equality Act I don't expect to be denied access to a bus or thrown off a bus for being a dyke or acting dykey.  Or denied access to any goods or services. (I've no idea of the rights or wrongs of this particular case.)
> ...


I've already said that discrimination can't be tolerated.

And never said discrimination or bigotry is part of life's rich tapestry, but that people thinking others may be chattering busybodys is.

I agree attitudes have changed somewhat in our lifetimes, but I also find that bigotry remains widespread even if unexpressed. A lot of people are bound to be bigots. Constant nagging about wrong 'attitudes' may have the effect of reinforcing it.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 11, 2016)

Errm so far you seem to be constantly nagging about wrong 'attitudes' though.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 11, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Errm so far you seem to be constantly nagging about wrong 'attitudes' though.




I do?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 11, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Actually from a quick search it seems the theatre he's a director of is actually a pub.  And he's currently working on a  production (signing on) according to his twitter feed.  We don't know much about hs partner, but a 51 year old guy from Bethnal Green doing a bit of part time theatre production in a pub and having to jump the bus fare (if true) does not shout pampered middle class to me.  Working class blagger who likes the theatre and has managed to work on a few shows at small theatres seems more likely.



I like this shift of position from Career Theatre Director can't be lying to Working Class Blagger, upon further reading, isn't as pampered as what I earlier defended.


----------



## Ole (Sep 11, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I like this shift of position from Career Theatre Director can't be lying to Working Class Blagger, upon further reading, isn't as pampered as what I earlier defended.


Simultaneously "Theatre Director with an Actual Career to lose" and "Working Class Blagger who likes the Theatre" depending on who's asking. What a fucking joker.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> Constant nagging about wrong 'attitudes' may have the effect of reinforcing it.



The poor things. Sick of being told what to do, not able to be who they are and say what they feel. Beyond sadness.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> The poor things. Sick of being told what to do, not able to be and say and who they are and feel. Beyond sadness.


Doubt if they want or need your pity.


----------



## snadge (Sep 12, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> Just fuck off. Please.



There is a lot of people that should just fuck off, some of them are on this thread.

You are not one, neither am I, some are though.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 12, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> A lot of people are bound to be bigots. Constant nagging about wrong 'attitudes' may have the effect of reinforcing it.



Aw, the poor baby bigots. 

I'm joking, of course. Fuck them. They can think whatever they want inside their own heads; but if they open their mouths and let their bigotry out, the right response is for any passersby to yell at them, to let them know that their asshole behavior is not acceptable in society anymore.

And if that makes them twice as bigoted: who cares?, so long as they keep their bullshit thoughts to themselves.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 12, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Aw, the poor baby bigots.
> 
> I'm joking, of course. Fuck them. They can think whatever they want inside their own heads; but if they open their mouths and let their bigotry out, the right response is for any passersby to yell at them, to let them know that their asshole behavior is not acceptable in society anymore.
> 
> And if that makes them twice as bigoted: who cares?, so long as they keep their bullshit thoughts to themselves.


 Well, quite-and that's all that can be done in many, if not most cases. The idea that you can have a society entirely without prejudice is a mere pipe dream. What counts is who has the upper-hand-the bigots or the rest. And, of course, I haven't been talking about people yelling at racists and homophobes in the street, but the full-time 'outraged' class who can't seem to see that the rest of society doesn't particularly want to be just like them. 

In this age of identity politics, it is usually overlooked that it is bigotry and prejudice that gives some people a sense of who they are. And they're not all white or heterosexual. Just look at the naked class hatred spewing forth from the self-righteous, chattering busybody strata after Brexit. They might as well go the whole hog, some of them, and embrace their own form of fascism. Why should the lower orders be allowed to have a say? Next thing they'll be doing away with our pavement cafes and hot yoga studios.


----------



## Athos (Sep 12, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> Well, quite-and that's all that can be done in many, if not most cases. The idea that you can have a society entirely without prejudice is a mere pipe dream. What counts is who has the upper-hand-the bigots or the rest.



That's an over-simplification. Whilst you're right that a state cannot legislate bigotry out of existence, there's lots that societies can do to reduce the reproduction of those attitudes. It's not just a case of accepting current levels of bigoted attitudes, but simply preventing their expression.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 12, 2016)

Athos said:


> That's an over-simplification. Whilst you're right that a state cannot legislate bigotry out of existence, there's lots that societies can do to reduce the reproduction of those attitudes. It's not just a case of accepting current levels of bigoted attitudes, but simply preventing their expression.


Don't think I've suggested that some people's views can't be challenged and changed. But I suppose it depends on who you've always had to mix with that determines your level of optimism on this issue. There are plenty of people who just won't budge on their prejudices.


----------



## Athos (Sep 12, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> Don't think I've suggested that some people's views can't be challenged and changed. But I suppose it depends on who you've always had to mix with that determines your level of optimism on this issue. There are plenty of people who just won't budge on their prejudices.


Maybe, but maybe they're kids or grandkids won't feel the same. Some of my grandparents were 'casual' racists, but, as society's views has shifted, that's not been passed on.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 12, 2016)

Athos said:


> Maybe, but maybe they're kids or grandkids won't feel the same. Some of my grandparents were 'casual' racists, but, as society's views has shifted, that's not been passed on.


I've noticed this tendency, but even then it isn't completely straightforward. For instance, I have black and Arab married-in relatives. Some family members, though, while completely accepting of them as people and willing to understand their cultures etc etc, still often express the wish that the country would stop letting so many foreigners in, and bemoan the way that certain areas have been changed out of all recognition by immigration. That goes for the younger ones as well. And they're miles away from being proto-fascists.


----------



## Athos (Sep 12, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> I've noticed this tendency, but even then it isn't completely straightforward. For instance, I have black and Arab married-in relatives. Some family members, though, while completely accepting of them as people and willing to understand their cultures etc etc, still often express the wish that the country would stop letting so many foreigners in, and bemoan the way that certain areas have been changed out of all recognition by immigration. That goes for the younger ones as well. And they're miles away from being proto-fascists.


Yes, it's too slow. And sometimes three steps forward two steps back, but, overall, the direction of travel is positive.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> I've noticed this tendency, but even then it isn't completely straightforward. For instance, I have black and Arab married-in relatives. Some family members, though, while completely accepting of them as people and willing to understand their cultures etc etc, still often express the wish that the country would stop letting so many foreigners in, and bemoan the way that certain areas have been changed out of all recognition by immigration. That goes for the younger ones as well. And they're miles away from being proto-fascists.



I've heard immigrants saying the same. It comes from a fear of loss of economic security / challenge to social position, so not necessarily racism or xenophobia.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I've heard immigrants saying the same. It comes from a fear of loss of economic security / challenge to social position, so not necessarily racism or xenophobia.


Not to start with anyway


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Not to start with anyway



Well how does it become racism when it's Polish people saying it about other Polish people, for example?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Well how does it become racism when it's Polish people saying it about other Polish people, for example?


I wasn't making a universal statement. Where do you think racism springs from if not the factors you mentioned?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> I wasn't making a universal statement. Where do you think racism springs from if not the factors you mentioned?



I said 'not necessarily racism or xenophobia' not 'definitely isn't racism or xenophobia'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I said 'not necessarily racism or xenophobia' not 'definitely isn't racism or xenophobia'.


Good. But from what factors do you think racism emerges?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Good.



Which you then responded with 'or at least not to start with' which challenged my nuanced position with a definite - which you then denied doing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Which you then responded with 'or at least not to start with' which challenged my nuanced position with a definite - which you then denied doing.


No I didn't deny it. For a lot of people of any ethnicity racism and/or xenophobia start from the factors you identify. Yeh, maybe not poles and poles, but sure you can find people from the same er United Kingdom who might not have rubbed along entirely smoothly with the English all the time e.g. the Irish who were of course part of this great country of ours pre-1922


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> I've never mentioned anyone's socioeconomic background, nor have I picked sides
> 
> But yeah - stick to the facts



It does seem that one or two folks have tried to turn an alleged homophobic incident into a class thing. Why is this, I wonders.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> It does seem that one or two folks have tried to turn an alleged homophobic incident into a class thing. Why is this, I wonders.


Perhaps because there was, it seems, no homophobia. The alleged victims are actually the perpetrators of the misdeed, and seem to have attempted to get a working class man sacked. 

Why do you reckon?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> It does seem that one or two folks have tried to turn an alleged homophobic incident into a class thing. Why is this, I wonders.



Transport workers are regularly assaulted and abused especially on the evening shifts. You and others were quick to condemn this worker without being in possession of the full facts.
Are you middle class per chance?


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> It does seem that one or two folks have tried to turn an alleged homophobic incident into a class thing. Why is this, I wonders.


Because it's a class issue. Even in their own version of the story they admit ignoring directions from the driver, breaking the normal rules of bus travel and arguing with the driver but everyone's focus seems to be on how the bus driver treated the 'customers'. How is that not a class issue?


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> It does seem that one or two folks have tried to turn an alleged homophobic incident into a class thing. Why is this, I wonders.



Some have pointed out that there may be class elements to the story, its reporting and people's reactions to it here, and others have pointed out that there may be racial elements to the story, its reporting and people's reactions to it. 

Both of these, it seems to me, are relevant aspects to include in the discussion - the overall reality is likely to be far more complex than any idea that it's simply a homophobic incident and no other aspects can legitimately be discussed, which is what your post seems to me to suggest.

It doesn't have to be reduced one thing or the other; bringing in class or racial or other elements doesn't negate or even lessen the possible homophobic aspect, assuming it's based on a correct reporting of what was said.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> Because it's a class issue. Even in their own version of the story they admit ignoring directions from the driver, breaking the normal rules of bus travel and arguing with the driver but everyone's focus seems to be on how the bus driver treated the 'customers'. How is that not a class issue?


Because only MC people break rules? WC people always conform? Odd.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

It's funny though that it always seems to be the straight white men who bring class into discussions of racism and homophobia.


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Perhaps because there was, it seems, no homophobia. *The alleged victims are actually the perpetrators of the misdeed, and seem to have attempted to get a working class man sacked*.
> 
> Why do you reckon?



This may turn out to be what's happened, but I reckon it's too early to say that for sure, jusy as it was too early to jump to the conclusion  that the original allegation of homophobia at the start of the thread.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Because only MC people break rules? WC people also conform? Odd.


Where do you get that from my post? I'm not talking about generalities. I'm talking about this incident specifically.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Transport workers are regularly assaulted and abused especially on the evening shifts. You and others were quick to condemn this worker without being in possession of the full facts.
> Are you middle class per chance?



Class class class class class class class class... you know; if you say the word often enough; it means nothing. 

You and your fellow warriors were quick enough to shout down upset and concern from LGBT posters and others here who are sick to the core of unprovoked attacks on our brothers and sisters. This isn't the first time and it won't be the last. If you are really concerned about attacks on transport workers - why not start another thread on it? Not to dismiss such a serious subject but this has been a well planned, deliberate derail of legitimate concerns on the continuing persecution of LGBT people.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Class class class class class class class class... you know; if you say the word often enough; it means nothing.
> 
> You and your fellow warriors were quick enough to shout down upset and concern from LGBT posters and others here who are sick to the core of unprovoked attacks on our brothers and sisters. This isn't the first time and it won't be the last. If you are really concerned about attacks on transport workers - why not start another thread on it? Not to dismiss such a serious subject but this has been a well planned, deliberate derail of legitimate concerns on the continuing persecution of LGBT people.



Can you point to where I've shouted down LGBT posters or retract this lie please?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Oh this is going well


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Class class class class class class class class... you know; if you say the word often enough; it means nothing.
> 
> You and your fellow warriors were quick enough to shout down upset and concern from LGBT posters and others here who are sick to the core of unprovoked attacks on our brothers and sisters. This isn't the first time and it won't be the last. If you are really concerned about attacks on transport workers - why not start another thread on it? Not to dismiss such a serious subject but this has been a well planned, deliberate derail of legitimate concerns on the continuing persecution of LGBT people.



I don't think the two blokes who lied and tried to get the driver sacked have done an awful lot for the cause of LGBT people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I don't think the two blokes who lied and tried to get the driver sacked have done an awful lot for the cause of LGBT people.


Quite the reverse indeed


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> Because it's a class issue. Even in their own version of the story they admit ignoring directions from the driver, breaking the normal rules of bus travel and arguing with the driver but everyone's focus seems to be on how the bus driver treated the 'customers'. How is that not a class issue?



If anything, it's an alleged issue of homophobia. Class has nothing to do with it. Or it didn't until the urban warriors decided to bring it up. All that focus on "theatre punters". As if appreciating the theatre is something elite.

But hey, the warriors have been successful. We'll not raise our concerns again. We've sure been told to know our place.


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Class class class class class class class class... you know; if you say the word often enough; it means nothing....
> ...this has been a well planned, deliberate derail of legitimate concerns on the continuing persecution of LGBT people.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I don't think the two blokes who lied and tried to get the driver sacked have done an awful lot for the cause of LGBT people.



Who lied? I can't seem to find the outcome of of the TFL and police investigations anywhere...


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Can you point to where I've shouted down LGBT posters or retract this lie please?



You can retract your lie first, so.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> If anything, it's an alleged issue of homophobia. Class has nothing to do with it. Or it didn't until the urban warriors decided to bring it up. All that focus on "theatre punters". As if appreciating the theatre is something elite.
> 
> But hey, the warriors have been successful. We'll not raise our concerns again. We've sure been told to know our place.





So why didn't this happen on the thread about the two young men thrown out of Sainsburys for holding hands? Or any of the other threads about homophobic abuse over the years?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> You can retract your lie first, so.



So you admit you lied?


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Who lied? I can't seem to find the outcome of of the TFL and police investigations anywhere...


In that case you'll agree it's well out of order for the complainant to be sticking the bus drivers unobscured photo all over Twitter and encouraging abuse of him before the results of said investigation have been made public.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So you admit you lied?


Rumpole of the barfly


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

andysays said:


> View attachment 92414




And what? You want me to post a picture of a badly beaten gay man in reply?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> In that case you'll agree it's well out of order for the complainant to be sticking the bus drivers unobscured photo all over Twitter and encouraging abuse of him before the reslts of said investigation have been made public.



Don't hold your breath


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> In that case you'll agree it's well out of order for the complainant to be sticking the bus drivers unobscured photo all over Twitter and encouraging abuse of him before the reslts of said investigation have been made public.



Of course it is. Nobody here would support that.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> In that case you'll agree it's well out of order for the complainant to be sticking the bus drivers unobscured photo all over Twitter and encouraging abuse of him before the reslts of said investigation have been made public.



No. Only if the complainant is lying. Unlike us they're in a position to know the truth.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So you admit you lied?



So you admit you lied?


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> No. Only if the complainant is lying. Unlike us they're in a position to know the truth.


That's not _necessarily_ true. People are often convinced they're in the right when they're not. People often disagree with the results of such investigations.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I don't think the two blokes who lied and tried to get the driver sacked have done an awful lot for the cause of LGBT people.



I don't think your previous lies about your bisexual son and the school strikes have helped a lot either, eh?


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Of course it is. Nobody here would support that.


Well he has been doing that.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> Well he has been doing that.



You've lost me now; who's being encouraging tweets to abuse the driver? I'm not trying to stir thing up further; I'm genuinely confused.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> That's not _necessarily_ true. People are often convinced they're in the right when they're not. People often disagree with the results of such investigations.



If they're convinced they have been abused by someone, they are perfectly entitled to publicise pictures and video of the person involved, who is of course entitled to take legal action if wrongly accused.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> So you admit you lied?



No I didn't. You did though. So can you retract it please.


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> And what? You want me to post a picture of a badly beaten gay man in reply?



My post was intended to convey the message that your quoted comment 





> a well planned, deliberate derail of legitimate concerns on the continuing persecution of LGBT people


 has finally turned this thread into the car (or in this case bus) crash it has threatened to become right from the start.

I credited you with at least enough intelligence/awareness to work that out, but it now appears I was wrong


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I don't think your previous lies about your bisexual son and the school strikes have helped a lot either, eh?


What the fuck is this? You really are an obnoxious piece of steaming shit aren't you? But oh no, you're ever the _victim_. Why don't you just fuck off, once and for all?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> What the fuck is this? You really are an obnoxious piece of steaming shit aren't you? But oh no, you're ever the victim. Why don't you just fuck off, once and for all?


Well said pa


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

¿


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

Didn't krtek once accuse EoY of following him around another forum?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Didn't krtek once accuse EoY of following him around another forum?


More often than that I think you'll find. Quite the bore on the subject.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> It's grudges on threads from 2011 and 2012, pa


That'd be about right, coming from that snivelling little cunt. He moans and wails about the way he's treated but pretty much starts every fucking argument he gets into. Wanker.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> You've lost me now; who's being encouraging tweets to abuse the driver? I'm not trying to stir thing up further; I'm genuinely confused.



Omar Okai.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Didn't krtek once accuse EoY of following him around another forum?


Yes. Whilst being a racist.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I don't think your previous lies about your bisexual son and the school strikes have helped a lot either, eh?


She apologised for lying about the school strike and has never indicated that she was lying about having a bisexual son. I would have thought you'd have been a bit more sensitive about that tbh.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yes. Whilst being a racist.



Well I've caught him out lying here, which he has also admitted doing. Let's see if he has scruples to retract it.


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I don't think your previous lies about your bisexual son and the school strikes have helped a lot either, eh?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> No I didn't. You did though. So can you retract it please.



Nope. You said I was quick to condemn the driver. In fact, my first posts were to counter all the crap about us LGBT folk not being able to send ourselves up.


----------



## Cid (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> If they're convinced they have been abused by someone, they are perfectly entitled to publicise pictures and video of the person involved, who is of course entitled to take legal action if wrongly accused.



What's your point? You can publish something libellous, but you might get sued?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Well I've caught him out lying here, which he has also admitted doing. Let's see if he has scruples to retract it.



No apologies. No regrets.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I don't think the two blokes who lied and tried to get the driver sacked have done an awful lot for the cause of LGBT people.



Because when heterosexual people do something wrong that is a stain on the whole _heterosexual community_ right? What absolute tosh. Marginalising, double standards in full effect and people liked this comment.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Didn't krtek once accuse EoY of following him around another forum?



And here she is, what a surprise.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> What's your point? You can publish something libellous, but you might get sued?



My point is that there is nothing wrong in an apparent victim speaking out about their abuser before that abuser has been convicted. maomao seemed to think it was "well out of order".


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Because when heterosexual people do something wrong that is a stain on the whole heterosexual community right? What absolute tosh. Marginalising, double standards in full effect and people liked this comment.


Different. These two prawns seem to have have _used their homosexuality as a weapon_ with which to punish the driver. Therefore, yes, it is relevant.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Because when heterosexual people do something wrong that is a stain on the whole heterosexual community right? What absolute tosh. Marginalising, double standards in full effect and people liked this comment.



They liked it because it suits their agenda. They don't actually give a flying fuck about what may or may not have happened. As long as they can bring down a few posters they disagree with; job well done.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> My point is that there is nothing wrong in an apparent victim speaking out about their abuser before that abuser has been convicted. maomao seemed to think it was "well out of order".


An apparent victim but there's, according to you, nothing alleged about the abuse.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> Omar Okai.



I don't read twitter but if he's actively encouraging the abuse of the driver - that's wrong. If he's only recounting the alleged inccident - that's different.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Different. These two prawns seem to have have _used their homosexuality as a weapon_ with which to punish the driver. Therefore, yes, it is relevant.



Like, you know... "playing the race card". We all know the sort of people who accuse others of that.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> No apologies. No regrets.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Like, you know... "playing the race card".


That's exactly what it's like and it's equally dispicable.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> No apologies. No regrets.



Why did you claim I shouted down LGBT people when I've done no such thing?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Why did you claim I shouted down LGBT people when I've done no such thing?



'cos you claimed I'd convicted the driver without knowing all the facts.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


>



Shouldn't you be on the masturbation thread, laughing at teen victims of sex crimes?


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> That's exactly what it's like and it's equally dispicable.



Exactly like what's like? Your allegations of "using homosexuality as a weapon" is exactly like those cunts who accuse victims of racism of "playing the race card", despite not being in possession of any facts about the incident.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> 'cos you claimed I'd convicted the driver without knowing all the facts.



So you deliberately lied? 
Tbh this thread has been pretty polarised and I've yet to see you side with the driver.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Sure there'll be a banning or two before the day's out


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So you deliberately lied?
> Tbh this thread has been pretty polarised and I've yet to see you side with the driver.



Some people have sided with the passengers "should their story be true"
Others have sided with the driver because apparently they know for a fact that the passengers are lying middle class cunts.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I don't read twitter but if he's actively encouraging the abuse of the driver - that's wrong. If he's only recounting the alleged inccident - that's different.


His original complaint is polite but he's retweeted abusive comments.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So you deliberately lied?
> Tbh this thread has been pretty polarised and I've yet to see you side with the driver.



What, because you know he's innocent of the alleged comments? 

I've said half a dozen times that if he's innocent and the lads made up the inccident then they need exposing.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> His original complaint is polite but he's retweeted abusive comments.



Maybe he's being a dick, then. Or maybe he's angry. I hope the truth comes out, whatever the outcome.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> His original complaint is polite but he's retweeted abusive comments.



Again, perfectly understandable if he is telling the truth about the abuse.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 12, 2016)

So does anyone actually know what happened then?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Your allegations of "using homosexuality as a weapon" is exactly like those cunts who accuse victims of racism of "playing the race card" ....


Nope. It's exactly like people who _have not_ been victims of racism, saying they are. I'm believing Topcat here and following the instinct so many posters had when this story first broke.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Again, perfectly understandable if he is telling the truth about the abuse.


You've said yer man was an "abuser". So you've nailed your colours to one mast.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Shouldn't you be on the masturbation thread, laughing at teen victims of sex crimes?


I wasn't laughing at the victims, I was calling you a sex offender, you little turd.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> So does anyone actually know what happened then?


Irrelevant.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Nope. It's exactly like people who _have not_ been victims of racism, saying they are. I'm believing Topcat here and following the instinct so many posters had when this story first broke.



Well I'd rather wait to hear something official before accusing anyone of anything, hope that's ok with you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Well I'd rather wait to hear something official before accusing anyone of anything, hope that's ok with you.


Ah. But you've described the bus driver as an abuser. You've chosen a side.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> You've said yer man was an "abuser". So you've nailed your colours to one mast.



There you go again, deliberately quoting me out of context.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Well I'd rather wait to hear something official before accusing anyone of anything, hope that's ok with you.


Knock yourself out. It's clear whose side you're on.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I wasn't laughing at the victims, I was calling you a sex offender, you little turd.



Because I am still upset, years later, because my sister and friend were victims of a sex crime?

You disgusting little man.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Because I am still upset, years later, because my sister and friend were victims of a sex crime?
> 
> You disgusting little man.


I don't even believe you that it happened. You full of shit twerp.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I don't think your previous lies about your bisexual son and the school strikes have helped a lot either, eh?



Don't you dare mention any member of my family.  And bringing up something from the nobbin and sobbin forum is a cunt's trick.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> There you go again, deliberately quoting me out of context.


Yeh yeh, so you say


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> ... a cunt's trick.


Played by ... guess who ...


----------



## YouSir (Sep 12, 2016)

What a world. Remember, if you lose on this thread the world will end, so keep at it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I don't even believe you that it happened. You full of shit twerp.



No, of course you don't because you're a cunt of the highest order. Laughing at victims of sexual abuse is just about your level. Makes you almost as bad as the guy who did it. Gives them encouragement, like an enabler.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> What a world. Remember, if you lose on this thread the world will end, so keep at it.


Truer than you know. The fate of worlds rests on this apparently trivial thread.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Don't you dare mention any member of my family.  And bringing up something from the nobbin and sobbin forum is a cunt's trick.



You'd know all about being a cunt, though, wouldn't you? Years of harrassment, laughing at mental illness, denigrating my nationality. Lying outright about your true nature. Can't wait until you finally get rumbled.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> No, of course you don't because you're a cunt of the highest order. Laughing at victims of sexual abuse is just about your level. Makes you almost as bad as the guy who did it. Gives them encouragement, like an enabler.


Twist away you bullshitting fantasist. The thread's there for anyone to read the context. Meanwhile you're not deflecting any of the utter shit and lies you've posted on this thread.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Truer than you know. The fate of worlds rests on this apparently trivial thread.



It certainly has been enlightening


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> It certainly has been enlightening


The law of unintended consequences


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 12, 2016)

.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2016)

o


Spymaster said:


> Twist away you bullshitting fantasist. The thread's there for anyone to read the context. Meanwhile you're not deflecting any of the utter shit and lies you've posted on this thread.



Is all of this because he suggested EOY was lying?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Years of harrassment, laughing at mental illness, denigrating my nationality. Lying outright about your true nature.


Aaand there it is!

The krtek a houby "me me me me me me, I'm the victim, woe is ME!"


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Twist away you bullshitting fantasist. The thread's there for anyone to read the context. Meanwhile you're not deflecting any of the utter shit and lies you've posted on this thread.



You can shove that smiley face up your arse. My sister and her friend were the victims of a sex crime on a bus and you chose to make jokes about it.

You're absolute scum. Wouldn't surprise me if you habitually expose yourself to young women, yourself.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Aaand there it is!
> 
> The krtek a houby "me me me me me me, I'm the victim, woe is ME!"



What do you expect? You've achieved what you set out to do. You fucking enabler.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 12, 2016)

Well this thread seems to be going well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yeh, yeh. Disagreeing with you means I'm harassing you. Lickspittle


lickspittle a much underused word imo


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> o
> 
> 
> Is all of this because he suggested EOY was lying?



EOY thinks that the behaviour of the 2 lads on the bus is a reflection on all us LGBT folk. She's pretty much made it clear what she thinks of us.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Is all of this because he suggested EOY was lying?


EoY seems more than capable of fighting her own battles. I've had a fucking gutful of krtek, his lies, his misinterpretions, his outright nastiness and then claiming that he's a victim ... 

The little cunt is well and truly on my shitlist and would be well advised to put me on ignore.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> lickspittle a much underused word imo



Heh.  But very satisfying!


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> EOY thinks that the behaviour of the 2 lads on the bus is a reflection on all us LGBT folk. She's pretty much made it clear what she thinks of us.



More lies.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> EOY thinks that the behaviour of the 2 lads on the bus is a reflection on all us LGBT folk.


See what I mean by misinterpretations???? 

He can't help himself because he's too fucking thick to argue any other way.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> EoY seems more than capable of fighting her own battles. I've had a fucking gutful of krtek, his lies, his misinterpretions, his outright nastiness and then claiming that he's a victim ...
> 
> The little cunt is well and truly on my shitlist and would be well advised to put me on ignore.



Or you'll what? Make more jokes about sexual abuse? Imbecile.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> What do you expect? You've achieved what you set out to do.


What's that then?

Is this where you beg me to stop?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> More lies.



And I quote "I don't think the two blokes who lied and tried to get the driver sacked have done an awful lot for the cause of LGBT people."

Because we all act the same, think the same. Would you say that about the bus driver? That's he allegedly not done an awful lot for the cause of hetero people?

Fucking pathological liar, here as elsewhere.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> You're absolute scum. Wouldn't surprise me if you habitually expose yourself to young women, yourself.



Post reported. That's crossing a line.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> What's that then?
> 
> Is this where you beg me to stop?



Oh, good - a dig at my illness. Class.

You don't frighten me, little man,


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Oh, good - a dig at my illness. Class.


Oh, fuck off you lying turd.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> And I quote "I don't think the two blokes who lied and tried to get the driver sacked have done an awful lot for the cause of LGBT people."
> 
> Because we all act the same, think the same. Would you say that about the bus driver? That's he allegedly not done an awful lot for the cause of hetero people?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Post reported. That's crossing a line.



Be sure and report this



and this


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Aaand there it is!
> 
> The krtek a houby "me me me me me me, I'm the victim, woe is ME!"




tbf you're the one that is trying to make this all about him


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Oh, fuck off you lying turd.



Just because some of us suffer from mental illnesses or have been victims of abuse doesn't mean we're liars, you prick.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Just because some of us suffer from mental illnesses or have been victims of abuse doesn't mean we're liars, you prick.


Nope, you're right. That's not what makes you a liar.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> EoY seems more than capable of fighting her own battles.
> .



So you are accusing him of lying because you think he is lying and not in defence of what he has said about EOY? If so, do you have evidence that he lied about those things? If not I don't see how you can be upset about him accusing EOY of lying.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> So you are accusing him of lying because you think he is lying and not in defence of what he has said about EOY? If so, do you have evidence that he lied about those things? If not I don't see how you can be upset about him accusing EOY of lying.


I've quoted an example of his mendacity on this very thread. It's his standard MO.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I've quoted an example of his mendacity on this very thread. It's his standard MO.



You've also called him a sex offender.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> You've also called him a sex offender.


Not on this thread. But yes, that was out of order and I apologise. 

"Wanker" would have been a better word.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Not on this thread. But yes, that was out of order and I apologise.



Just apologise to my sister and her friend and we can put this shit behind us. Ok?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Just apologise to my sister and her friend and we can put this shit behind us. Ok?



Do they post on here?


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I've quoted an example of his mendacity on this very thread. It's his standard MO.


It's not mendacity. It's a dumb over generalisation


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Just apologise to my sister and her friend and we can put this shit behind us.


What's her username?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> What's her username?



She doesn't post here. I'm asking for a symbolic apology. Can you do that?


----------



## snadge (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> She doesn't post here. I'm asking for a symbolic apology. Can you do that?


lol


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> She doesn't post here. I'm asking for a symbolic apology. Can you do that?


Would it improve her life in any way, this symbolic apology?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

snadge said:


> lol



Stay out of this, please


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> Would it improve her life in any way, this symbolic apology?



Stay out of this, please


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> She doesn't post here. I'm asking for a symbolic apology. Can you do that?



And you wonder why people laugh at you?  Seriously!


----------



## snadge (Sep 12, 2016)

Fuck off, it's a public board.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> She doesn't post here. I'm asking for a symbolic apology. Can you do that?


Lol! 

Go and fuck youself. 

Really fucking hard.

Can you do that?


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Stay out of this, please


It's OK, somebody's holding me back now. 

'Leave it etc...'


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> And you wonder why people laugh at you?  Seriously!



Odd thing to say, given your strong feelings on the treatment of women. You think it's ok to laugh at the victims of sex crimes?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Lol!
> 
> Go and fuck youself.
> 
> ...




You bastard. You utter contemptible bastard.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Odd thing to say, given your strong feelings on the treatment of women. You think it's ok to laugh at the victims of sex crimes?



I'm laughing at YOU.  Not victims of anything.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> You bastard. You utter contemptible bastard.


It's been said before!


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

Glad to see this is still on topic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Glad to see this is still on topic.


a fitting end, perhaps. 

Old-fashioned bin race? 

Last in!


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm laughing at YOU.  Not victims of anything.



You're joining the fun and jokes about my sister and how she and her friend were traumatised by a sex crime. You know exactly what you're doing. It's funny because I'm upset about that cunt spymaster laughing about my sister.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 12, 2016)

He really isn't you know


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 12, 2016)

I wish I could get myself all outraged, and feel victimised all the time. It might give me the impetus and sense of purpose I've lacked for so long.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> You're joining the fun and jokes about my sister and how she and her friend were traumatised by a sex crime.



You fucking liar.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> I wish I could get myself all outraged, and feel victimised all the time. It might give me the impetus and sense of purpose I've lacked for so long.



I wish you'd crawl back into that sewer you came from but we can't all get want we want, can we?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> You're joining the fun and jokes about my sister and how she and her friend were traumatised by a sex crime. You know exactly what you're doing. It's funny because I'm upset about that cunt spymaster laughing about my sister.


 That's totally not what I was doing, but carry on lying!


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

Well it's good that the thread is no longer about class and about somebody's sister.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 12, 2016)

I feel left out, though, when the only thing I get traumatized about is when I'm an item short in my Morrison's delivery.


----------



## sealion (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Wouldn't surprise me if you habitually expose yourself to young women, yourself.


That is a fucking warped suggestion right there.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You fucking liar.



No, you fucking liar. Saying that because of what these lads on the bus might or might not have done - it's a reflection on all us LGBT folks.

As for you, of all people, calling me a liar. Well, there's an irony. You're the biggest pathological liar, here, on Metrogees and previously on Metro.

And if you're not HC, you still haven't explained why she would take all your details and posts and pretend to be you.

Tosser.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Sea Lion said:


> That is a fucking warped suggestion right there.



Indeed. It was in response to these gems:


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> No, you fucking liar. Saying that because of what these lads on the bus might or might not have done - it's a reflection on all us LGBT folks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> No, you fucking liar. Saying that because of what these lads on the bus might or might not have done - it's a reflection on all us LGBT folks.
> .


I'm trying to stay out of this, but you do keep on repeating the same pattern. She did not say that. Stick to criticising what people actually say, please.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


>



Yeah, facepalm. It's supposed to have done harm to our cause. The actions of two blokes on the bus.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm trying to stay out of this, but you do keep on repeating the same pattern. She did not say that. Stick to criticising what people actually say, please.



Err yes she did. She invoked some seriously bullshit double standards.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Err yes she did.


No she didn't.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Err yes she did. She invoked some seriously bullshit double standards.


No she didn't, and the detail matters here. She talked about 'doing no favours'. 

Equally, top cat did not call anyone 'scum'.


----------



## campanula (Sep 12, 2016)

If I was deeply upset by the treatment of any of my friends and family, I sincerely doubt I would be using it as some sort of point scoring competition on a public board...especially since it is clear that it actually has nothing to do with alleged incidents involving someone else and everything to do with promoting your own agenda here Krtek. Spy, I do find you hugely amusing but I think you did step over a line to bait a poster who you know will react in a predictable manner.
Regarding the busdriver - was the bus empty? Without other witnesses to the incident, it generally boils down to 'he said, she said' and isn't really worth the candle.

eta - apols for hectoring...but this thread was getting on my last nerve - off to the quiet confines of surburban or the drug forum.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Yeah, facepalm. It's supposed to have done harm to our cause. The actions of two blokes on the bus.


Compare what you've posted here with what you've accused EoY of posting. You dribbling whelk.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You dribbling whelk.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No she didn't.



Yes she fucking did:

"I don't think the two blokes who lied and tried to get the driver sacked have done an awful lot for the cause of LGBT people."


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


>



Always the cheerleader for the hyenas and other vultures, eh, HC?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No she didn't, and the detail matters here. She talked about *'doing no favours'. *



...and when was the last time a comment was made like that when discussing the behaviour of heterosexual people? How their _wrong doing_ does 'no favours' to other heterosexuals. It just doesn't happen does it. It's marginalising bullshit.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

campanula said:


> Spy, I do find you hugely amusing but I think you did step over a line to bait a poster who you know will react in a predictable manner.


Guilty as charged, but he handed me that one on a plate. I'd probably have responded that way to anyone else too. That it was him was just a bonus.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

campanula said:


> If I was deeply upset by the treatment of any of my friends and family, I sincerely doubt I would be using it as some sort of point scoring competition on a public board...especially since it is clear that it actually has nothing to do with alleged incidents involving someone else and everything to do with promoting your own agenda here Krtek. Spy, I do find you hugely amusing but I think you did step over a line to bait a poster who you know will react in a predictable manner.
> Regarding the busdriver - was the bus empty? Without other witnesses to the incident, it generally boils down to 'he said, she said' and isn't really worth the candle.
> 
> eta - apols for hectoring...but this thread was getting on my last nerve - off to the quiet confines of surburban or the drug forum.




It's cross beef, so it's out of order. I only mentioned the inccident on the masturbation thread - to give an example of the unfunny nature of indecent exposure and the effects it has on young girls. I should not have brought it up here. 

Apologies for that but I'm not going to apologise for being upset about what happened to her.

As for what happened on this bus - it is worth the candle, if it turns out to be true. There's far too many attacks (verbal or otherwise) on LGBT folks and it needs to be dealt with. Equally, if the two lads were bullshitting then they need to be exposed for it.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Yes she fucking did:
> 
> "I don't think the two blokes who lied and tried to get the driver sacked have done an awful lot for the cause of LGBT people."


And what bit of that says that their behaviour was a reflection on 'all other LBGT people'? You swivel eyed snot gobbler.


----------



## Cid (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Always the cheerleader for the hyenas and other vultures, eh, HC?



If someone's been following you across other boards, harassing you and posting verifiable lies in knobbing and sobbing, why not just report it to the mods?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> ...and when was the last time a comment was made like that when discussing the behaviour of heterosexual people? How their _wrong doing_ does 'no favours' to other heterosexuals. It just doesn't happen does it. It's marginalising bullshit.



The men made an issue of their sexuality.  They claim they were abused and chucked off the bus BECAUSE of their sexuality.   I simply said that lying and trying to get the driver sacked doesn't advance their cause.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

Saying that a false accusation of homophobic abuse is damaging to people who make genuine accusations of homophobic abuse is not the same thing as saying any action on the part of a gay person reflects badly on gay people generally.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The men made an issue of their sexuality.  They claim they were abused and chucked off the bus BECAUSE of their sexuality.   I simply said that lying and trying to get the driver sacked doesn't advance their cause.




No you said 'the cause of LBGT people' .


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> Saying that a false accusation of homophobic abuse is damaging to people who make genuine accusations of homophobic abuse is not the same thing as saying any action on the part of a gay person reflects badly on gay people generally.


Ta daaaaaa!


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The men made an issue of their sexuality.  They claim they were abused and chucked off the bus BECAUSE of their sexuality.   I simply said that lying and trying to get the driver sacked doesn't advance their cause.



Made an issue of it? That's because they're claiming they were abused because of it. Jesus Christ

You said "the cause of LGBT people". What is this "cause of LGBT people" exactly? How is it damaged by individuals acting in a certain way?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> Saying that a false accusation of homophobic abuse is damaging to people who make genuine accusations of homophobic abuse is not the same thing as saying any action on the part of a gay person reflects badly on gay people generally.



...and when have you ever heard it said that a straight person being homophobic is a stain on or detrimental to all straight people? It doesn't happen. I think there is a double stand. It reminds me of comments like gay men bringing homophobia on themselves for being openly 'gay' in public when they are doing nothing more ranchy than kissing or holding hands etc...Exactly what straight people do in public every day.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> If someone's been following you across other boards, harassing you and posting verifiable lies in knobbing and sobbing, why not just report it to the mods?


Because he's lying about it. He made a dick out of himself, failed to substantiate it, and ended up apologising, iirc. Now he's doing it again. That's because he's a lard-witted pillock.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> And what bit of that says that their behaviour was a reflection on 'all other LBGT people'? You swivel eyed snot gobbler.



"The cause" refers to all of us LGBT folk. The liar is equating the alleged actions of 2 lads on the bus to all of us. Oh and:


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> You said "the cause of LGBT people". What is this "cause of LGBT people" exactly? How is it damaged by individuals acting in a certain way?



I suppose their "cause" is to be treated equally and not discriminated against.  And that "cause" could be damaged by people making false claims of discrimination and abuse.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Made on issue of it? That's because they're claiming they were abused because of it. Jesus Christ
> 
> You said "the cause of LGBT people". What is this "cause of LGBT people" exactly? How is it damaged by individuals acting in a certain way?


If I said, "the cause of genuine victims is not helped by krtek a houby acting like one when he has no reason", would that be a slight upon all victims?  Would it say something negative about victims to claim they have a cause?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> ...and when have you ever heard it said that a straight person being homophobic is a stain on or detrimental to all straight people? It doesn't happen. I think there is a double stand.


Fine. Not saying to krtec 'don't take issue with it'. Just don't misrepresent it - argue with, object to, swear at, what is actually said.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> View attachment 92418


In that case I used the term entirely appropriately!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 12, 2016)

kabbes said:


> If I said, "the cause of genuine victims is not helped by krtek a houby acting like one when he has no reason", would that be a slight upon all victims?  Would it say something negative about victims to claim they have a cause?



You may as well have taken a shit on the 9/11 memorial.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

kabbes said:


> If I said, "the cause of genuine victims is not helped by krtek a houby acting like one when he has no reason", would that be a slight upon all victims?  Would it say something negative about victims to claim they have a cause?



She didn't say the "cause of genuine victims of homophobic abuse" she said the "cause of LGBT people".


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You may as well have taken a shit on the 9/11 memorial.


NEVAR FORGET


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Because he's lying about it. He made a dick out of himself, failed to substantiate it, and ended up apologising, iirc. Now he's doing it again. That's because he's a lard-witted pillock.



I was a pillock for apologising to her. I gave her the benefit of the doubt. Now even one or two of her fellow posters on the other site are wondering about her. But that's off topic. I'm sure she'll make up some lies to cover. Doesn't surprise me that you'd believe the malicious little shit over me, though. One day she'll be unmasked. Drinks will be on me, out of gratefulness


----------



## campanula (Sep 12, 2016)

What's with this 'lads'? They were/are men - grown adults...as was the driver. And yep, this whole thing has turned into a nasty dance with serious repercussions...but without objective witnesses, it will remain as gossip, malice and spite - as evidenced by the heat rising from this thread. There are no 'causes' here - 3 individuals with the views of only one participant available for examination and a whopping great shitload of hot air.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> She didn't say the "cause of genuine victims of homophobic abuse" she said the "cause of LGBT people".


I don't think you have quite understood the analogy there.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> ...and when have you ever heard it said that a straight person being homophobic is a stain on or detrimental to all straight people? It doesn't happen. I think there is a double stand.


It's not a stain on all gay people and it doesn't affect the ability of most people to recognise and object to homophobia. But it does allow people who belittle real claims of homophobia to disparage it next time it does really happen.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I suppose their "cause" is to be treated equally and not discriminated against.  And that "cause" could be damaged by people making false claims of discrimination and abuse.



Yeah they're not doing their kind any good are they?  

Put aside the fact that you're already assuming they are lying.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

campanula said:


> What's with this 'lads'? They were/are men - grown adults...as was the driver. And yep, this whole thing has turned into a nasty dance with serious repercussions...but without objective witnesses, it will remain as gossip, malice and spite - as evidenced by the heat rising from this thread. There are no 'causes' here - 3 individuals with the views of only one participant available for examination and a whopping great shitload of hot air.



"Lads" is an expression used in Ireland for anyone from 8 to 88. I apologise and will try to speak proper quenn's english, like.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

kabbes said:


> I don't think you have quite understood the analogy there.



No you made a totally incorrect analogy.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> No you made a totally incorrect analogy.


Oh noes, that sounds really bad.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Yeah they're not doing their kind any good are they?



That's your wording, not mine.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 12, 2016)

I think you're all totally incorrect about everything.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> ...and when have you ever heard it said that a straight person being homophobic is a stain on or detrimental to all straight people? It doesn't happen. I think there is a double stand. It reminds me of comments like gay men bringing homophobia on themselves for being openly 'gay' in public when they are doing nothing more ranchy than kissing or holding hands etc...Exactly what straight people do in public every day.


If a homosexual expressly uses his homosexuality to get someone fired or cause them problems in their workplace, it's fair to comment that it does the cause of equality no favours. Same with race, same with all the other isms.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> That's your wording, not mine.



It's clear what you meant


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Oh noes, that sounds really bad.



Try harder next time


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> It's clear what you meant



Well, you seem to be determined to put words into my mouth.


----------



## Cid (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I was a pillock for apologising to her. I gave her the benefit of the doubt. Now even one or two of her fellow posters on the other site are wondering about her. But that's off topic. I'm sure she'll make up some lies to cover. Doesn't surprise me that you'd believe the malicious little shit over me, though. One day she'll be unmasked. Drinks will be on me, out of gratefulness



So report it. Get the mods to have a look.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> So report it. Get the mods to have a look.


Well that's difficult because he's accused her of racism and victimising him on another board under a different name.


----------



## campanula (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> "Lads" is an expression used in Ireland for anyone from 8 to 88. I apologise and will try to speak proper quenn's english, like.



Words are important Krtek and using 'lads' instead of 'men' seems to grant a certain amount of leeway by virtue of youth, innocence even.


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

I must have missed that follow up story where it's been shown that the gay couple were lying and that they have the power to get the driver sacked, which seems to be a foundation for a lot of posts here.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 12, 2016)

Oh for fuck's sake people. Stop quibbling over the meaning of each others words, analysing every minutiae like anyone gives a shit. All of you, just fucking grow up.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Oh for fuck's sake people. Stop quibbling over the meaning of each others words, analysing every minutiae like anyone gives a shit. All of you, just fucking grow up.


Stop insulting children.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 12, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Oh for fuck's sake people. Stop quibbling over the meaning of each others words, analysing every minutiae like anyone gives a shit. All of you, just fucking grow up.



Yeah, well, you smell of wee.


----------



## Cid (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> Well that's difficult because he's accused her of racism and victimising him on another board under a different name.



I'm pretty sure the mods have looked into that kind of thing before.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

Jesus. If you can't have a truly nasty fight based on speculation and conjecture on Urban75 where can you have one?


----------



## Cid (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> Jesus. If you can't have a truly nasty fight based on speculation and conjecture on Urban75 where can you have one?



The pub, weddings, funerals and Christmas parties.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> I must have missed that follow up story where it's been shown that the gay couple were lying and that they have the power to get the driver sacked, which seems to be a foundation for a lot of posts here.



Skip the last 15 pages or so, and you'll be grand. Just remember; the lads, sorry, liars - are middle class theatre goers and therefore lying cunts. That's all you need to know.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Skip the last 15 pages or so, and you'll be grand. Just remember; the lads, sorry, liars - are middle class theatre goers and therefore lying cunts. That's all you need to know.



Catspaws and enforcers of the Opera going class. Come the revolution it'll be Music Hall or death.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Just remember; the lads, sorry, liars - are middle class theatre goers and therefore lying cunts. That's all you need to know.


Yep, cos that's ALL it's about isn't it?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Catspaws and enforcers of the Opera going class. Come the revolution it'll be Music Hall or death.



Good honest working class music.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Skip the last 15 pages or so, and you'll be grand. Just remember; the lads, sorry, liars - are middle class theatre goers and therefore lying cunts. That's all you need to know.


That's right, nothing to do with a story that's got more holes than a swiss cheese and some insider information from a generally reliable and honest poster. Of course we know that the bus driver must have done it because there's at least two cases of it happening before and therefore all bus drivers are frothing homophobic scum.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2016)

some of them can be right mardy arses over change though. Always wise to break the note before boarding, lest ye be denied


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2016)

oh like you oyster cunts care


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> some of them can be right mardy arses over change though. Always wise to break the note before boarding, lest ye be denied


I had one let me on for free when my Oyster card had run out a couple of weeks ago, they're not all bad.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> That's right, nothing to do with a story that's got more holes than a swiss cheese and some insider information from a generally reliable and honest poster. *Of course we know that the bus driver must have done it because there's at least two cases of it happening before and therefore all bus drivers are frothing homophobic scum*.



Your words. Not mine.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> What's this hierchical crap?



I've abandoned this thread and I could have written that post better but its fuck all to do with hiearchy, its to do with the balance of probability.  I found the idea of someone making an off the cuff homophobic comment in an argument more plausible then a 51 year old person, with a posh job, as we thought, jumping the fare on a bus, getting in a big row and then the next day phoning in a completely spurious allegation to the police and managing to convince several national newspapers their story was true.  One is sadly fairly unexceptional and took place in the heat of the moment, the other is eccentric to say the least, and requires accomplices in the form of the press.  Turns out I was probably wrong, but I don't think its an unreasonable conclusion on the balance of probabilities.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> I had one let me on for free when my Oyster card had run out a couple of weeks ago, they're not all bad.


Was on a bus earlier when the driver just waved everyone on, didn't even glance at any proffered cards


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2016)

snadge said:


> lol



Rofl


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2016)

smokedout said:


> I've abandoned this thread and I could have written that post better but its fuck all to do with hiearchy, its to do with the balance of probability.  I found the idea of someone making an off the cuff homophobic comment in an argument more plausible then a 51 year old person, with a posh job, as we thought, jumping the fare on a bus, getting in a big row and then the next day phoning in a completely spurious allegation to the police and managing to convince several national newspapers their story was true.  One is sadly fairly unexceptional and took place in the heat of the moment, the other is eccentric to say the least, and requires accomplices in the form of the press.  Turns out I was probably wrong, but I don't think its an unreasonable conclusion on the balance of probabilities.


Reasonable post. 

Get out!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Not on this thread. But yes, that was out of order and I apologise.
> 
> "Wanker" would have been a better word.


That shows a good spirit, pa


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> If you live in London, you know which buses you can use the back entrance on (although we're actually talking about the middle entrance). It's one of those things, like escalator etiquette.


The bus driver didn't stop for them at the previous stop, the couple caught up with the bus at the next stop, then the driver didn't open the door for them, so they used the door that was open. They didn't use the wrong door by accident, they used it because it was the only door the driver would open.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2016)

campanula said:


> What's with this 'lads'? They were/are men - grown adults...as was the driver. And yep, this whole thing has turned into a nasty dance with serious repercussions...but without objective witnesses, it will remain as gossip, malice and spite - as evidenced by the heat rising from this thread. There are no 'causes' here - 3 individuals with the views of only one participant available for examination and a whopping great shitload of hot air.



His reply to you is a lie. When referring to adult males it's generally reserved for people you have some connection to . It's a mildly intimate term. For friends, acquaintances. Exactly the same as it is in England . Not for complete fucking strangers . It's an affectation he's adopted to make 2 vindictive lying cunts who tried to get a man sacked somehow seem a tad more user friendly. It's plain weird . But that's hardly surprising .


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

smokedout said:


> I've abandoned this thread and I could have written that post better but its fuck all to do with hiearchy, its to do with the balance of probability.  I found the idea of someone making an off the cuff homophobic comment in an argument more plausible then a 51 year old person, with a posh job, as we thought, jumping the fare on a bus, getting in a big row and then the next day phoning in a completely spurious allegation to the police and managing to convince several national newspapers their story was true.  One is sadly fairly unexceptional and took place in the heat of the moment, the other is eccentric to say the least, and requires accomplices in the form of the press.  Turns out I was probably wrong, but I don't think its an unreasonable conclusion on the balance of probabilities.



A balance of probabilities based on social class.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> The bus driver didn't stop for them at the previous stop, the couple caught up with the bus at the next stop, then the driver didn't open the door for them, so they used the door that was open. They didn't use the wrong door by accident, they used it because it was the only door the driver would open.



This often happens when a bus is full. Because they can't overfill the vehicle.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> A balance of probabilities based on social class.



horseshit.  leaves thread.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> His reply to you is a lie. When referring to adult males it's generally reserved for people you have some connection to . It's a mildly intimate term. For friends, acquaintances. Exactly the same as it is in England . Not for complete fucking strangers . It's an affectation he's adopted to make 2 vindictive lying cunts who tried to get a man sacked somehow seem a tad more user friendly. It's plain weird . But that's hardly surprising .



If you've ever lived in Ireland, you'd know that people call male friends/acquaintances/strangers of any age "lads". 

Back to sleep now, CR.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Was on a bus earlier when the driver just waved everyone on, didn't even glance at any proffered cards



Always wonder if they know when inspectors are coming on a route or if they pretend everyone's dodging if they do.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

smokedout said:


> horseshit.  leaves thread.



You even back pedalled when you realised the director's career wasn't as glittering as you'd assumed.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> The bus driver didn't stop for them at the previous stop, the couple caught up with the bus at the next stop, then the driver didn't open the door for them, so they used the door that was open. They didn't use the wrong door by accident, they used it because it was the only door the driver would open.


He didn't stop at the previous stop but apparently gestured to them. My guess would be that he was attempting to signal that the bus was full, hence only opening the exit doors.


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> He didn't stop at the previous stop but apparently gestured to them.* My guess* would be that he was attempting to signal that the bus was full, hence only opening the exit doors.



Exactly!


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Your words. Not mine.


Jesus but you're thick as pigshit aren't you. I was refuting your deliberately (I had thought, but it seems you _are_ really really thick) misleading precis of the opposing argument by doing the same to your own.


----------



## Cid (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> The bus driver didn't stop for them at the previous stop, the couple caught up with the bus at the next stop, then the driver didn't open the door for them, so they used the door that was open. They didn't use the wrong door by accident, they used it because it was the only door the driver would open.



This happens quite often on busy bus routes though.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> Exactly!


Well I've seen many drivers offer such signals. To date, I've yet to see one signal "fuck off, you gays".


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> He didn't stop at the previous stop but apparently gestured to them. My guess would be that he was attempting to signal that the bus was full, hence only opening the exit doors.


It could have been anything. It could have been 'that's not the 25 stop, I stop at the next one'. Apart from in heavy traffic it's actually quite difficult to beat an already moving bus from one stop to the next. It's a standout underexplained point in the original story.


----------



## Cid (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> It could have been anything. It could have been 'that's not the 25 stop, I stop at the next one'. Apart from in heavy traffic it's actually quite difficult to beat a bus from one stop to the next. It's a standout underexplained point in the original story.



Yeah, or that.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> Jesus but you're thick as pigshit aren't you. I was refuting your deliberately (I had thought, but it seems you _are_ really really thick) misleading precis of the opposing argument by doing the same to your own.



It's been obvious for some time that I'm not the sharpest card in the deck. I've acknowledged that on many an occasion. Why lay traps for me, though? How does that advance the thread?

It's like you saying all theatre folk are lying middle class scum, however knowingly you say it, it doesn't help.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well I've seen many drivers offer such signals. To date, I've yet to see one signal "fuck off, you're gays".



May be it was " we are full..sorry lads "


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> It could have been anything. It could have been 'that's not the 25 stop, I stop at the next one'. Apart from in heavy traffic it's actually quite difficult to beat an already moving bus from one stop to the next. It's a standout underexplained point in the original story.


Yeh, I reckon he was waiting at the 38 stop on new Oxford St and ran to the 25 one.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> It's been obvious for some time that I'm not the sharpest card in the deck. I've acknowledged that on many an occasion. Why lay traps for me, though? How does that advance the thread?



It wasn't a trap and I apologise for assuming you had some sort of functioning intelligence. I will be more considerate in future


> It's like you saying all theatre folk are lying middle class scum, however knowingly you say it, it doesn't help.


I'm fairly sure I didn't say that.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> It wasn't a trap and I apologise for assuming you had some sort of functioning intelligence. I will be more considerate in future
> 
> I'm fairly sure I didn't say that.



I mean it would bw similar _if_ you sais that.


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> This happens quite a bit on busy bus routes though.


I've posted about this earlier and I can't be arsed to repeat it all. In any case, there never has been any mention anywhere in the report that the bus was overcrowded and it's merely an assumption here but used like its a fact and that shows bias. 

What am I even doing here, I've got to get on with doing my DIY so I can sell my flat and get out of this class obsessed, small minded country.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> His reply to you is a lie. When referring to adult males it's generally reserved for people you have some connection to . It's a mildly intimate term. For friends, acquaintances. Exactly the same as it is in England . Not for complete fucking strangers . It's an affectation he's adopted to make 2 vindictive lying cunts who tried to get a man sacked somehow seem a tad more user friendly. It's plain weird . But that's hardly surprising .


It makes anything they do seem something of a jape. Why not call them men or guys or whatnot, instead of the warm, somewhat possessive lads?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> It's like you saying all theatre folk are lying middle class scum ...


Did he say that then?

You're lying again aren't you?


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh, I reckon he was waiting at the 38 stop on new Oxford St and ran to the 25 one.


And quite possibly, like most people that buses don't stop for gave the driver an earful. Which would be a good enough reason for me not to let them on the bus.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> It makes anything they do seem something of a jape. Why not call them men or guys or whatnot, instead of the warm, somewhat possessive lads?



Cos he's a dick is why


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> What am I even doing here, I've got to get on with doing my DIY so I can sell my flat and get out of this class obsessed, small minded country.


Off you go then.


----------



## Cid (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> I've posted about this earlier and I can't be arsed to repeat it all. In any case, there never has been any mention anywhere in the report that the bus was overcrowded and it's merely an assumption here but used like its a fact and that shows bias.
> 
> What am I even doing here, I've got to get on with doing my DIY so I can sell my flat and get out of this class obsessed, small minded country.



Most of the stuff on this thread is assumption. We do know that it was a 25. We know that route 25 doesn't run routemasters, i.e you're not allowed on at the back. Beyond that most of it is speculation... Assuming you disregard topcat, which I'm inclined not to do.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> I've posted about this earlier and I can't be arsed to repeat it all. In any case, there never has been any mention anywhere in the report that the bus was overcrowded and it's merely an assumption here but used like its a fact and that shows bias.
> 
> What am I even doing here, I've got to get on with doing my DIY so I can sell my flat and get out of this class obsessed, small minded country.




Oh yeah, your post-bexit flounce. Now, which other twat was supposed to be doing the same thing? krtek, you still here with us idiot proles?


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> Most of the stuff on this thread is assumption. We do know that it was a 25. We know that route 25 doesn't run routemasters, i.e you're not allowed on at the back. Beyond that most of it is speculation... Assuming you disregard topcat, which I'm inclined not to do.


Topcat said it wasn't a 25.


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Off you go then.


Happily so !


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Off you go then.



Miffed over brexit .


----------



## Cid (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> Topcat said it wasn't a 25.



No he said 'not a 25!' in response to 'You get on some London buses at the back.'

I think that's the right interpretation anyway.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Oh yeah, your post-bexit flounce. Now, which other twat was supposed to be doing the same thing? krtek, you still here with us idiot proles?



Ad hominems, ad hominems. When people get upset over yet another tory win; will they be ostracised also?


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Oh yeah, your post-bexit flounce. Now, which other twat was supposed to be doing the same thing? krtek, you still here with us idiot proles?


I will be out of here, flat goes on the market in three weeks. However this is the Internet, so I won't be out of HERE.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Miffed over brexit .


I know.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Ad hominems, ad hominems. When people get upset over yet another tory win; will they be ostracised also?


Depends how they show their displeasure.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> Happily so !



It's the best they can do, Reno - not a million miles from the old "if you don't like it here, fuck off back home/to another country/to Russia" etc


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> Depends how they show their displeasure.



Anything else people want to bring into the mix? I've done my cross thread beefs for today...


----------



## YouSir (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> I will be out of here, flat goes on the market in three weeks. However this is the Internet, so I won't be out of HERE.



Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You even back pedalled when you realised the director's career wasn't as glittering as you'd assumed.



If you read the thread you'll see I backtracked when Pickmans explained Top Cat wasn't being sarky.  I then googled the bloke and found out some new information so revised my opinion of him as posh and pointed this out.  At which point the question of class became redundant because we don't know what class he is, and the assumption he must be middle class seems to be based on little more than his sexuality and the fact he's active in fringe theatre.  And now I really am fucking off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> I will be out of here, flat goes on the market in three weeks. However this is the Internet, so I won't be out of HERE.


how fortunate that the predicted tanking of the property market hasn't happened.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Don't let the door hit you on the way out.



Take that other cunt with you

Eta

Not you, obvs


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> how fortunate that the predicted tanking of the property market hasn't happened.




Remoaners should have a 30% sales tax applied to their house sales, to fall in line with their expectations.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Remoaners should have a 30% sales tax applied to their house sales, to fall in line with their expectations.


we'd suddenly find that no one had in fact voted remain.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Oh yeah, your post-bexit flounce. Now, which other twat was supposed to be doing the same thing? krtek, you still here with us idiot proles?


sadly these promises, which meant so much at the time, turned out not to be worth the pixels on which they were written.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Take that other cunt with you



Fuck off, you homophobic bell end.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Take that other cunt with you
> 
> Eta
> 
> Not you, obvs


liked because of the edit.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Remoaners should have a 30% sales tax applied to their house sales, to fall in line with their expectations.




They should be made share a bedsit with aaargh and Eddie fucking Izzard.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> They should be made share a bedsit with aaargh and Eddie fucking Izzard.


cruel and unusual punishment


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Fuck off, you homophobic bell end.



Well really . This type of abuse is simply intolerable. I'm in the pub at the minute and have a good mind to share my umbrage with some lads .


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 12, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Oh yeah, your post-bexit flounce. Now, which other twat was supposed to be doing the same thing? krtek, you still here with us idiot proles?


As I mentioned at the time. Ireland doesn't want him back.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 12, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> As I mentioned at the time. Ireland doesn't want him back.



Japan's skulked off in to the corner too, hoping not to be noticed.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2016)

Yup. I've had a chat with the lads and that's been confirmed. By the lads .


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2016)

jesus, this thread. Oh lord take this cup from me


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2016)

This is all very urban at its finest .

Innit ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> This is all very urban at its finest .
> 
> Innit ?


no, if it was urban at its finest there'd have been a couple of bannings by now


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Well really . This type of abuse is simply intolerable. I'm in the pub at the minute and have a good mind to share my umbrage with some lads .



And a cowardly homophobe at that, too.



Saul Goodman said:


> As I mentioned at the time. Ireland doesn't want him back.



And who are you, again?

QUOTE="Bahnhof Strasse, post: 14698368, member: 31847"]Japan's skulked off in to the corner too, hoping not to be noticed.[/QUOTE]

What has that remark got to do with anything?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> What has that remark got to do with anything?


It's all about YOU, krtek.

You you you you you!


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> no, if it was urban at its finest there'd have been a couple of bannings by now



Don't think that third erdinger was the brightest idea. Haven't had my lunch yet . Went back to work at 6 this morning after a few weeks off and I'm still trying to get over the shock.

It seems oddly relevant to your post for some reason .


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

Righty ho, am off to the pub. Hopefully, not the same cesspit as Casually Red. If it is, mind, I'd love to saunter over to him and tell him to get himself checked out - as that rash hasn't cleared up yet. Give him a wink in front of his manly mates and a one of our trademark "weird gay smiles".

Tee hee


----------



## Cid (Sep 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> jesus, this thread. Oh lord take this cup from me



Don't commie, you'll only get drawn in. It's like a whirlpool of filth in here, too late for us - save yourself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Don't think that third erdinger was the brightest idea. Haven't had my lunch yet . Went back to work at 6 this morning after a few weeks off and I'm still trying to get over the shock.
> 
> It seems oddly relevant to your post for some reason .


the third erdinger is never the best idea. the fourth one is tho.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> the third erdinger is never the best idea. the fourth one is tho.



Funny enough...


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Righty ho, am off to the pub. Hopefully, not the same cesspit as Casually Red. If it is, mind, I'd love to saunter over to him and tell him to get himself checked out - as that rash hasn't cleared up yet. Give him a wink in front of his manly mates and a one of our trademark "weird gay smiles".
> 
> Tee hee



Not half as much as I'd love it


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> And who are you, again?


Someone who has been watching you shit-stirring, then playing the 'mental illness' card, like it's some sort of magic shield, or get-out-of-jail-free card that makes you immune to the consequences of your actions.
Mental illness isn't a free-pass to be a cunt.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> If a homosexual expressly uses his homosexuality to get someone fired or cause them problems in their workplace, it's fair to comment that it does the cause of equality no favours. Same with race, same with all the other isms.



I suppose some people do think that way. There are people out there who think that if some individual black person, Asian person, gay person etc. messes up somehow or does something wrong, that the actions of those individuals are somehow reflective of general proclivities of the whole group.

In other words, they don't see individuals - they see blacks, asians, gays etc, as part of some monolith.

It's part of the mechanics of how prejudice works.


----------



## Athos (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Righty ho, am off to the pub. Hopefully, not the same cesspit as Casually Red. If it is, mind, I'd love to saunter over to him and tell him to get himself checked out - as that rash hasn't cleared up yet. Give him a wink in front of his manly mates and a one of our trademark "weird gay smiles".
> 
> Tee hee


You keep referencing it, but what's the deal with" weird gay smiles"? Genuine question; not having a pop.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I suppose some people do think that way. There are people out there who think that if some individual black person, Asian person, gay person etc. messes up somehow or does something wrong, that the actions of those individuals are somehow reflective of general proclivities of the whole group.
> 
> In other words, they don't see individuals - they see blacks, asians, gays etc, as part of some monolith.
> 
> It's part of the mechanics of how prejudice works.



And some even think that about white working class people too . A bus driver for instance .Make all sorts of assumptions . And even get rightly pissed off when others don't join in .


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I suppose some people do think that way. There are people out there who think that if some individual black person, Asian person, gay person etc. messes up somehow or does something wrong, that the actions of those individuals are somehow reflective of general proclivities of the whole group.
> 
> In other words, they don't see individuals - they see blacks, asians, gays etc, as part of some monolith.
> 
> It's part of the mechanics of how prejudice works.


Of course there are people who think that way, and those that would seek to make capital in that way. It's just not a sentiment that has been expressed on this thread.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Of course there are people who think that way, and those that would seek to make capital in that way. It's just not a sentiment that has been expressed on this thread.


One of the goals of all these equal rights groups, is to try and change that type of thinking.


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Remoaners should have a 30% sales tax applied to their house sales, to fall in line with their expectations.


As an immigrant of 34 years, who was not allowed have a say in this and who has good reason to worry about their future here, I'm a bit more than a "remoaner". This country has forsaken everything which made me come here. I have effectively been shown the door. Feel free to gloat over that as much as you like, but I know what that makes you look like.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> One of the goals of all these equal rights groups, is to try and change that type of thinking.


Correctly so.


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> how fortunate that the predicted tanking of the property market hasn't happened.


The currency has tanked. And Brexit hasn't actually happened yet, let's see what happens when it does.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> I think as an immigrant of 34 years, who was not allowed have a say in this and who has good reason to worry about their future here, I'm a bit more than a "remoaner".



Yes, you're also a prick. But then being 'class obsessed and small minded' I would say that wouldn't I?


----------



## YouSir (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> The currency has tanked. And Brexit hasn't actually happened yet, let's see what happens when it does.



You'll complain about the price you got for your house?


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> You'll complain about the price you got for your house?


I won't be here by the time Brexit actually happens, you are not too smart when it comes to following the thread are you ?


----------



## YouSir (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> I won't be here by the time Brexit actually happens, you are not too smart when it comes to following the thread are you ?



Snappy comeback.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> I won't be here by the time Brexit actually happens, you are not too smart when it comes to following the thread are you ?



You will be if your flat doesn't sell. Trapped in a country that's throwing you out.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> As an immigrant of 34 years, who was not allowed have a say in this and who has good reason to worry about their future here, I'm a bit more than a "remoaner". This country has forsaken everything which made me come here. I have effectively been shown the door. Feel free to gloat over that as much as you like, but I know what that makes you look like.



That's a rather over dramatic reading of the situation but if you really did come here solely to be part of a continent wide neoliberal beuraucracy then fair enough, bye.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> That's a rather over dramatic reading of the situation but if you really did come here solely to be part of a continent wide neoliberal beuraucracy then fair enough, bye.



Came here long before the free movement of people was a thing, now that it has not be suggested by anyone that he'd be pushed out, he's doing the Frank. This is the calibre of people we're losing


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> I have effectively been shown the door.


Really?

Can you explain how please?


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> That's a rather over dramatic reading of the situation but if you really did come here solely to be part of a continent wide neoliberal beuraucracy then fair enough, bye.


I was living in a place which was very homophobic and one of the reasons I came to live in London was because it was far more tolerant. Now this entire country has turned into one that is massively intolerant to foreigners.


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You will be if your flat doesn't sell. Trapped in a country that's throwing you out.


I already know that it will sell.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> The currency has tanked. And Brexit hasn't actually happened yet, let's see what happens when it does.


a decline from 1.3 euros to 1.15, the rate i got today, isn't  a great tanking. a great tanking is what happens when you see people walking round with wheelbarrows of cash just to buy bread.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> I was living in a place which was very homophobic and one of the reasons I came to live in London was because it was far more tolerant. Now this entire country has turned into one that is massively intolerant to foreigners.


Not in the London that I live or work in. (Not denying problems outside London but I think it will turn around again).


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> As an immigrant of 34 years, who was not allowed have a say in this and who has good reason to worry about their future here, I'm a bit more than a "remoaner". This country has forsaken everything which made me come here. I have effectively been shown the door. Feel free to gloat over that as much as you like, but I know what that makes you look like.


jesus, you'd have thought fucking 95% of people had voted to hang immigrants instead of a 52/48 split on leaving the european union.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> I was living in a place which was very homophobic and one of the reasons I came to live in London was because it was far more tolerant. Now this entire country has turned into one that is massively intolerant to foreigners.


Nonsense.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> jesus, you'd have thought fucking 95% of people had voted to hang immigrants instead of a 52/48 split on leaving the european union.


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I suppose some people do think that way. There are people out there who think that if some individual black person, Asian person, gay person etc. messes up somehow or does something wrong, that the actions of those individuals are somehow reflective of general proclivities of the whole group.
> 
> In other words, they don't see individuals - they see blacks, asians, gays etc, as part of some monolith.
> 
> It's part of the mechanics of how prejudice works.



And apparently, there are even some people who see entire countries in the same way...


Reno said:


> I was living in a place which was very homophobic and one of the reasons I came to live in London was because it was far more tolerant. Now this entire country has turned into one that is massively intolerant to foreigners.


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> And what bit of that says that their behaviour was a reflection on 'all other LBGT people'? You swivel eyed snot gobbler.


Er, all of it.

What, in your opinion, does 'doing no favours' mean?


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Nonsense.


It's not without foundation, events in Harlow last week were pretty fucking worrying but I'm part of a mixed race family living in one of the whitest, UKIP votingest parts of Greater London and we haven't noticed any major upticks in racism round here. And I work in E14 where there's a majority immigrant population, something that's unlikely to change anytime soon.


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The men made an issue of their sexuality.  They claim they were abused and chucked off the bus BECAUSE of their sexuality.   I simply said that lying and trying to get the driver sacked doesn't advance their cause.


No you didn't. You said LGBT people.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Mation said:


> Er, all of it.
> 
> What, in your opinion, does 'doing no favours' mean?


It means doing no favours to the cause of equal rights for LGBT people. 

And it absolutely doesn't.


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> It means doing no favours to the cause of equal rights for LGBT people.
> 
> And it absolutely doesn't.


Ok. How does it hurt the cause?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Mation said:


> Ok. How does it hurt the cause?


Because to advance it, one of the aims would be to convince bigots to be less so. Behaviour like this, i.e. actually using one's homosexuality to create a false allegation of homophobia, is more likely to foster greater animosity among a section of society that should be engaged positively. This is not rocket science.


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Because to advance it, one of the aims would be to convince bigots to be less so. Behaviour like this, i.e. actually using one's homosexuality to create a false allegation of homophobia, is more likely to foster greater animosity among a section of society that should be engaged positively. This is not rocket science.


It could foster animosity amongst people who think that these men and their actions are in some way representative of LGBT people, yes. If they are not representative, how can they harm 'the cause'?

E2a and you seem to be stating that LGBT people should engage others ' positively to end prejudice against them. Have I got that right?


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Nonsense.


Tell that to my Portuguese friend who last week was told to go back home by a stranger who overheard his accent.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> Tell that to my Portuguese friend who last week was told to go back home by a stranger who overheard his accent.




Yeah Spymaster. Tell it to this Portuguese friend. Tell it now, god damn it


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Mation said:


> It could foster animosity amongst people who think that these men and their actions are in some way representative of LGBT people, yes. If they are not representative, how can they harm 'the cause'?


If David Cameron was exposed as a sex pest who used his membership of the tory party to screw young women, would it be a good or bad thing for "the cause"?


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> Tell that to my Portuguese friend who last week was told to go back home by a stranger who overheard his accent.



That's a cuntish thing to say, obviously, but this stranger isn't representative of the entire country, so you might want to acknowledge that your previous statement was unnecessarily hyperbolic.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yeah Spymaster. Tell it to this Portuguese friend. Tell it now, god damn it


So that comment to your Portuguese friend is representative of the country as a whole?

Edit> sorry, meant to quote Reno.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Because to advance it, one of the aims would be to convince bigots to be less so. Behaviour like this, i.e. actually using one's homosexuality to create a false allegation of homophobia, is more likely to foster greater animosity among a section of society that should be engaged positively. This is not rocket science.



He put himself forward as a martyr for the gay cause , in a way . He made a very public appeal for solidarity and justice, whipped up indignation and outrage . Turned out not only to be a liar but an extremely vindictive one at that . Out to do malicious harm to someone unfortunate enough to merely cross his path .

He's made those who supported him look foolish, at best . A self righteous lynch mob at worse .And some to look like prejudiced assholes themselves . All of that, not just his actions but more importantly the wider reaction reflects badly on anyone who automatically believed him and demanded the bus driver be punished . Regardless of their own orientation . Including that newspaper .

That's how a lot of people are discredited by this. It's not a case of gay man nicks push bike , ergo all gay men are thieves . It's a case of badly misplaced automatic sympathy leading to that automatic sympathy itself being tarnished ,discredited and open to ridicule . And that has the potential to have wider implications for those who have actually been discriminated against and who actually need voices raised on their behalf . Particularly if some of these voices continue to back it all up solely on the grounds of partisanship . They lose all credibility. Lack of credibility helps absolutely no ones cause. Lack of credibility reflects badly .

Like you said not rocket science .


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

andysays said:


> That's a cuntish thing to say, obviously, but this stranger isn't representative of the entire country, so you might want to acknowledge that your previous statement was unnecessarily hyperbolic.


Of course it isn't representative and it's idiotic to imply that I don't know this, but you must have been burying your head in the sand not to know that because of the referendum vote, lots more twats think they have been given the licence to abuse foreigners.

There aren't absolutes with these things and people who counter ones arguement's always think they are "winning" because they talk to you and about you as if you were talking in absolutes. But there is enough of a change that it can be felt by many who are foreigners. I know plenty of other Europeans who are leaving, who are thinking of leaving and to whom the UK has become a lot less attractive now.

And there are places which are more tolerant and others who are less tolerant of certain communities and if you are part of that community you feel it and you know it. When you don't, you are only talking in theory, be that homophobia or xenophobia in these cases. 

You may think you were clever by implying I can only see countries as one thing, I'm not. It doesn't need an entire country of bigots to make your life a lot less bearable, it just needs more of them.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> Of course it isn't representative and it's idiotic to imply that I don't know this,



You wrote: 





> Now this entire country has turned into one that is massively intolerant to foreigners.



That's pretty fucking offensive tbf.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You wrote:
> 
> That's pretty fucking offensive tbf.


You taking offence on behalf of Britain?


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You wrote:
> 
> That's pretty fucking offensive tbf.



offensive to who exactly?


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> If David Cameron was exposed as a sex pest who used his membership of the tory party to screw young women, would it be a good or bad thing for "the cause"?


What cause?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You taking offence on behalf of Britain?




Damn right I am.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> offensive to who exactly?



The 99% of people in this country who are not intolerant of foreigners.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The 99% of people in this country who are not intolerant of foreigners.



no it's not, I'm not offended for a start.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Damn right I am.


A heroic level of offence-taking. Rather appropriate for this thread...


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> You may think you were clever by implying I can only see countries as one thing, I'm not.


I'm not implying anything, I'm picking you up on *what you actually said.*


> It doesn't need an entire country of bigots to make your life a lot less bearable, it just needs more of them.


And if you'd said *that* to begin with, I wouldn't have had the slightest problem with it


----------



## alfajobrob (Sep 12, 2016)

A better analogy would be to say did Emily Thornberry's accusation of sexism to Dermot Murnaghan do anything to help the feminist cause?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> no it's not, I'm not offended for a start.



1%er


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Mation said:


> What cause?


In this case, the cause of the advancement of the aims of the Conservative party. We can forget "the cause" entirely though can't we, and just say would it be positive or negative for tories?


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> no it's not, I'm not offended for a start.



So if you're not offended, no one else is allowed to be either?


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> He put himself forward as a martyr for the gay cause , in a way . He made a very public appeal for solidarity and justice, whipped up indignation and outrage . Turned out not only to be a liar but an extremely vindictive one at that . Out to do malicious harm to someone unfortunate enough to merely cross his path .
> 
> He's made those who supported him look foolish, at best . A self righteous lynch mob at worse .And some to look like prejudiced assholes themselves . All of that, not just his actions but more importantly the wider reaction reflects badly on anyone who automatically believed him and demanded the bus driver be punished . Regardless of their own orientation . Including that newspaper .
> 
> ...


The reason several people with experience of prejudice are saying that it's a marginalising attitude is not because anyone thinks that you or anyone thinks that this incident will cause people to think that all LGBT people are liars, and it's insulting of you to suggest that we're that thick.

The nature of the wrongdoing, if there was any, is irrelevant to this. The fact that they 'whipped up indignation and outrage' about homophobia is a red herring. 

The individuals involved may lose personal credibility, but how can the fact that they lied (if they did) about homophobia hurt the 'LGBT cause' unless you think of them not as individuals, but as agents of the cause?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 12, 2016)

I hate it how 1% of the population owns more of the outrage than the remaining 99%.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2016)

I keep my anger at 110% unlike you slackers


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You wrote:
> 
> That's pretty fucking offensive tbf.


I could have put it better, but this country has voted for Brexit mostly because of anti-immigrant sentiments and that is going to be acted on by the government now. And whether you like it or not, this government represents this country.


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I hate it how 1% of the population owns more of the outrage than the remaining 99%.



Apparently I've just offended a representative of the 99% on behalf of the 99%, so we are all good!


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> In this case, the cause of the advancement of the aims of the Conservative party. We can forget "the cause" entirely though can't we, and just say would it be positive or negative for tories?


No, we can't just say that. Of course it would be negative for the Tories, but your analogy doesn't work at all because we're talking about discrimination against a marginalised group of people. You're talking about someone who joins an organisation with particular values and who claims to share those values then being outed as a hypocrite, suggesting that other people who claim to share those values might be similarly hypocritical. The Tory politician is a representative of the Tory party.

The gay couple on the bus have made some claims that may or may not be true. But they are not representative of gay people, no matter that they are talking about discrimination against gay people.

This may be hard to get your head around, but it's not hard for many people with experience of discrimination to do so. It might fall outside your set of concepts that are x, but your set is not the full one.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

andysays said:


> So if you're not offended, no one else is allowed to be either?



being offended at a foreign person calling the country you live in intolerant to foreigners takes a special kind of person.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Mation said:


> The gay couple on the bus have made some claims that may or may not be true. But they are not representative of gay people, no matter that they are talking about discrimination against gay people.


Let's say that in this case, the ultimate "cause" is equality for gay people. Not everyone thinks the same way that you do. In a group of bigots there will be some that are inveterate homophobes, others that are only mildly so, and everything in between. The first lot nobody can do much about but it must be a goal to hope that some of the others will change. Do you think ANY of _*them*_ may have their opinions of the broader LBGT community tarnished by the behaviour of these guys?


> This may be hard to get your head around, but it's not hard for many people with experience of discrimination to do so.


Yeah, cos I've never experienced discrimination.


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Let's say that in this case, the ultimate "cause" is equality for gay people. Not everyone thinks the same way that you do. In a group of bigots there will be some that are inveterate homophobes, others that are only mildly so, and everything in between. The first lot nobody can do much about but it must be a goal to hope that some of the others will change. Do you think ANY of _them_ may have their opinions of the broader LBGT community tarnished by the behaviour of these guys?


The question is not whether anyone might have their opinion tarnished, although some people might. The problem here is that some people on this thread have stated that they think the cause _has_ been harmed. If you think the cause _has_ been harmed, rather than being aware that some people will think the cause has been harmed, then you are someone who is not seeing these men as individuals, but as agents of the cause.



> Yeah, cos I've never experienced discrimination.


Did I suggest that you haven't?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Let's say that in this case, the ultimate "cause" is equality for gay people. Not everyone thinks the same way that you do. In a group of bigots there will be some that are inveterate homophobes, others that are only mildly so, and everything in between. The first lot nobody can do much about but it must be a goal to hope that some of the others will change. Do you think ANY of _*them*_ may have their opinions of the broader LBGT community tarnished by the behaviour of these guys?
> .


tbf there's something massively objectionable to the idea that a person is representing their 'xxx' group. Setting aside the massive problems of that shorthand 'LBGT community' (really, such a thing exists? what does that even mean?) nobody should ever be expected to take that kind of burden on. They may _choose_ to take something like that on, but that's very different from having it forced on them.

one difference between that and your tory eg is that people choose to be tories - that's a club they want to belong to. You don't join any club just by being LGBT.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Mation said:


> The question is not whether anyone might have their opinion tarnished, although some people might. The problem here is that some people on this thread have stated that they think the cause _has_ been harmed. If you think the cause _has_ been harmed, rather than being aware that some people will think the cause has been harmed, then you are someone who is not seeing these men as individuals, but as agents of the cause.


So are you accepting that some people will feel increased negativity towards the LBGT community as a whole because of these actions?


> Did I suggest that you haven't?


It seemed so.


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Let's say that in this case, the ultimate "cause" is equality for gay people. Not everyone thinks the same way that you do. In a group of bigots there will be some that are inveterate homophobes, others that are only mildly so, and everything in between. The first lot nobody can do much about but it must be a goal to hope that some of the others will change. Do you think ANY of _*them*_ may have their opinions of the broader LBGT community tarnished by the behaviour of these guys?
> 
> Yeah, cos I've never experienced discrimination.



You are arguing the same way that someone would argue that a black youth who mugged a white person is letting their entire race down. Which last time I checked, that was considered hugely offensive.

However these guys haven't even mugged anybody and nobody has made any claims that they were lying over the week since the story first broke. You have decided that they are lying on behalf of of nothing but your bias and prejuduce. So even if one individual could let their entire race or "community" down, nobody but you and small handful of people here think that they have. The story has probably been forgotten by anybody who wasn't personally affected and us sad fucks who keep this thread going.


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> So are you accepting that some people will feel increased negativity towards the LBGT community as a whole because of these actions?


This was never in dispute. If you think it was, read the last few pages again.

Some people will feel that way. To feel that way, you need to think of the men on the bus as representing 'the cause'.


----------



## Athos (Sep 12, 2016)

If this allegation is shown to be false, it will reinforce the view that many such allegations are false. That can only damage the interests of equality.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> The story has probably been forgotten by anybody who wasn't personally affected and us sad fucks who keep this thread going.


i wouldn't count on that


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Mation said:


> Some people will feel that way.


So ultimately is that positive or negative for other LBGT people? Or do you think it just doesn't matter?


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> So are you accepting that some people will feel increased negativity towards the LBGT community as a whole because of these actions?



Do you think you're letting men down with your antics on this thread?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> You are arguing the same way that someone would argue that a black youth who mugged a white person is letting their entire race down.


I'm arguing that some people would think worse of black people in general as a result of the actions of individuals. Yes, that's what I'm arguing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> You are arguing the same way that someone would argue that a black youth who mugged a white person is letting their entire race down. Which last time I checked, that was considered hugely offensive.
> 
> However these guys haven't even mugged anybody and nobody has made any claims that they were lying over the week since the story first broke. You have decided that they are lying on behalf of of nothing but your bias and prejuduce. So even if one individual could let their entire race or "community" down, nobody but you and small handful of people here think that they have. The story has probably been forgotten by anybody who wasn't personally affected and us sad fucks who keep this thread going.


let's put it this way: after 7/7 there were a lot of people who didn't want to sit on buses or trains near men from india and pakistan. it's not right, it's not fair, it shouldn't happen: but it did. that's at one end of the spectrum. at the other you get events like the one under discussion. if they have made unfounded allegations of racism and homophobia - and they have made allegations of racism and homophobia - then some people will find future allegations harder to believe. not to mention that using unfounded allegations of racism and homophobia to make someone lose their job is a cunt's trick.


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

Athos said:


> If this allegation is shown to be false, it will reinforce the view that many such allegations are false. That can only damage the interests of equality.


There was a high profile case of a faked homophobic attack recently (and there have been false allegations of racism, misogyny, etc) by some gay YouTube pundit or somesuch. It didn't damage the "interests of equality" because it's so massively outnumbered by reports of real incidents of homophobia.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> So ultimately is that positive or negative for other LBGT people? Or do you think it just doesn't matter?



It's only negative if you don't see these men as individuals and responsibility for and to themselves. If you see them as agents for a _cause_ primarily and not  as individuals you will make comments like EoY did.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> It's only negative if you don't see these men as individuals and responsibility for and to themselves. If you see them as agents for a _cause_ primarily and not  as individuals you will make comments like EoY did.


No, it's negative if _anyone_ sees them as agents for a wider cause. And some will.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> There was a high profile case of a faked homophobic attack recently (and there have been false allegations of racism, misogyny, etc) by some gay YouTube pundit or somesuch. It didn't damage the "interests of equality" because it's so massively outnumbered by reports of real incidents of homophobia.


so, on the one hand there is massive evidence of people not being treated equally and on the other other there's some people lying. what's that auld saying about two wrongs?


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> So ultimately is that positive or negative for other LBGT people? Or do you think it just doesn't matter?


*Analysis of your post*

Diversion: Irrelevant to the reason people reacted to the post about harming the cause.

False dichotomy and dismissal: 'Do you think [what I think] or [are you someone not worth bothering with]?'

Reduction: Let's make this problematic and nuanced issue into something simple in a yes or no sort of way. Must win this argument somehow.



A person makes a false allegation of rape.

They are found out.

Do you, spymaster, think that they have harmed the cause of getting people to be taken seriously when they report rape?

a) I would find it harder to take people seriously
b) I think some other people would find it harder to take seriously
c) something else

I think you're (now) trying to argue b) but the language you and others on this thread have taken comes across as a). That's what people are taking issue with.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No, it's negative if _anyone_ sees them as agents for a wider cause. And some will.



I am sure...but only those that see them primarily as representatives of a group and not individuals.


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> It seemed so.


My wording was specifically chosen not to. It's why I said 'many' and not 'all'. Some people who have experienced discrimination will also find this hard to get their heads around. I'd guess that most people (whether they've experienced discrimination or not) might find this tricky if it's not something they've (had occasion to) spend time thinking about.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Mation said:


> Do you, spymaster, think that they have harmed the cause of getting people to be taken seriously when they report rape?
> 
> a) I would find it harder to take people seriously
> b) I think some other people would find it harder to take seriously
> c) something else



Definitely b, as for myself it would depend on circumstances. 



> I think you're (now) trying to argue b) but the language you and others on this thread have taken comes across as a). That's what people are taking issue with.


Not for a minute. I've been arguing "b" all along and I've made that crystal clear, there's no issue with the language used.


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> so, on the one hand there is massive evidence of people not being treated equally and on the other other there's some people lying. what's that auld saying about two wrongs?


I wasn't talking about massive evidence of people not being treated equally, I was talking about massive evidence of people getting abused, assaulted or murdered.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I am sure...but only those that see them primarily as representatives of a group and not individuals.


But that in itself is negative!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> But that in itself is negative!



Exactly the point. The attitude that informs the judgement is negative because those people are incapable of seeing 'others' as individuals.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> I wasn't talking about massive evidence of people not being treated equally, I was talking about massive evidence of people getting abused, assaulted or murdered.


no, what you were talking about was massive evidence of people getting abused, assaulted or murdered _because of a particular characteristic_, while other people not possessing or not seen as possessing that characteristic were abused, assaulted or murdered at presumably a lesser rate. an issue therefore of inequality: and all issues of inequality are issues of equality, or the want thereof. people not being accepted for who they are is an issue of equality. and you are talking about people who are signally not accepted for who they are.


----------



## Athos (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> There was a high profile case of a faked homophobic attack recently (and there have been false allegations of racism, misogyny, etc) by some gay YouTube pundit or somesuch. It didn't damage the "interests of equality" because it's so massively outnumbered by reports of real incidents of homophobia.


But it's ammunition to those who seek it.


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> let's put it this way: after 7/7 there were a lot of people who didn't want to sit on buses or trains near men from india and pakistan. it's not right, it's not fair, it shouldn't happen: but it did. that's at one end of the spectrum. at the other you get events like the one under discussion. if they have made unfounded allegations of racism and homophobia - and they have made allegations of racism and homophobia - then some people will find future allegations harder to believe. not to mention that using unfounded allegations of racism and homophobia to make someone lose their job is a cunt's trick.


Everyone on this thread understands that.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

It's not that they represent the gay community in everything that they do. They can cheat at Agricola, beat their children or listen to Oasis records all day long without reflecting in the slightest on their community as a whole. It's if they lied about something that happened and presented it as a concern of the community as a whole that it's surely offensive and damaging to that community.


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Definitely b, as for myself it would depend on circumstances.
> 
> 
> Not for a minute. I've been arguing "b" all along and I've made that crystal clear, there's no issue with the language used.


If you'd made it crystal clear, no one would have taken issue with you.


----------



## Athos (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> There was a high profile case of a faked homophobic attack recently (and there have been false allegations of racism, misogyny, etc) by some gay YouTube pundit or somesuch. It didn't damage the "interests of equality" because it's so massively outnumbered by reports of real incidents of homophobia.


But it's ammunition to those who seek it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Mation said:


> Everyone on this thread understands that.


Good. That's the clarity I was aiming for.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2016)

Athos said:


> But it's ammunition to *those who seek it*.



Why should we concern ourselves with them?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Mation said:


> If you'd made it crystal clear, no one would have taken issue with you.


Well it was you primarily who took issue with me so perhaps you can quote one of my posts which makes my position seem ambiguous?

Here's my response to you:


> Because to advance it, one of the aims would be _to convince bigots to be less so_. Behaviour like this, i.e. actually using one's homosexuality to create a false allegation of homophobia, is more likely to foster greater animosity among _a section of society_ that should be engaged positively.


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> It's not that they represent the gay community in everything that they do. They can cheat at Agricola, beat their children or listen to Oasis records all day long without reflecting in the slightest on their community as a whole. It's if they lied about something that happened and presented it as a concern of the community as a whole that it's surely offensive and damaging to that community.


Only if you think of them as representing 'the community'. That's about your (plural) own beliefs.


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well it was you primarily who took issue with me so perhaps you can quote one of my posts which makes my position seem ambiguous?
> Here's my response to you:


You leapt to the defence of EoY, who was arguing a).


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

Mation said:


> Everyone on this thread understands that.



When you are mainly in it to score points, it helps to treat everybody else like they are unreasonable idiots.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Why should we concern ourselves with them?


I thought we did concern ourselves with racists, sexists, homophobes and so on.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

Mation said:


> Only if you think of them as representing 'the community'. That's about your (plural) own beliefs.


That's kind of ignoring the post that I actually wrote. If you make an accusation of homophobia, or racism, or sexism then in getting a response to it you are benefitting from, and are indeed part of, the struggle of that community to not be discriminated against. If it's a lie I don't see his that's not enormously offensive to the other members of that community. I can only draw part parallels in my own life so I won't but I don't see how something that is so utterly dependent on the work and struggle of a group of people is suddenly irrelevant in this situation.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Mation said:


> You leapt to the defence of EoY, who was arguing a).


Nope, I attacked krtek for misrepresenting her post. She was talking about 'the cause' and he was insisting that she said it was "a reflection on all gay people". BIG difference, as was mentioned by several other posters at the time. So if that was the basis of your posts to me, they've been rather pointless.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Nope, I attacked krtek for misrepresenting her post. She was talking about "the cause" and he was insisting that she said it was *"a reflection on all gay people"*. BIG difference, as was mentioned by several other posters at the time. So if that was the basis of your posts to me, they've been rather pointless.



That is what her 'the cause of LGBT people' actually means Spy, 'the actions of one or two reflects on all of them/their cause'...they are not individuals, they are part of an _homegenous_ group who first and foremost are representatives of a cause/group. She didn't say 'to your average bigot'...she posited as if it were generally true, to most people...no qualifying some or many or a few....just presented as if it is true...you liked that post btw.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 12, 2016)

Thanks for telling me what I meant.


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> That's kind of ignoring the post that I actually wrote. If you make an accusation of homophobia, or racism, or sexism then in getting a response to it you are benefitting from, and are indeed part of, the struggle of that community to not be discriminated against. If it's a lie I don't see his that's not enormously offensive to the other members of that community. I can only draw part parallels in my own life so I won't but I don't see how something that is so utterly dependent on the work and struggle of a group of people is suddenly irrelevant in this situation.


It's not irrelevant bar to some of the arguments some posters are making. If it's true that they've lied it would be very offensive, yes. That's not incompatible with understanding that they are not representative,  I don't think.

Did I get your meaning/answer your point?



Spymaster said:


> Nope, I attacked krtek for misrepresenting her post. She was talking about "the cause" and he was insisting that she said it was "a reflection on all gay people". BIG difference, as was mentioned by several other posters at the time. So if that was the basis of your posts to me, they've been rather pointless.


They were right to. Your interpretation of it being a 'reflection on all gay people' is at fault, as I explained earlier. The post wasn't misrepresented.


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Thanks for telling me what I meant.


Based on what you said. If we've misunderstood, please do set us right.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

The worst thing about this thread is I get the impression it is straight people vs lgbt people. I hope I'm wrong because I thought more highly of urban than that.


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> The worst thing about this thread is I get the impression it is straight people vs lgbt people. I hope I'm wrong because I thought more highly of urban than that.


That does seem to be a large part of it, sadly.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Thanks for telling me what I meant.



You clarified what you meant earlier and I still disagree with you. What we are discussing are the implications and associations at play in what you said, and comments/attitudes like that.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Mation said:


> It's not irrelevant bar to some of the arguments some posters are making. If it's true that they've lied it would be very offensive, yes. That's not incompatible with understanding that they are not representative,  I don't think.



Ffs, nobody here has argued that they are representative of _all gay people_. You seem to think that only you and a few others here get that. That's just plain weird. It's not a difficult concept to 'get one's head around' at all, it's very simple. Childishly so.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> That is what her 'the cause of LGBT people' actually means Spy, 'the actions of one or two reflects on all of them/their cause'...they are not individuals ...


Why do you think that's what was meant? 

I didn't.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Ffs, nobody here has argued that they are representative of _all gay people_. You seem to think that only you and a few others here get that. That's just plain weird. It's not a difficult concept to 'get one's head around' at all, it's very simple. Childishly so.



Come on Spy you have been agreeing with and arguing that this will damage the LGBT 'cause' that it gives justification to bigots....if they are already bigots they don't need justification ffs.

Unless you think non-bigoted people hear about situations like this and think... 'well I am now convinced that no claim of homopobia is true' and become bigoted?


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> The worst thing about this thread is I get the impression it is straight people vs lgbt people. I hope I'm wrong because I thought more highly of urban than that.


Unfortunately based on some past discussions, I don't think of Urban highly in that regard. I twice took breaks which lasted over a year because of far worse crap like this. For many people here this is all about ideology and "matching their wits on the Interwebs". But for some of us, it has been a life or death thing in the past.


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Ffs, nobody here has argued that they are representative of _all gay people_. You seem to think that only you and a few others here get that. That's just plain weird. It's not a difficult concept to 'get one's head around' at all, it's very simple. Childishly so.


You're missing the point, repeatedly, that to think that they have harmed the cause necessarily entails thinking that they are representative, ie that their actions have the ability to impact by virtue of being a part of the subject of the cause. Your posts demonstrate clearly that you've missed this point (although they also show that that's probably not the position you want to hold). 

You don't have to save face. You could just go off and think about it


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Because to advance it, one of the aims would be to convince bigots to be less so.



Back in the Sixties, during the US Civil Rights movement, there was a phrase that got tossed around:

"He is a credit to his race."

Simply put, it was a term used by racists and white supremacists to describe black people whose behavior conformed to a model that the racists and supremacists were comfortable with.

To a supremacist, a black person who was a credit to his race was a black person who knew his place, who didn't rock the boat, who didn't agitate, demonstrate or complain.

A black person could also be considered 'not a credit to his race', if he engaged in any of the negative behaviors that people get up to: drinking, fighting, cheating, being unemployed, etc.

The part the supremacists were missing - as usual - was that each black person was an individual.

It might be true that if gay people, members of minority groups in general, were to be on their best behavior, 24/7, then it might make those who dislike them more comfortable. 

But we who are members of these minorites, aren't interested in living our lives in reaction to what some group may or may not think about us. We want to live our lives on our own terms, based on our own experiences. That means we will at times mess up, like all people do; but that's just a consequence of living.

I'm content to live my life in the manner of my own choosing. 

I also want bigotry to be kept in check: but I'm content to let the law deal with the likes of those people. I won't be altering my behavior, in an attempt to win the approval of bigots.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Come on Spy you have been agreeing with and arguing that this will damage the LGBT 'cause' ...


We dealt with this above and I still assert that the fact that anyone would think worse of the wider gay community _is inherently damaging_. That's not controversial.


> ... that it gives justification to bigots....if they are already bigots they don't need justification ffs.


That was Athos, but I agree with him. I think some bigots can change but actions like this make that less likely.


----------



## Athos (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Why should we concern ourselves with them?


Because they're the ones responsible for a lot of the harm?


----------



## Mation (Sep 12, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Back in the Sixties, during the US Civil Rights movement, there was a phrase that got tossed around:
> 
> "He is a credit to his race."
> 
> ...


This.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> We dealt with this above and I still assert that *the fact that anyone would think worse of the wider gay community is inherently damaging.* That's not controversial.



I think it is contraversial. Reason being that _anyone _who would hold the 'gay community' to account for the actions of two gay men are _the actual problem_ here. They have a dismissive and marginalising attitude towards gay people already to even think that.

Both you and I fit under the category BAME for example. I'll be fucked if I am being held responsible for you and all you do  and I am sure you feel the same about me


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Back in the Sixties, during the US Civil Rights movement, there was a phrase that got tossed around:
> 
> "He is a credit to his race."
> 
> ...


Nice post, I agree with all of it, but it's not a response to the post of mine that you've quoted.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Nice post, I agree with all of it, but it's not a response to the post of mine that you've quoted.



It is. 

It's a great example of how the double standards in how certain demographics are characterised, marginalised, held responsible to and for eachother and the subsequent expectations made of them aren't anything new.

'Advancement' doesn't occur by jumping through the hoops and conforming to the negative attitudes and expectations of those which impose them.


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> We dealt with this above and I still assert that the fact that anyone would think worse of the wider gay community _is inherently damaging_. That's not controversial.
> 
> That was Athos, but I agree with him. I think some bigots can change but actions like this make that less likely.


The only thing which has been shown to change bigots is when they suddenly have to deal with an issue personally. There have been plenty of anti-gay social conservatives who only changed their tune after their child turned out to be gay. One gay person not living up to the highest of standards expected of us "to be a credit to our community" changes nothing, it only confirms their prejuduce and hate which usually can't get much worse than it already is.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> The worst thing about this thread is I get the impression it is straight people vs lgbt people. I hope I'm wrong because I thought more highly of urban than that.


There is no openly gay poster arguing the 'lying twats' side of the argument but the other positions are fairly well represented allowing for the fact that I don't know everyone's sexuality. Think what you like anyway. I was brought up by a gay mother, spent time at Molesworth and Greenham Common as well as countless pride events as a kid and am no homophobe.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> There is no openly gay poster arguing the 'lying twats' side of the argument but the other positions are fairly well represented allowing for the fact that I don't know everyone's sexuality. Think what you like anyway. I was brought up by a gay mother, spent time at Molesworth and Greenham Common as well as countless pride events as a kid and am no homophobe.


i'll happily argue that if they are lying they are twats

and as a transport worker i'll also happily argue that if the bus driver said exactly what was reported then he's a twat

theres been 12 pages while i've been at work.  have any facts emerged yet?


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> i'll happily argue that if they are lying they are twats
> 
> and as a transport worker i'll also happily argue that if the bus driver said exactly what was reported then he's a twat
> 
> theres been 12 pages while i've been at work.  have any facts emerged yet?



No, and unless they find in the complainant's favour I doubt they ever will. At least not so prominently.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> The worst thing about this thread is I get the impression it is straight people vs lgbt people. I hope I'm wrong because I thought more highly of urban than that.



Are you really playing the "They're only saying that cause they're gay" accusation card?


----------



## Gromit (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> There is no openly gay poster arguing the 'lying twats' side of the argument



Human nature. If they are proven to be lying twats watch people try to distance themselves, brush it under the carpet, pretend it never happened.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Are you really playing the "They're only saying that cause they're gay" accusation card?


Fuck off Gromit. It hasn't been the pleasantest thread ever without you coming along poking your shitty troll stick in it.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> Fuck off Gromit. It hasn't been the pleasantest thread ever without you coming along poking your shitty troll stick in it.



On the other hand this might finally unite all posters on the thread


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Human nature


no such thing you ignorant twat. The diversity of norms and behaviour between/within a species is a sign of what makes it intelligent. Human nature. Define it beyond biological primate terms. You can't.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> There is no openly gay poster arguing the 'lying twats' side of the argument but the other positions are fairly well represented allowing for the fact that I don't know everyone's sexuality. Think what you like anyway. I was brought up by a gay mother, spent time at Molesworth and Greenham Common as well as countless pride events as a kid and am no homophobe.



I'm not accusing anyone of being a homophobe. But if I as a white person was having an argument about a potentially racist incident and saw that I was arguing against all the black people I might just decide to stfu.


----------



## muscovyduck (Sep 12, 2016)

Tbh I'm surprised at the amount of people who started reading the thread and thought "I'll argue the same side as gromit"


----------



## two sheds (Sep 12, 2016)

is there a "same side as gromit"?


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> I'm not accusing anyone of being a homophobe. But if I as a white person was having an argument about a potentially racist incident and saw that I was arguing against all the black people I might just decide to stfu.


We can start the argument at the beginning again if you want?


----------



## Ole (Sep 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> It's a great example of how the double standards in how certain demographics are characterised, marginalised, held responsible to and for eachother and the subsequent expectations made of them aren't anything new.



It's not a double standard. It's a single standard.

False allegations of X undermine the credibility of all allegations of X; no matter what X is. 

That's only in the real world though. Urban75 is probably a different story.



bi0boy said:


> The worst thing about this thread is I get the impression it is straight people vs lgbt people. I hope I'm wrong because I thought more highly of urban than that.



That's because you're a twisted individual.



bi0boy said:


> It's funny though that it always seems to be the straight white men who bring class into discussions of racism and homophobia.



Weirdo.


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> We can start the argument at the beginning again if you want?


I'm afraid there is no walking this back.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

Ole said:


> That's because you're a twisted individual.
> 
> Weirdo.



Why am I a "twisted individual"

Who are you?


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> We can start the argument at the beginning again if you want?



Why would you want to do that


----------



## Ole (Sep 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> no such thing you ignorant twat. The diversity of norms and behaviour between/within a species is a sign of what makes it intelligent. Human nature. Define it beyond biological primate terms. You can't.


Bollocks.

Why are you a socialist/anarchist? Because you believe in some conception of what is good for people;* all people*.

*Article 18.*

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

*Article 19.*

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.​
Why are these considered human rights by so many? Because we have collectively deemed them so consonant with human nature that we believe they should be afforded to all people. Why is education considered a right of all children? How can any 'human right' have any worth whatsoever if there was no such thing as an intrinsic human nature?

The fact that the exact properties of human nature are very difficult to delineate are not an argument that no such properties exist.


----------



## snadge (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Why am I a "twisted individual"
> 
> Who are you?



You are full of shite. Answer to your first question, answer to your second is, none of your business, why? Because I do not confront anonymous people on the internet with varying ridiculous analogies.


----------



## Ole (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Why am I a "twisted individual"



Because of the posts of yours I quoted.

Einstein.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

snadge said:


> You are full of shite. Answer to your first question, answer to your second is, none of your business, why? Because I do not confront anonymous people on the internet with varying ridiculous analogies.



Really?



snadge said:


> In some cases yes, would you say rape was a type of sexuality? Or sex pesting? peadophillia?





snadge said:


> Fuck off, it's a public board.



Indeed


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2016)

Ole said:


> Because of the posts of yours I quoted.
> 
> Einstein.



Aren't you a clever one


----------



## xenon (Sep 12, 2016)

Skimmed some of this putrid thread, just to add to the centiment.

Not commenting about this particular situation, I don't in all honestly care that much, as we're not going to find out exactly what happened and playing interwebs judge and jury with out facts always makes you look like a twat.

But it's a given some gay  / black / disabled people make spurious claims alleging abuce targeting that aspect of themselves. Because mendacity, confusion, selfserving behaviour, are trates found in every section of society.

This doesn't of course happen on mass though. Thus someone siting such a case to supposedly draw the inference that all such claims of abuce are bogus, is IMO consciously or otherwise, just seaking to reinforce a held belief. Maybe you can reason with them, present stats and so on, if you've got the time but probably on to a bit of a loser.

Outside a few specific, deliberate circumstances, who is a representative of their sexuality, race, disability. Not me and not them.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 12, 2016)

Reno said:


> I'm afraid there is no walking this back.


 
you could try catching a bus


----------



## snadge (Sep 12, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Really?



Yes fucking really, your a fucking nasty menace.

People like you put progression back fucking eons.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2016)

Ole said:


> Because we have collectively deemed them so consonant with human nature


and who defines that? Not to long ago it was so defined that the traits of the humans described were evidence of criminal tendency. It was very long ago when south american holy men would show a heart to the sun. This is human nature: Flower war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia







and this











I could go on. But I hope you see my point here


----------



## two sheds (Sep 12, 2016)

those are cats


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> those are cats


Easy mistake to make on Urban.


----------



## Ole (Sep 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> and who defines that? Not to long ago it was so defined that the traits of the humans described were evidence of criminal tendency. It was very long ago when south american holy men would show a heart to the sun. This is human nature: Flower war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> and this
> ...



Humans define that. Like we define morality. Is there such a thing as morality? 

You've only demonstrated that human nature is varied and difficult to define. No-one disagrees with that. It is your assertion that there is *no such thing* as human nature which is definitely not true.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2016)

from bastet to modern day. And what sort of 'human nature' did the ancients recognize? Not our one.


----------



## Ole (Sep 12, 2016)

Us and the ancients certainly wouldn't agree on everything about human nature but would we agree on nothing at all? Certainly we would agree on something non-trivial. We wouldn't understand anything they wrote otherwise.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2016)

Ole said:


> Humans define that. Like we define morality. Is there such a thing as morality?
> 
> You've only demonstrated that human nature is varied and difficult to define. No-one disagrees with that. It is your assertion that there is *no such thing* as human nature which is definitely not true.


outside of basic primate needs. What you got? social and physical technologies like language, fire, a system of debt marker, what?

My basic here is that its the extremes of variation that show intelligence and adaptation. Who the hell learned that you could stuff a shit load of birds into a sack and leave them to literally ferment themselves? People who live in very cold places and get visited once a season by birds.


of course basic morality exits for me, I have a church hangover ffs but it is not written in stone. There was a time when I read of this thing, a horrible thing. That was normalised. The vans going out and the testimony from witnesses saying they hammered on the sides of the vans saying 'please kind germans let us out'

Human nature? Where was the innate decency at Dachau? the norms of 'never murder a child'? didn't exist because its a myth

e2a we can make them exist though, the right ways. But its not hardwired


----------



## Ole (Sep 12, 2016)

Firstly, why 'outside of basic primate needs'? Seems that would be a pretty important part of human nature. 

But putting that aside for a minute, I will say for one, the capacity for language is definitely a significant and unique facet of human nature.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 12, 2016)

Ole said:


> Firstly, why 'outside of basic primate needs'? Seems that would be a pretty important part of human nature.
> 
> But putting that aside for a minute, I will say for one, the capacity for language is definitely a significant and unique facet of human nature.



Scientists discover dolphins ‘can speak almost like humans’



and even just say 'squirrel' to my dog and watch the reaction


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

Ole said:


> Firstly, why 'outside of basic primate needs'? Seems that would be a pretty important part of human nature.
> 
> But putting that aside for a minute, I will say for one, the capacity for language is definitely a significant and unique facet of human nature.


Plenty of animals speak their own language.


----------



## Ole (Sep 12, 2016)

Human language is unique.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 12, 2016)




----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2016)

Ole said:


> Human language is unique.


So is my cat's.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> just say 'squirrel' to my dog and watch the reaction



The real reaction will be the day your dog says 'squirrel' to you.


----------



## A380 (Sep 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> those are cats


So??


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

A380 said:


> So??



And that's what it comes down to on u75. Cats.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2016)

Ole said:


> Seems that would be a pretty important part of human nature.



yes. Political and social organisation though? Did you read the flower wars link I posted? Human nature is an amorphous concept defined by people who go top down. I have personal rules instead. Rape of Nanking. Where was the universal human concepts there

and human language is supposed to be unique because we possess grammar and the ability to do third stage reasoning using this social technology. They say neanderthal never had the voicebox in the right place for speech but singing comes from a different part of the brain. So I like to think they sung. It creates a pleasant image of hulking hominids chanting low together as they worked, or roaring out the songs as they feasted. ahem. We have strayed so far off topic we may as well be on mars


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 12, 2016)

A380 said:


> So??


----------



## two sheds (Sep 12, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The real reaction will be the day your dog says 'squirrel' to you.



She looks at me and says 'Rough'


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2016)

_Maybe_ it's time LGBT folks did have a separate area on u75 - not that I want us to be ghetto but perhaps a safe place where we can talk without ad hominems, derailements, the usual homophobes, etc.

Just so we can deal with everday crap without the bastards on our case.


----------



## Ole (Sep 12, 2016)

lol


----------



## Athos (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> _Maybe_ it's time LGBT folks did have a separate area on u75 - not that I want us to be ghetto but perhaps a safe place where we can talk without ad hominems, derailements, the usual homophobes, etc.
> 
> Just so we can deal with everday crap without the bastards on our case.


Bigotry is a problem in wider society; I'm not convinced that the solution lies in talking amongst yourselves. It'd be an identity politics echo chamber.  There might be a place for that in terms of mutual support, but surely it'd have limited value in terms of any meaningful discussion of the issues?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2016)

Plus nobody wants to talk to him


----------



## Athos (Sep 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Plus nobody wants to talk to him


Fuck of. You're a prick, too.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Scientists discover dolphins ‘can speak almost like humans’



If they mean almost like the sound humans make out the other end during chronic diarrhoea fair enough . Otherwise dolphins are rubbish


----------



## two sheds (Sep 12, 2016)

I'd rather listen to them though


----------



## YouSir (Sep 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> _Maybe_ it's time LGBT folks did have a separate area on u75 - not that I want us to be ghetto but perhaps a safe place where we can talk without ad hominems, derailements, the usual homophobes, etc.
> 
> Just so we can deal with everday crap without the bastards on our case.



A fine idea if people want it. One that might be improved if you limited your contributions though.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2016)

Mation said:


> The reason several people with experience of prejudice are saying that it's a marginalising attitude is not because anyone thinks that you or anyone thinks that this incident will cause people to think that all LGBT people are liars, and it's insulting of you to suggest that we're that thick.
> 
> The nature of the wrongdoing, if there was any, is irrelevant to this. The fact that they 'whipped up indignation and outrage' about homophobia is a red herring.
> 
> The individuals involved may lose personal credibility, but how can the fact that they lied (if they did) about homophobia hurt the 'LGBT cause' unless you think of them not as individuals, but as agents of the cause?



Because of the behaviour and knee jerk abuse directed by supporters of that cause , regardless of their orientation, towards both the driver and anyone who didn't automatically believe the 2 liars . Something I explained more than adequately in my post . Ive made it perfectly clear I'm not just talking about them, or even lgbt people either for that matter .


----------



## A380 (Sep 12, 2016)

Dolphin Bus.

Happy to contribute to the debate; no don't thank me.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I'm arguing that some people would think worse of black people in general as a result of the actions of individuals. Yes, that's what I'm arguing.



I'm arguing that if such an individual sought to evade responsibility for his actions by making a false accusation of racism , in order to evoke wider public sympathy and enact personal revenge on his victim, and it later transpired he was a mugging scrote, then it's those who took up his cause who look bad afterwards. No matter what colour they were .  That if they automatically believed a very dodgy tale without engaging in critical thinking it gives the appearance of them being motivated by partisanship as opposed to justice . That they've no sincerity as regards justice for all . Only justice for some . For certain identities . And to be seen to adopt such unthinking , wholly partisan positions results in alienation and polarisation as opposed to solidarity . That's the wider damage such lies do .


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 13, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> The worst thing about this thread is I get the impression it is straight people vs lgbt people. I hope I'm wrong because I thought more highly of urban than that.



Me too but probably in a different way. You wouldn't ordinarily accept a worker getting grief on their shift but as accusations of homophobia have been flung about you're fighting that cause regardless.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> Only if you think of them as representing 'the community'. That's about your (plural) own beliefs.


That doesn't quite work. Maomao has a point, imo. If (and fuck knows what actually happened), but _if_ they claimed discrimination on the basis of their sexuality when that was not the case, then they were attempting to take advantage of a group dynamic - _they_ were attempting, surely, to present _themselves_ as members of that 'community'. And it's not as if a situation where you can claim discrimination on the basis of your sexuality has just appeared out of nowhere - it's the product of the struggles of various people.

Clearly, only a homophobe will think less of gay people because of the actions of a couple of dicks who happen to be gay. Ditto only racists will think less of black people because of the actions of a couple of dicks who happen to be black. And of course, the reverse, thinking better of whatever group they categorise people in because they meet some nice ones. Only bigots judge according to those criteria. However, it is still inaccurate to depict EoY as one of those bigots for her comment - she was at most saying that you might damage the image of gay people in the eyes of homophobes. Objectionable on many levels as that comment may be, it doesn't actually place her as a homophobe, which is what the misrepresentation of her post did, saying that she herself thought it was a poor reflection on gay people, ie she is one of those bigots.

This stuff may seem like hair splitting, but it really isn't. It's why this thread has turned to such shit in the most part - people taking what someone else says, adding a new layer to it, and claiming that they actually said this new, more extreme thing. Ugly bunfights are the inevitable consequence.


----------



## bimble (Sep 13, 2016)

This thread is amazing , it's a work of art, like one of those massive papier mache ones all hollow in the middle. Just kept me entertained through a really long queue. 
But seriously.. 
When that labour mp woman shouted 'antisemite' recently & ran to the press with her ridiculous story, I felt angry and pissed off because of course false claims / accusations like hers will make people less likely to take the real thing seriously so yes what she did was damaging to 'the cause' of Jews. By some peoples logic here, saying that makes me.. antisemitic. Genius stuff, do crack on.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That doesn't quite work. Maomao has a point, imo. If (and fuck knows what actually happened), but _if_ they claimed discrimination on the basis of their sexuality when that was not the case, then they were attempting to take advantage of a group dynamic - _they_ were attempting, surely, to present _themselves_ as members of that 'community'. And it's not as if a situation where you can claim discrimination on the basis of your sexuality has just appeared out of nowhere - it's the product of the struggles of various people.
> 
> Clearly, only a homophobe will think less of gay people because of the actions of a couple of dicks who happen to be gay. Ditto only racists will think less of black people because of the actions of a couple of dicks who happen to be black. And of course, the reverse, thinking better of whatever group they categorise people in because they meet some nice ones. Only bigots judge according to those criteria. However, it is still inaccurate to depict EoY as one of those bigots for her comment - she was at most saying that you might damage the image of gay people in the eyes of homophobes. Objectionable on many levels as that comment may be, it doesn't actually place her as a homophobe, which is what the misrepresentation of her post did, saying that she herself thought it was a poor reflection on gay people, ie she is one of those bigots.
> 
> This stuff may seem like hair splitting, but it really isn't. It's why this thread has turned to such shit in the most part - people taking what someone else says, adding a new layer to it, and claiming that they actually said this new, more extreme thing. Ugly bunfights are the inevitable consequence.


I can't tell you how angry I am with you.

You are doing what straight white cis men do. You are so sure that it is you who has understood the situation and seen the point and picked up all nuance that you feel you must step in to clarify and explain and set the record straight in the name of fairness. You're not hair splitting, you say, as though I or anyone else has failed to grasp the difference between what EoY has done and ' the homophobes who will think less of gay people'.

You know that babies are born with the ability to make all of the sounds of human language but that with time the ability to make sounds is restricted to those the baby has been exposed to. Then later, perhaps as an adult, when they hear a new language been spoken and are trying to learn some words there might be a sound that they can't hear; two sounds even, that they can't hear the difference between. So they pronounce the sound they think they are hearing. That's what their brain classifies the sound as because they don't have a concept of the unpronounceable (for them) sound. Then a native speaker of that language tells them that there is a difference between what they've pronounced and what it actually should be. They give some examples. Other native speakers of that language can hear the difference, clearly.

You have waded in to explain that the sound you can neither hear nor pronounce is in fact the one that your brain defaults to because you don't have the concept of the one that I'm pronouncing. You've come here to explain that the sound is the one you hear and that it's not fair to use it interchangeably with a third sound. I can hear all 3 and the difference between them all. You can only hear 2 and you think I can only hear one of them.

You fucking arrogant prick.

We are trying to tell you something and you're not even able to consider that you might have missed what.

This is why I didn't want the agenda of this thread to be set by straight white cis men like you. This is why the thread has gone the way it has. Because we have to spend our time battling your blundering cocksure ignorance.

Stop. Know that you've missed something. Try to learn what. Or fuck off. Actually, fuck off anyway.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> _Maybe_ it's time LGBT folks did have a separate area on u75 - not that I want us to be ghetto but perhaps a safe place where we can talk without ad hominems, derailements, the usual homophobes, etc.
> 
> Just so we can deal with everday crap without the bastards on our case.


Oh god can you imagine the whining outrage?  But whhhhhyyyy can't we join in too??? Snot faaaaair. 


Athos said:


> Bigotry is a problem in wider society; I'm not convinced that the solution lies in talking amongst yourselves. It'd be an identity politics echo chamber.  There might be a place for that in terms of mutual support, but surely it'd have limited value in terms of any meaningful discussion of the issues?


We don't give a shit where you think the solution lies


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> I can't tell you how angry I am with you.
> 
> You are doing what straight white cis men do. You are so sure that it is you who has understood the situation and seen the point and picked up all nuance that you feel you must step in to clarify and explain and set the record straight in the name of fairness. You're not hair splitting, you say, as though I or anyone else has failed to grasp the difference between what EoY has done and ' the homophobes who will think less of gay people'.
> 
> ...



So ElizabethofYork is making homophobic comments that littlebabyjesus can't hear because he's not gay or black?


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> So ElizabethofYork is making homophobic comments that littlebabyjesus can't hear because he's not gay or black?


Yes, that's exactly what I said.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I said.



Well that's certainly a watertight way of ensuring you don't ever have to consider another person's opinion. It's almost admirable.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Well that's certainly a watertight way of ensuring you don't ever have to consider another person's opinion. It's almost admirable.


Are you aware of the concept of sarcasm?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> Are you aware of the concept of sarcasm?



Fair enough. Sarcasm doesn't transmit over written word though. As it stands then, I can't make head nor tail of your analogy. What 'nuance' has lbj (and presumably myself) missed, and why have we missed it?


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> We don't give a shit where you think the solution lies




Not sure who the "we" is, or the basis upon which you purport to speak for the whole of that group. But, insofar as your personal opinion is that you don't give a shit what I think, I get the idea that minorities must direct their own struggles. But do you really believe that isolationism is the most effective tactic to change attitudes of the wider population?


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Fair enough. Sarcasm doesn't transmit over written word though. As it stands then, I can't make head nor tail of your analogy. What 'nuance' has lbj (and presumably myself) missed, and why have we missed it?


Why not read the posts since EoY's again now that you know there is something you weren't getting.


Athos said:


> Not sure who the "we" is, or the basis upon which you purport to speak for the whole of that group. But, insofar as your personal opinion is that you don't give a shit what I think, I get the idea that minorities must direct their own struggles. But do you really believe that isolationism is the most effective tactic to change attitudes of the wider population?


*sigh*

You've put your needs and wishes and thoughts at the centre again. Isolationism, indeed 

I do wish there was an equivalent of White Nonsense Round-up to call to come and talk to you. Perhaps someone else will step in to help you think through this. I'm going to get ready for work


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> You've put your needs and wishes and thoughts at the centre again.



No I haven't; I've asked you what you think, and why.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> No I haven't; I've asked you what you think, and why.


You're asking me what I think about your agenda. You want to talk about isolationism and persuading wider society. Did you notice that the mention of an LGBT forum was about a place for LGBT to talk without having to do all of this battling? Did it's purpose register with you at all? It doesn't seem to have done. You have leapt straight to 'but how will that help me/wider society?'. Its purpose would not be for you/about you/wider society. It' like saying to people about to attend group therapy for survivors of domestic violence, but do you think that going to the group is the best way to prevent violent abuse? 

Shower!!


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 13, 2016)

Omg has that ElizabethofYork person fucked up again? Lol


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 13, 2016)

5t3IIa said:


> Omg has that ElizabethofYork person fucked up again? Lol


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 13, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> > The worst thing about this thread is I get the impression it is straight people vs lgbt people. I hope I'm wrong because I thought more highly of urban than that.
> 
> 
> 
> Me too but probably in a different way. You wouldn't ordinarily accept a worker getting grief on their shift but as accusations of homophobia have been flung about you're fighting that cause regardless.



Ah yes, you must feel terrible when you see fellow working class urbanites set upon by all the gays.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 13, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


>


Oh it's v early


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> You're asking me what I think about your agenda. You want to talk about isolationism and persuading wider society. Did you notice that the mention of an LGBT forum was about a place for LGBT to talk without having to do all of this battling? Did it's purpose register with you at all? It doesn't seem to have done. You have leapt straight to 'but how will that help me/wider society?'. Its purpose would not be for you/about you/wider society. It' like saying to people about to attend group therapy for survivors of domestic violence, but do you think that going to the group is the best way to prevent violent abuse?
> 
> Shower!!


No, I'm asking you what you think about the wider topic of this thread. 

And I've said nothing about helping me/being for our about me; that's something you've made up. Nor did I suggest any primacy of the interests of the wider community; my question was whether the interests of minority groups are best served by withdrawing from that community. 

Yes, I noted the purpose of the proposed forum, and acknowledged it may be useful in some respects e.g. support (to alleviate the symptoms of bigotry), but queried its value in other respects e.g. changing attitudes (to address the cause).  Which is why your DV analogy falls down.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> No, I'm asking you what you think about the wider topic of this thread.
> 
> And I've said nothing about helping me/being for our about me; that's something you've made up. Nor did I suggest any primacy of the interests of the wider community; my question was whether the interests of minority groups are best served by withdrawing from that community.
> 
> Yes, I noted the purpose of the proposed forum, and acknowledged it may be useful in some respects e.g. support (to alleviate the symptoms of bigotry), but queried its value in other respects e.g. changing attitudes (to address the cause).  Which is why your DV analogy falls down.


 You totally didn't. And yes I know what you're asking. You want me to answer the questions you set. Your agenda. Christ  If you're a troll, you're quite good at it!


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Clearly, only a homophobe will think less of gay people because of the actions of a couple of dicks who happen to be gay. Ditto only racists will think less of black people because of the actions of a couple of dicks who happen to be black. And of course, the reverse, thinking better of whatever group they categorise people in because they meet some nice ones. Only bigots judge according to those criteria. However, it is still inaccurate to depict EoY as one of those bigots for her comment - she was at most saying that you might damage the image of gay people in the eyes of homophobes. Objectionable on many levels as that comment may be, it doesn't actually place her as a homophobe, which is what the misrepresentation of her post did, saying that she herself thought it was a poor reflection on gay people, ie she is one of those bigots.
> 
> This stuff may seem like hair splitting, but it really isn't. It's why this thread has turned to such shit in the most part - people taking what someone else says, adding a new layer to it, and claiming that they actually said this new, more extreme thing. Ugly bunfights are the inevitable consequence.



Thank fuck. At Mation's behest I _did_ leave the thread last night to have a think about my position as I was feeling like something of a lone voice, but this is what I was saying all night.

Why didn't anyone else get it?

Sorry to annoy Rutita and Mation but this seems obvious to me.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Just as a reminder:





Athos said:


> But do you really believe that isolationism is the most effective tactic to change attitudes of the wider population?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Thank fuck. At Mation's behest I _did_ leave the thread last night to have a think about my position as I was feeling like something of a lone voice, but this is what I was saying all night.
> 
> Why didn't anyone else get it?
> 
> Sorry to annoy Rutita and Mation but this seems obvious to me.


If that's what you think, pa, you're right to say it


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Thank fuck. At Mation's behest I _did_ leave the thread last night to have a think about my position as I was feeling like something of a lone voice, but this is what I was saying all night.
> 
> Why didn't anyone else get it?
> 
> Sorry to annoy Rutita and Mation but this seems obvious to me.


I did get it. I get what lbj is saying too. You're both missing what we're trying to get across though. There is a string of posts in the last few pages trying and failing to get a concept across. It's really frustrating!

I do appreciate that you were thinking it about it.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> You totally didn't. And yes I know what you're asking. You want me to answer the questions you set. Your agenda. Christ  If you're a troll, you're quite good at it!



It's a truism to the point of banality that you're under no obligation to engage with me. But at least be honest about it, rather than trying to hide behind a straw-bogeyman - the cis, straight, white male who is attempting to impose his will on you. That's just not what's happening; the sub-forum issue has become a topic of this thread, having been raised by someone else - nothing to do with my "agenda".


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> Just as a reminder:


Yeah, a question about a topic raised in the thread, and in response to a post you made. And what? That's how forums work, isn't it?


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Troll, then!


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> Troll, then!


That's a desperate and dishonest response.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

[.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> I did get it. I get what lbj is saying too. You're both missing what we're trying to get across though. There is a string of posts in the last few pages trying and failing to get a concept across. It's really frustrating!
> 
> I do appreciate that you were thinking it about it.


Yeh, it's the thought that counts


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> I did get it. I get what lbj is saying too. You're both missing what we're trying to get across though. There is a string of posts in the last few pages trying and failing to get a concept across. It's really frustrating!
> .


Again I'm sorry but I'm not thick, neither are LBJ or Athos, and we're not homophobes or any other flavour of bigot. If you can't explain what you mean, in convincing terms that at least one of us understands and agrees with, I think you're probably wrong.

I've just had another look to see if it could be a matter of opinion but it's not. You are saying its absolute and that you're right and we're wrong.


----------



## bimble (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh really? I can't see that bit, point it out to us?


Um. .. Werent there several pages of people shouting at Liz of york for saying that -if this was a false accusation of homophobia -it would be damaging to 'the cause' of stamping out the real thing? People were saying that it was homophobic of her to suggest that their actions would have any effect beyond making their own individual selves look like arseholes, weren't they? Is that not what she did wrong ? If not then what was it ?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> So ElizabethofYork is making homophobic comments that littlebabyjesus can't hear because he's not gay or black?



Has anyone actually called EoY a homophobe? 

The discussion has been about the implications and associations of comments _like_ she made.  We all internalise ideas and attitudes about all sorts of things. Given how institutionalised and common place homophobia has been over the years I don't think it's a bad to discuss/unpick these things and challenge ourselves to have a greater understanding. 

To reduce the important points of the conversation to _'you are calling EOY a homophobe'_ will only polarise/end it.


----------



## Ole (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Thank fuck. At Mation's behest I _did_ leave the thread last night to have a think about my position as I was feeling like something of a lone voice, but this is what I was saying all night.
> 
> Why didn't anyone else get it?
> 
> Sorry to annoy Rutita and Mation but this seems obvious to me.



To be fair, plenty of other people 'got it'. It's a simple point.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> I did get it. I get what lbj is saying too. You're both missing what we're trying to get across though. There is a string of posts in the last few pages trying and failing to get a concept across. It's really frustrating!
> 
> I do appreciate that you were thinking it about it.


Maybe you could try again because I don't get it either. The problem I have is all the arguments against the original post by EoY use analogies that I don't think work as the miss the fact that it was these two men themselves who made their sexuality the central aspect of the story. If the story was two gay men try and dodge paying their bus fair and then get thrown of the bus, no one would suggest this negativity impacts on the cause of getting equality for gay men and women. Of course this would not be a story at all. Also we don't know what happened in this case but that is broadly the hypothetical situation being discussed on this thread. 

Let's try an analogy that occurred to be when reading one given earlier in the thread and which I think is a better comparison. 

A black man hits a white man, he claims it was because he made a racist remark. People gather on twitter on so on to defend the guy. Probably not to many in this case since he hit someone, but hey its just a made up story. And most of the comments would probably be of the yes he was wrong to hit him but... variety. 

Anyway evidence then emerges that there was no racist remark and the attack was unprovoked. 

Do you think some established anti-racist campaigners would feel aggrieved by this guys actions, yes or no? And why or why not?

Do you think some of the people who spoke out to defend the guy would feel aggrieved, yes or no? And why or why note?

If you answer yes to either of the above, and I would answer yes to both, then I don't see how you can disagree with the original post.

One point that have not seen made is that it is potentially damaging because people who have spoken up this time, may feel less inclined to do so in future having already been stung once. It serves to quiet those who stand against bigotry while emboldening the bigots. This is the main 'damage' lying about these things can cause in my opinion.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

bimble said:


> Um. .. Werent there were several pages of people shouting at Liz of york for saying that -if this was a false accusation of homophobia -it would be damaging to 'the cause' of stamping out the real thing? People were saying that it was homophobic of her to suggest that their actions would have any effect beyond making their own individual selves look like arseholes, weren't they?



You know I think it's amazing that your reading of the thread answered all these questions but not the ones below.



> Is that not what she did wrong ? If not then what was it ?



Since you have time to kill and want some entertainment, maybe go back and read again.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Maybe you could try again because I don't get it either. The problem I have is all the arguments against the original post by EoY use analogies that I don't think work as the miss the fact that it was these two men themselves who made their sexuality the central aspect of the story. If the story was two gay men try and dodge paying their bus fair and then get thrown of the bus, no one would suggest this negativity impacts on the cause of getting equality for gay men and women. Of course this would not be a story at all. Also we don't know what happened in this case but that is broadly the hypothetical situation being discussed on this thread.
> 
> Let's try an analogy that occurred to be when reading one given earlier in the thread and which I think is a better comparison.
> 
> ...


The argument seems to be that only racists would have felt that the black guy was representative of black people as a whole. But it misses so much else.


----------



## bimble (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Since you have time to kill and want some entertainment, maybe go back and read again.


Sadly my time's up for now got a flight to catch. I've said clearly twice what I think she did 'wrong' in the eyes of some , was just asking for correction if I've made a mistake .


----------



## emanymton (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The argument seems to be that only racists would have felt that the black guy was representative of black people as a whole. But it misses so much else.


Apart from anything else it misses the fact that the world can not really be divided up into two neat groups, racists and non-racists


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 13, 2016)

bimble said:


> Sadly my time's up for now got a flight to catch. I've said clearly twice what I think she did 'wrong' in the eyes of some , was just asking for correction if I've made a mistake .



Maybe I've misread the thread too, but my interpretation of the point ElizabethofYork was making is exactly in line with what you said here.



bimble said:


> When that labour mp woman shouted 'antisemite' recently & ran to the press with her ridiculous story, I felt angry and pissed off because of course false claims / accusations like hers will make people less likely to take the real thing seriously so yes what she did was damaging to 'the cause' of Jews. By some peoples logic here, saying that makes me.. antisemitic. Genius stuff, do crack on.



Life's too short to continue with this thread though.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

bimble said:


> Um. .. Werent there were several pages of people shouting at Liz of york for saying that -if this was a false accusation of homophobia -it would be damaging to 'the cause' of stamping out the real thing? People were saying that it was homophobic of her to suggest that their actions would have any effect beyond making their own individual selves look like arseholes, weren't they? Is that not what she did wrong ? If not then what was it ?


The posts weren't saying that there would be no effects beyond damage to those own mens' reputations. Nor were they claiming that EoY is anti-gay. But to be a person who persobally feels that their actions haven't helped LGBT people necessitates seeing their actions as representative to some degree. This is true regardless of how the men represent themselves. I understand that some people will feel that their actions have harmed. I don't personally feel they have harmed anyone but themselves. The reason I don't is because I don't see them as representing a group.

I think the problem here may be that you and others see the fact that they are gay and were presenting this as homophobia means that they are so obviously representative on those terms (whilst not thinking of their bad behaviour as representing gay people).

I don't think you or anyone else on this thread is thick. But it's a hard concept. It's much easier to grasp if you've thought through the things around it lots before which is something that is more likely to have happened with people who experience discrimination.

What has been frustrating is the inability some people have shown to even get that several people are saying there is a thing, and not understanding that, if you don't get what it is, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

(This is a reply to Spymaster too.)


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 13, 2016)

Replymaster.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

bimble said:


> Sadly my time's up for now got a flight to catch. I've said clearly twice what I think she did 'wrong' in the eyes of some , was just asking for correction if I've made a mistake .



You came for correction if you'd made a mistake? Funny that because the way I read your post was that you come to sneer/crack a joke...you seemed to have all the answers, no doubts about what you thought was going on in this thread. Now you are merely asking? _Genuis stuff, do crack on indeed._


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> But to be a person who persobally feels that their actions haven't helped LGBT people necessitates seeing their actions as representative to some degree.




No it doesn't; it just requires one to be able to recognise that others will see them as representitive.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Life's too short to continue with this thread though.


I disagree. The thread has gone from being a turd in a swimming pool, to one that needs understanding. Krtek will be back later and it'll return to a shitstorm but in the meantime there are some people here who I generally respect and want to try to understand. Unfortunately I have work to do.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> I can't tell you how angry I am with you.
> 
> You are doing what straight white cis men do. You are so sure that it is you who has understood the situation and seen the point and picked up all nuance that you feel you must step in to clarify and explain and set the record straight in the name of fairness. You're not hair splitting, you say, as though I or anyone else has failed to grasp the difference between what EoY has done and ' the homophobes who will think less of gay people'.
> 
> ...


This thread is sooo full of prejudice. 

Up you pop with your hatred of white men.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Maybe you could try again because I don't get it either. The problem I have is all the arguments against the original post by EoY use analogies that I don't think work as the miss the fact that it was these two men themselves who made their sexuality the central aspect of the story. If the story was two gay men try and dodge paying their bus fair and then get thrown of the bus, no one would suggest this negativity impacts on the cause of getting equality for gay men and women. Of course this would not be a story at all. Also we don't know what happened in this case but that is broadly the hypothetical situation being discussed on this thread.
> 
> Let's try an analogy that occurred to be when reading one given earlier in the thread and which I think is a better comparison.
> 
> ...


Yes, some people would feel aggrieved by the black man's behaviour in that scenario, some of them long-established anti-racist campaigners. But to do so would require thinking that his actions represent black people to some degree, albeit not to the degree of thinking that all/most/many may behave similarly.

A white man stands up and says he thinks white men are superior in every way. Some people, on hearing that, will think less of white men as a whole for it. Will you? He's not just a white man himself, he's also talking about white men...


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> ...  in the meantime there are some people here who I generally respect and want to try to understand.



Gromit?


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Gromit said:


> This thread is sooo full of prejudice.
> 
> Up you pop with your hatred of white men.


Yep. I'm well known for it! That Mation, she really hates white men, they say.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> No it doesn't; it just requires one to be able to recognise that others will see them as representitive.



This is another from of prejudice. Just because I belong to a group i represent all in the group. 

A cyclist was mean to me, therefore all cyclists are mean. This is bulshit logic we need to escape no matter who it's applied to and the press don't help.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> Yes, some people would feel aggrieved by the black man's behaviour in that scenario, some of them long-established anti-racist campaigners. But to do so would require thinking that his actions represent black people to some degree...




Not it wouldn't. It would only require them to understand that others will feel their racist opinions are confirmed and validated by his actions.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I disagree. The thread has gone from being a turd in a swimming pool, to one that needs understanding. Krtek will be back later and it'll return to a shitstorm but in the meantime there are some people here who I generally respect and want to try to understand. Unfortunately I have work to do.


I was with you for the first half of that. The shitstorm involved loads of people laying in the krtek. You don't have to do that.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> But to be a person who personally feels that their actions haven't helped LGBT people necessitates seeing their actions as representative to some degree. of their bad behaviour as representing gay people).



Explain what you mean exactly by 'representative'. Are you, for example, suggesting that those people feel that all gay people are bullshitting troublemakers who try to use their homosexuality to get people they don't like fired? Are you suggesting that they think that gay people are just slightly dishonest? Something in between?   



Athos said:


> No it doesn't; it just requires one to be able to recognise that others will see them as representitive.



Bingo!


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Gromit said:


> This is another from of prejudice. Just because I belong to a group i represent all in the group.
> 
> A cyclist was mean to me, therefore all cyclists are mean. This is bulshit logic we need to escape no matter who it's applied to and the press don't help.



Yes, it's bullshit. But recognising that other people hold those views is not the same as holding them yourself. So, you could recognise that racism might become more entrenched as a result of that bullshit way of thinking, without subscribing to it i.e. that the cause can be harmed because someone else mistakenly believes an individual's behaviour to be representitive of a group, whilst understanding yourself that it's not representative.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 13, 2016)

Gromit said:


> This thread is sooo full of prejudice.
> 
> Up you pop with your hatred of white men.



Jesus fucking christ Gromit.

I havent read this thread. Is it full of more bollocks like this?


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> Not it wouldn't. It would only require them to understand that others will feel their racist opinions are confirmed and validated by his actions.


There is a difference between feeling a cause has been harmed and recognising that others' will feel a cause has been harmed.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> Yes, some people would feel aggrieved by the black man's behaviour in that scenario, some of them long-established anti-racist campaigners. But to do so would require thinking that his actions represent black people to some degree, albeit not to the degree of thinking that all/most/many may behave similarly.



If a group of Indian lads went around mugging shopkeepers I would be pissed off. It would be shaming to me because I know that there are other people out there who will think less of me and my family because of the actions of the twats.

Am I wrong to feel that way?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 13, 2016)

Isn't it as straightforward as being a case of crying wolf?  A concept so old that Aesop himself wrote about it.  The more that "wolf" is cried when there is no wolf, the less people will believe it when there is one.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> There is a difference between feeling a cause has been harmed and recognising that others' will feel a cause has been harmed.


If racists' views become further entrenched (as a result of them wrongly concluding that the individual represents the group), has the cause of equality been harmed?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> There is a difference between feeling a cause has been harmed and recognising that others' will feel a cause has been harmed.


But their feeling that a "cause is harmed" _harms the cause!_


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 13, 2016)

Gromit said:


> This thread is sooo full of prejudice.
> 
> Up you pop with your hatred of white men.


Oh fuck off. I'm not going to get drawn into the rest of the crap on this thread but you're a prick and U75 would be better if you did one.


----------



## Reno (Sep 13, 2016)

The thing which I find upsetting and disturbing about this thread is that those of us who are gay/queer have generally made it clear that due to our own experiences of homophobic discrimination and abuse, we can emphasise with the gay couple's claims, _if things went down the way they said._ However I believe us queers have made sure that we always add "if this is true" because experience has taught us that if we get too uppity and if we upset the straights too much, the repercussions can be severe. I haven't followed the entire thread, but that certainly has been true for Mation, Rutita1 and myself. The only bus driver I've called a cunt was the one whose discrimination I've experienced personally and even that was called into question.

Several of the heterosexuals here who have taken the bus drivers side, despite even a week later there not having been any reports which counter the gay couple's claims, seem very certain of what the truth is and they keep aggressively calling the gay couple "lying arseholes", "cunts" etc. with the sense of entitlement they are only all too accustomed to and the hatred which is their privilege. It's not just what is being said, it's how it is being said which is so telling.

And then we always have to fucking translate for straight people along the lines of "imagine if they were black" (actually one of them was black and the other one was "foreign" and we never even got into the xenophobic abuse which has been claimed) because the empathy of straight people isn't sufficiently engaged unless we keep putting this in racial terms, translating like we are speaking a different language. It's like having explain something fairy obvious to a small child over and over to people who think they are liberal on the issue.

And that's first and last thing from me for the day on the subject, I'm not having my day ruined by spending it here.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> If a group of Indian lads went around mugging shopkeepers I would be pissed off. It would be shaming to me because I know that there are other people out there who will think less of me and my family because of the actions of the twats.
> 
> Am I wrong to feel that way?


Why would people think less of you and your family if you weren't involved? The only way they possibly could is there was some kind of 'they're all the same' thought process/reasoning on their part...


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 13, 2016)

alfajobrob said:


> A better analogy would be to say did Emily Thornberry's accusation of sexism to Dermot Murnaghan do anything to help the feminist cause?



That's pretty much my position.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Why would people think less of you and your family if you weren't involved? The only way they possibly could is there was some kind of 'they're all the same' thought process/reasoning on their part...


Yes. Some people do think like that though, don't they? Spymaster's position is merely recognising the existence of those people, without sharing their reasoning. And if those racists used the Indian lads' behaviour as an excuse to have a pop at other Indians, then haven't those Indian lads played a causative role in damaging the cause of race relations (which is not to excuse the racists' own guilt)?


----------



## Gromit (Sep 13, 2016)

Reno said:


> The thing which I find upsetting and disturbing about this thread is that those of us who are gay/queer have generally made it clear that due to our own experiences of homophobic discrimination and abuse, we can emphasise with the gay couple's claims, _if things went down the way they said._ However I believe us queers have made sure that we always add "if this is true" because experience has taught us that if we get too uppity and if we upset the straights too much, the repercussions can be severe. I haven't followed the entire thread, but that certainly has been true for Mation, Rutita1 and myself. The only bus driver I've called a cunt was the one whose discrimination I've experienced personally and even that was called into question.
> 
> Several of the heterosexuals here who have taken the bus drivers side, despite even a week later there not having been any reports which counter the gay couple's claims, seem very certain of what the truth is and they keep aggressively calling the gay couple "lying arseholes", "cunts" etc. with the sense of entitlement they are only all too accustomed to and the hatred which is their privilege. It's not just what is being said, it's how it is being said which is so telling.
> 
> ...


Personally I never called them cunt, liars or lying cunts. 

What I did do is question the press for publishing unproven accusations based solely on the say so of the person making the accusations. 

When it's proven THEN it's news. 

What's the repercussions of publishing so early? Discussions like these where people jumped on one or the other's side with no real knowledge of what occurred. Kangaroo courts of public opinion. 

I fucking hate the press because this is just what they want. Helps them sell papers.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Isn't it as straightforward as being a case of crying wolf?  A concept so old that Aesop himself wrote about it.  The more that "wolf" is cried when there is no wolf, the less people will believe it when there is one.


That only works if the boys cries prevent other boys from being believed.


Athos said:


> If racists' views become further entrenched (as a result of them wrongly concluding that the individual represents the group), has the cause of equality been harmed?


No. They (the racist) would only be able to come to that conclusion by holding views that aren't going to be challenged by the 'credits to their sexual orientation'.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes. Some people do think like that though, don't they? Spymaster's position is merely recognising the existence of those people, without sharing their reasoning.


No one has denied their existence! Why we default to their existence and their thinking is what I am challenging!


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Why would people think less of you and your family if you weren't involved? The only way they possibly could is there was some kind of 'they're all the same' thought process/reasoning on their part...


Not necessarily "they're all the same". There are loads of other unpleasant connections ... that community doesn't teach its kids respect; if an Indian family moves into our manor will their kids be like that? ... etc etc. Not necessarily "all Indians are muggers". 

And yes, some people _do think that way. _


----------



## Gromit (Sep 13, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Personally I never called them cunt, liars or lying cunts.
> 
> What I did do is question the press for publishing unproven accusations based solely on the say so of the person making the accusations.
> 
> ...



Oh and let me just point out that pointing out the fact that they could possibly be liars isn't the same as saying that they are. Asking people to recognize the possibility before making judgement rather than assuming they know exactly what happened when they weren't there.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> No one has denied their existence! Why we default to their existence and their thinking is what I am challenging!


Nobody is defaulting to the existence of thinking, though. But they can't just be wished away (unfortunately).


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> That only works if the boys cries prevent other boys from being believed.



Which it might well have done. Not disbelieved by anyone here on this thread, but certainly by some people out there. That's the point that EoY was making I think.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> No. They (the racist) would only be able to come to that conclusion by holding views that aren't going to be challenged by the 'credits to their sexual orientation'.




I'm not arguing for the idea of' credit to their sexual orientation', though; that's just the other side of the same bigoted coin. I'm saying that a practical consequence of a person's conduct might be to objectively harm the cause of a group to which they belong, when mediated through racists' wrongful thinking that they're representative of that group. That doesn't require me to share their belief; only to recognise that such people exist.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Which it might well have done. Not disbelieved by anyone here on this thread, but certainly by some people out there. That's the point that EoY was making I think.


Yes she may well have been, but it's not the boy's cries that would prevent other boys being believed; it would be people's own beliefs about whether or how you can generalise.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> That only works if the boys cries prevent other boys from being believed.


Well, they do.  And it doesn't matter who is doing the crying wolf, either.  If there are enough false allegations made on a particular topic -- regardless of source -- people will start to disbelieve future allegations on the same topic.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Well, they do.  And it doesn't matter who is doing the crying wolf, either.  If there are enough false allegations made on a particular topic -- regardless of source -- people will start to disbelieve future allegations on the same topic.


Some people...


----------



## kabbes (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Some people...


How many false allegations on a topic would it take before _you _started to disbelieve allegations on that topic?  Regardless of topic and source of allegation?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

bimble said:


> Sadly my time's up for now got a flight to catch. I've said clearly twice what I think she did 'wrong' in the eyes of some , was just asking for correction if I've made a mistake .


Join us again from the airport


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Some people...


But those people are important. They're not all going to be rabid bigots who aren't worth engaging with.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

kabbes said:


> How many false allegations on a topic would it take before _you _started to disbelieve allegations on that topic?  Regardless of topic and source of allegation?


It would depend on what 'the topic' comprised.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Not necessarily "they're all the same". There are loads of other unpleasant connections ... that community doesn't teach its kids respect; if an Indian family moves into our manor will their kids be like that? ... etc etc. Not necessarily "all Indians are muggers".
> 
> And yes, some people _do think that way. _



That's what I meant by _some kind of_...not that they would directly think 'they're all the same' but that similar reasoning and suspicion (other unpleasant connections that pretty much amount to the same prejudice) would be employed...


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> That's what I meant by _some kind of_...not that they would directly think 'they're all the same' but that similar reasoning and suspicion (other unpleasant connections that pretty much amount to the same prejudice) would be employed...


Then there are undeniably people who would think that way, and again, I don't think they should _all_ be dismissed as not being worthy of consideration.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> Nobody is defaulting to the existence of thinking, though. But they can't just be wished away (unfortunately).



We kind of are though...we are discussing it at length.  Even though no one on this thread has outed themselves as someone who thinks like that, what they may or not think has become the _default_ perspective we are analysing this situation by, both in terms of how these men have been characterised as primarily as agents of a 'cause' and how we are viewing the fall out of what they may or not have done. That position hangs like a _spectre _and seems to be the 'measure' being used.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> It would depend on what 'the topic' comprised.


Why?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Then there are undeniably people who would think that way, and again, I don't think they should _all_ be dismissed as not being worthy of consideration.



I haven't dismissed anyone. I am enquiring though about who's perspective is most important and why, also what the implications of that are.


----------



## Ole (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I haven't dismissed anyone. I am enquiring though about who's perspective is most important and why, also what the implications of that are.


Everyone's perspective is rather important because we live in a society, not in a 'safe space'.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I haven't dismissed anyone. I am enquiring though about who's perspective is most important and why, also what the implications of that are.


Why _most_ important though?

If we agree that those people's opinions are worthy of consideration _at all_, then surely we agree that the actions of the Indian muggers are damaging to the wider "cause"?


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> Yes she may well have been, but it's not the boy's cries that would prevent other boys being believed; it would be people's own beliefs about whether or how you can generalise.



No. The false alarms would play a causative role (admittedly alongside a number of othet factors); without the false alarms, the other boys' cries would probably have been taken at face value (given the first boy's were in the first instance). That's not to say the villagers aren't wrong to assume the other boys are lying, of course.


----------



## Ole (Sep 13, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Why?


Because Mation and others would only admit to being influenced by prior experience if it was not particularly politically incorrect to say so.


----------



## Ole (Sep 13, 2016)

Thinking about moving to a new area? Don't you fucking dare even think about looking at the local crime figures beforehand. Fucking bigoted wanker.


----------



## Santino (Sep 13, 2016)

kabbes said:


> How many false allegations on a topic would it take before _you _started to disbelieve allegations on that topic?  Regardless of topic and source of allegation?


 11


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Ole said:


> Because Mation and others would only admit to being influenced by prior experience if it was not particularly politically incorrect to say so.



Now _this_ is an interesting characterisation. Shall we examine the generalised, negative and offensive implications/associations of it?


----------



## Ole (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Now _this_ is an interesting characterisation. Shall we examine the generalised, negative and offensive implications/associations of it?



Knock yourself out.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> We kind of are though...we are discussing it at length.  Even though no one on this thread has outed themselves as someone who thinks like that, what they may or not think has become the _default_ perspective we are analysing this situation by, both in terms of how these men have been characterised as primarily as agents of a 'cause' and how we are viewing the fall out of what they may or not have done. That position hangs like a _spectre _and seems to be the 'measure' being used.


Surely, it's not a case of it being a default perspective; it's been acknowledged that it's wrongheaded, and nobody here subscribes to that view (as far as I can tell). But, surely the perspective of bigots is of central importance to the question of bigotry?  I'm not saying we should empathise with them, acknowledge any truth in what they say, or even recognise their right to hold or express those views. But, surely, the very fact the exist is important.  For instance,  how racists process these sorts of stories must be crucial to issue of racism, mustn't it? You seem to imply that recognising that it's in itself an act of (possibly unconscious) bigotry? As if acknowledging that a bad thing exists gives it power.


----------



## Santino (Sep 13, 2016)

Once when someone on these boards suggested that Jews should take more responsibility for ending anti-Semitism, they were rightly rounded on for being a cunt.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Santino said:


> Once when someone on these boards suggested that Jews should take more responsibility for ending anti-Semitism, they were rightly rounded on for being a cunt.



Nobody is suggesting that, though. It's been recognised that the 'credit to your kind' argument is just as bigoted as the 'typical of that lot' type mentality. Someone can play a part in being factually causative without being culpable themselves, or diminishing others' culpability.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Santino said:


> Once when someone on these boards suggested that Jews should take more responsibility for ending anti-Semitism, they were rightly rounded on for being a cunt.


And you think that there's a parallel with what's gone on here?


----------



## Santino (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> And you think that there's a parallel with what's gone on here?


I think it is related to the topic at hand.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Santino said:


> I think it is related to the topic at hand.


I suppose it could be if you wanted to make it so, but nobody has even come close to arguing that this case is anything similar.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> You seem to imply that recognising that it's in itself an act of (possibly unconscious) bigotry? As if acknowledging that a bad thing exists gives it power.



No I have been clear. I have highlighted that often such thinking is held up as the 'most important' perspective and that's what gives it power and reinforces that power. Additionally, yes I have spoken about how some these of attitudes, albeit not the explicit/direct/obvious ones are easily internalised, none of us are immune to that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

Santino said:


> Once when someone on these boards suggested that Jews should take more responsibility for ending anti-Semitism, they were rightly rounded on for being a cunt.


was the objection to 'more responsibility' or the notion jews should take any 'responsibility' for it at all?


----------



## Santino (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I suppose it could be if you wanted to make it so, but nobody has even come close to arguing that this case is anything similar.


That's precisely the point, isn't it?


----------



## Gromit (Sep 13, 2016)

muscovyduck said:


> Tbh I'm surprised at the amount of people who started reading the thread and thought "I'll argue the same side as gromit"



I bet you don't even know what my side is. Go on, tell me what it is, I'd be interested to know.


----------



## Ole (Sep 13, 2016)

With regards to belief or disbelief in an allegation of *anything*, in the absence of certainty, people will speculate. This is inevitable. It is - dare I say it - human nature.

Therefore, credibility matters. Every false allegation damages that credibility. That's just the truth, whether anyone likes it or not.

It's noticeable that no-one seems to have an argument against this.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 13, 2016)

Reno said:


> The bus driver didn't stop for them at the previous stop, the couple caught up with the bus at the next stop, then the driver didn't open the door for them, so they used the door that was open. They didn't use the wrong door by accident, they used it because it was the only door the driver would open.


They kept pace with a bus between stops?


Athos said:


> Is it not the most important persoective, though? If we could change bigots opinions, that'd be the end of bigotry. Far more significant than merely reinforcing our own opinions, surely?


As I pointed out earlier, you can only change the opinions of some, and not all bigots. Standing out against the currently fashionable 'right thinking' is a major part of the identities of some bigots in this world where everything is now dependent on identity (whatever the term is supposed to mean.)

Somebody, somewhere is always going to be offended by something. Being offended, it seems, now serves as a validation of our own miserable existence.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> Is it not the most important persoective, though? If we could change bigots opinions, that'd be the end of bigotry. Far more significant than merely reinforcing our own opinions, surely?




No it's not the most important perspective IMO.

IME you can't change the attitudes of bigots and trying to is a waste of time. The process of trying to do so positions you as somehow 'responsible' for their bigotry and 'responsible' for changing it.

It is far more significant to reinforce non-bigoted opinions. That's exactly what needs to be done.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> No. The false alarms would play a causative role (admittedly alongside a number of othet factors); without the false alarms, the other boys' cries would probably have been taken at face value (given the first boy's were in the first instance).


For some people.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> No it's not the most important perspective IMO.
> 
> IME you can't change the attitudes of bigots and trying to is a waste of time. The process of trying to do so positions you as somehow 'responsible' for their bigotry and 'responsible' for changing it.
> 
> It is far more significant to reinforce non-bigoted opinions. That's exactly what needs to be done.


Of course you can change the opinions of some bigots. You meet people who change their opinions all the time. I was recently surprised, but not amazed, to see that somebody I was at school with who was sympathetic to the NF in the late 1970s is now a fluffy Corbynista. Somebody must have had a word somewhere along the line.
Back then he was offended by mass immigration. Now he's no doubt offended by something else.


----------



## Reno (Sep 13, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> They kept pace with a bus between stops?.


Easily done on Tottenham Court Road where it happened.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

Reno said:


> Easily done on Tottenham Court Road where it happened.


yeh. except it wouldn't be tottenham court road, which the 25 doesn't run up, but oxford street / new oxford street.

this has been mentioned upthread.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 13, 2016)

Reno said:


> Easily done on Tottenham Court Road where it happened.


Wish it was the case round here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> They kept pace with a bus between stops?


if they were standing at the 19/38 stop on new oxford street and watched the 25 go by, they would only need to go 25 metres or so to the 25/242 stop.


----------



## Ole (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> No it's not the most important perspective IMO.
> 
> IME you can't change the attitudes of bigots and trying to is a waste of time. The process of trying to do so positions you as somehow 'responsible' for their bigotry and 'responsible' for changing it.
> 
> It is far more significant to reinforce non-bigoted opinions. That's exactly what needs to be done.


 
Do you refuse to accept that non-bigoted people can become bigots?

Or were all bigots necessarily going to become bigots no matter what, so there's literally no point in trying to prevent this process? Is it something genetic, perhaps?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 13, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> They kept pace with a bus between stops?



Not difficult to do in certain areas at certain times on the 25 route. I've been sat on one on the Mile End road thinking it'd have been quicker walking.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Why?


If there is a context to false alarms that explains why they might be likely to occur often under certain circumstances or amongst a particular group of people, then being alerted to it might make me more likely to question subsequent potential instances.

If there is no such link between the people and circumstances, I'd look at each instance individually. Like tossing a coin. Prior observations have no effect on my belief about what the next result will be because I know that it's not relevant. I'm aware that other people may think it is relevant (and that you're not one of them). To think it's relevant you must think one toss affects another to some degree.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 13, 2016)

Gromit said:


> I bet you don't even know what my side is. Go on, tell me what it is, I'd be interested to know.


Can't decide whether you're a cock, a cunt or an arsehole. You're all three really so I call taint.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> If there is a context to false alarms that explains why they might be likely to occur often under certain circumstances or amongst a particular group of people, then being alerted to it might make me more likely to question subsequent potential instances.
> 
> If there is no such link between the people and circumstances, I'd look at each instance individually. Like tossing a coin. Prior observations have no effect on my belief about what the next result will be because I know that it's not relevant. I'm aware that other people may think it is relevant (and that you're not one of them). To think it's relevant you must think one toss affects another to some degree.


among the differences between people and coins is that people are affected by their past experiences and by what they know of the past experiences of others. yes, you would hope people would take each case on its individual merits, but that isn't the way people behave universally: we all bring baggage with us to our interactions.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 13, 2016)

Ole said:


> Do you refuse to accept that non-bigoted people can become bigots?
> 
> Or were all bigots necessarily going to become bigots no matter what, so there's literally no point in trying to prevent this process? Is it something genetic, perhaps?


And as it seems necessary to keep pointing out, it isn't as if those who dedicate their lives (or at least pay lip-service) to fighting the obvious bigotries are free of their own set of bigotries. The hipster reaction to the Brexit vote being the obvious case in point.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> among the differences between people and coins is that people are affected by their past experiences and by what they know of the past experiences of others. yes, you would hope people would take each case on its individual merits, but that isn't the way people behave universally.


You're right. That doesn't negate what I've said.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> And as it seems necessary to keep pointing out, it isn't as if those who dedicate their lives (or at least pay lip-service) to fighting the obvious bigotries are free of their own set of bigotries. The hipster reaction to the Brexit vote being the obvious case in point.


yes, it has been disappointing that there has thus far been but a trickle of hipsters leaving the country.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, it has been disappointing that there has thus far been but a trickle of hipsters leaving the country.


They're still crying about the demise of their second referendum petition.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Can't decide whether you're a cock, a cunt or an arsehole.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> among the differences between people and coins is that people are affected by their past experiences and by what they know of the past experiences of others. yes, you would hope people would take each case on its individual merits, but that isn't the way people behave universally: we all bring baggage with us to our interactions.


Glad to see that expensive education wasn't wasted, son.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Glad to see that expensive education wasn't wasted, son.


thank you, pa


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

Gromit said:


> I bet you don't even know what my side is. Go on, tell me what it is, I'd be interested to know.


underdone.

we'll turn you over in a bit.

next.


----------



## Ole (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> You're right. That doesn't negate what I've said.


 
It entirely negates what you said. Furthermore, you just admitted to being more likely to question subsequent instances of something based on prior false alarms, for some unnamed "particular groups of people" or "certain circumstances".

Case closed.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> No I have been clear. I have highlighted that often such thinking is held up as the 'most important' perspective and that's what gives it power and reinforces that power. Additionally, yes I have spoken about how some these of attitudes, albeit not the explicit/direct/obvious ones are easily internalised, none of us are immune to that.


I appreciate I might be offering a hostage to fortune here insofar as there's some on these boards who'd stoop to misrepresenting the following to make capital of mischief, but... 

In a way, isn't the bigots' perspective the most important? If we could change bigots' (wrong) opinions, that'd be the end of bigotry. Far more significant than merely reinforcing our own (right) opinions, surely?  That's not an endorsement of them; it's a recognition of their centrality to the issues at hand.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> I appreciate I might be offering a hostage to fortune here insofar as there's some on these boards who'd stoop to misrepresenting the following to make capital of mischief, but...
> 
> In a way, isn't the bigots' perspective the most important? If we could change bigots' (wrong) opinions, that'd be the end of bigotry. Far more significant than merely reinforcing our own (right) opinions, surely?  That's not an endorsement of them; it's a recognition of their centrality to the issues at hand.



I've already answered these questions. You asked them on the last page.



> No it's not the most important perspective IMO.
> 
> IME you can't change the attitudes of bigots and trying to is a waste of time. The process of trying to do so positions you as somehow 'responsible' for their bigotry and 'responsible' for changing it.
> 
> It is far more significant to reinforce non-bigoted opinions. That's exactly what needs to be done.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> No it's not the most important perspective IMO.
> 
> IME you can't change the attitudes of bigots and trying to is a waste of time. The process of trying to do so positions you as somehow 'responsible' for their bigotry and 'responsible' for changing it.
> 
> It is far more significant to reinforce non-bigoted opinions. That's exactly what needs to be done.



I disagree that it's impossible to change bigots' opinions; I've had a certain amount of success in that regard with the older generations of my family. 

It doesn't follow that me trying to change them made me responsible for them initially holding those opinions. That's like saying a doctor is responsible for the initial appearance of the cancer he's now trying to cure!

And I felt I acheived more persuading my Great Uncle that homosexuality isn't morally wrong than I did by agreeing that with my wife (a position we'd both held from the outset, anyway).


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I've already answered these questions. You asked them on the last page.


Yeah, don't know what happened, was trying to edit. Have responded to the substance of your post on which you addressed those questions.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> For some people.


Yes, so, do you now accept that, insofar as those "some people" are less likely to respond to other boys' (genuine) alarms,  the first boy's false alarm had a role (as did those people's own poor reasoning) in causing an objective harm to the other boys' interests?


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes, so, do you now accept that, insofar as those "some people" are less likely to respond to other boys' (genuine) alarms,  the first boy's false alarm had a role (as did those people's own poor reasoning) in causing an objective harm to the other boys' interests?


I've answered you already, Athos. Knowing that some people will be influenced by the false alarms doesn't lead inexorably to your viewpoint.


----------



## Santino (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes, so, do you now accept that, insofar as those "some people" are less likely to respond to other boys' (genuine) alarms,  the first boy's false alarm had a role (as did those people's own poor reasoning) in causing an objective harm to the other boys' interests?


 Your relentless hammering at this point in an overly legalistic way makes me less likely to respond favourably to your arguments in future, and those of other privileged straight men telling gay or black people the correct way to think.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Santino said:


> Your relentless hammering at this point in an overly legalistic way makes me less likely to respond favourably to your arguments in future, and those of other privileged straight men telling gay or black people the correct way to think.


I'm not telling anyone what to think; I'm asking a question. Nor is logic the preserve of the law.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Santino said:


> ... privileged straight men telling gay or black people the correct way to think.


Oh leave it out, ffs.


----------



## Ole (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> I've answered you already, Athos. Knowing that some people will be influenced by the false alarms doesn't lead inexorably to your viewpoint.



"Some people" including you. As you just admitted. 

In unnamed "certain circumstances" and for unnamed "particular groups of people".


----------



## Santino (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> I'm not telling anyone what to think; I'm asking a question. Nor is logic the preserve of the law.


'I'm not telling anyone what to think! Point to where I said that!'

That's all part of the pattern. You're just applying logic to situations - what objection could anyone possibly have?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 13, 2016)

Check your logic privilege Athos.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> I've answered you already, Athos. Knowing that some people will be influenced by the false alarms doesn't lead inexorably to your viewpoint.



You haven't answered that specific question. Can you?

Do you now accept that, insofar as those "some people" are less likely to respond to other boys' (genuine) alarms, the first boy's false alarm had a role (as did those people's own poor reasoning) in causing an objective harm to the other boys' interests?

Cue some bluster about not having to comply with my agenda.


----------



## Santino (Sep 13, 2016)

Look, if his style of argument puts me off, doesn't it behove him to adjust it?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> Knowing that some people will be influenced by the false alarms doesn't lead inexorably to your viewpoint.


How not? If you agree that some people are negatively influenced by such behaviour that's the end of the debate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> How not? If you agree that some people are negatively influenced by such behaviour that's the end of the debate.


ah: but, pa, they may be positively influenced too.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Santino said:


> 'I'm not telling anyone what to think! Point to where I said that!'
> 
> That's all part of the pattern. You're just applying logic to situations - what objection could anyone possibly have?



You're right, I should have said "the correct way to think", but the point still stands.


----------



## Santino (Sep 13, 2016)

Pure science. Checkmate.


----------



## Santino (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos, could you answer the specific question about your off-putting style of argumentation and its reliance on ((largely abstract) context-free) thought experiments?


----------



## Ole (Sep 13, 2016)

The Great Santino will show us all how 2+2 can equal 5. Just watch!


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Santino said:


> Athos, could you answer the specific question about your off-putting style of argumentation and its reliance on ((largely abstract) context-free) thought experiments?


Happily. If you explain what it is that botheres you, I'll give it some thought, and then reply.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Ole said:


> The Great Santino will show us all how 2+2 can equal 5. Just watch!


I think he's swapped logins with Krtek a dingdong.


----------



## bimble (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Why would people think less of you and your family if you weren't involved? The only way they possibly could is there was some kind of 'they're all the same' thought process/reasoning on their part...


That's the definition of prejudice isn't it- some variation on 'they're all the same'. That's exactly what I thought we were talking about. If prejudice doesn't matter and we're not interested in reducing it then ok.


Santino said:


> Once when someone on these boards suggested that Jews should take more responsibility for ending anti-Semitism, they were rightly rounded on for being a cunt.


Great, but I hope it's still ok for me to feel personally angry ashamed and also a bit frightened every time Jews appear in the news doing something terrible - from the IDF to Bernie Maddoff whatever. 

Sent from my phone the smoking room at Mumbai airport


----------



## Santino (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> Happily. If you explain what it is that botheres you, I'll give it some thought, and then reply.


 What does it matter why it bothers me? Maybe I'm being irrational. The fact is that is does, and now you have to cope with the consequences. Surely you can see that?


----------



## Santino (Sep 13, 2016)

It's almost like a metaphor for something.


----------



## Ole (Sep 13, 2016)

Santino said:


> What does it matter why it bothers me? Maybe I'm being irrational. The fact is that is does, and now you have to cope with the consequences. Surely you can see that?



That's so _deep man_.


----------



## Ole (Sep 13, 2016)

Santino said:


> It's almost like a metaphor for something.



Woah! I think I see what you did there!


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Santino said:


> What does it matter why it bothers me? Maybe I'm being irrational. The fact is that is does, and now you have to cope with the consequences. Surely you can see that?



I have no difficulty in coping with your irrationality.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Santino said:


> It's almost like a metaphor for something.


A really shit one, as it goes.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Ole said:


> Woah! I think I see what you did there!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Has anyone actually called EoY a homophobe?
> 
> The discussion has been about the implications and associations of comments _like_ she made.  We all internalise ideas and attitudes about all sorts of things. Given how institutionalised and common place homophobia has been over the years I don't think it's a bad to discuss/unpick these things and challenge ourselves to have a greater understanding.
> 
> To reduce the important points of the conversation to _'you are calling EOY a homophobe'_ will only polarise/end it.



I agree with your sentiment here. So to be precise, EoY's comment was told back to her by krtek in a way that changed it into a position that only a homophobe would take - that she thinks 'it's a reflection on all us LGBT folks'. That's a homophobic thing to think, but it's not what she said. I agree with you and Mation and others that what she did say is itself an objectionable position, but it's not a homophobic position _per se_.

And this kind of accuracy matters. Its absence is a major cause of nasty bunfights, as seen amply in this thread, and it's a reason the same people tend to end up in such bunfights. 

Anyway this is going round in circles and I think people are largely talking past each other. Some seem to think this change in meaning matters. Others don't. And I think I'm past caring now.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Santino said:


> You're just applying logic to situations - what objection could anyone possibly have?



Do you have an objection to the use of logic?


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Santino said:


> Athos, could you answer the specific question about your off-putting style of argumentation and its reliance on ((largely abstract) context-free) thought experiments?



By "((largely abstract) context-free) thought experiments" do you mean my reference to a hypothetical situation introduced by another poster, and then referred to by Mation to make her point?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2016)

logic is useless if it is not tempered by reason and leavened with heart

thus spake Dotcommunist in the year of our lord two thousand and sixteen. It was a tumultuous year and everything was mad fucked up.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 13, 2016)

Reno said:


> The thing which I find upsetting and disturbing about this thread is that those of us who are gay/queer have generally made it clear that due to our own experiences of homophobic discrimination and abuse, we can emphasise with the gay couple's claims, _if things went down the way they said._ However I believe us queers have made sure that we always add "if this is true" because experience has taught us that if we get too uppity and if we upset the straights too much,  the repercussions can be severe


But I think this is one of the problems with 'crying wolf'. If it emergies that this two men where lying, dosent that make it harder for genuine victims who speak up? Might it not in fact put some people of speaking up at all?


----------



## Reno (Sep 13, 2016)

emanymton said:


> But I think this is one of the problems with 'crying wolf'. If it emergies that this two men where lying, dosent that make it harder for genuine victims who speak up? Might it not in fact put some people of speaking up at all?



Oh fuck off, this has been running in circles for days now and I'm done with this whole "reflecting badly on their community" crap which has been discussed to death and which anybody arguing on behalf of a minority here finds hugely offensive. 

The only people I know of claiming that they were crying wolf are on this thread and until reports to the opposite emerge, it's based on nothing but bias and prejuduce.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> I disagree that it's impossible to change bigots' opinions; I've had a certain amount of success in that regard with the older generations of my family.


 We don't have to agree.



> It doesn't follow that me trying to change them made me responsible for them initially holding those opinions. That's like saying a doctor is responsible for the initial appearance of the cancer he's now trying to cure!


 Nope...a doctor chose and trained as a doctor to treat and cure...I was not born to treat and cure other people's bigotry. It is not inherently my responsibility to deal with and educate them. I deserve to have a choice too so your analogy doesn't work at all. Racism isn't Black people's problem and responsibility to deal with just on account of them being Black for example. People have a choice how little or how much they engage with the struggle against it. It doesn't and nor should it define them and/or how they are characterised.



> And I felt I acheived more persuading my Great Uncle that homosexuality isn't morally wrong than I did by agreeing that with my wife (a position we'd both held from the outset, anyway).


 I dare say you did feel a sense of achievement. Not least as he is your kin.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> You haven't answered that specific question. Can you?
> 
> Do you now accept that, insofar as those "some people" are less likely to respond to other boys' (genuine) alarms, the first boy's false alarm had a role (as did those people's own poor reasoning) in causing an objective harm to the other boys' interests?
> 
> Cue some bluster about not having to comply with my agenda.


I have. You just don't recognise it as an answer because you have a particular answer-shape in your head. We're going round in circles and you haven't understood anything. This is a waste of my time.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 13, 2016)

Reno said:


> Oh fuck off, this has been running in circles for days now and I'm done with this whole "reflecting badly on their community" crap which has been discussed to death and which anybody arguing on behalf of a minority here finds hugely offensive.
> 
> The only people I know of claiming that they were crying wolf are on this thread and until reports to the opposite emerge, it's based on nothing but bias and prejuduce.


So that's what I get for trying to engage in a civil way, I get told to fuck off? I assume that means you don't have a proper reply.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Reno said:


> The only people I know of claiming that they were crying wolf are on this thread and until reports to the opposite emerge, it's based on nothing but bias and prejuduce.


It's based on the original story stinking to high heaven, and information posted on this thread by a well respected member with no reason to lie. 

But of course you want to overlook that. I can understand why.


----------



## Reno (Sep 13, 2016)

emanymton said:


> So that's what I get for trying to engage in a civil way, I get told to fuck off? I assume that means you don't have a proper reply.


Just read the fucking thread, I'm not going to repeat it all for your benefit.


----------



## Ole (Sep 13, 2016)

This thread is done. Everyone previously arguing the point has thrown in the towel and tried their best to save face, some more elegantly than others. Santino made one last final push and fell arse over tit.


----------



## Reno (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> It's based on the original story stinking to high heaven, and information posted on this thread by a well respected member with no reason to lie.
> 
> But of course you want to overlook that. I can understand why.


I'm not overlooking anything, I just don't share your respect for that member.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Reno said:


> Just read the fucking thread, I'm not going to repeat it all for your benefit.


I could say the very same to you. Have you read it at all, or have you just come on to bluster?


----------



## emanymton (Sep 13, 2016)

Reno said:


> Just read the fucking thread, I'm not going to repeat it all for your benefit.


So no, you have no reply then.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Reno said:


> I'm not overlooking anything, I just don't share your respect for that member.


Has Topcat given you reason in the past to not respect him, or are you basing this purely on the fact that he posted info on this thread that pissed on your bonfire?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

Reno said:


> Oh fuck off, this has been running in circles for days now and I'm done with this whole "reflecting badly on their community" crap which has been discussed to death and which anybody arguing on behalf of a minority here finds hugely offensive.
> 
> The only people I know of claiming that they were crying wolf are on this thread and until reports to the opposite emerge, it's based on nothing but bias and prejuduce.


so people submitting the published reports to close scrutiny are biased and prejudiced. right. don't examine what people say, it's a clear sign of homophobia and racism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Has Topcat given you reason in the past to not respect him, or are you basing this purely on the fact that he posted info on this thread that pissed on your bonfire candle?


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> I have. You just don't recognise it as an answer because you have a particular answer-shape in your head. We're going round in circles and you haven't understood anything. This is a waste of my time.



Convenient. 

Demonstrably, you haven't answered the *specific* question:

Do you now accept that, insofar as those "some people" are less likely to respond to other boys' (genuine) alarms, the first boy's false alarm had a role (as did those people's own poor reasoning) in causing an objective harm to the other boys' interests?

The reason you haven't answered it is obvious.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 13, 2016)

Christ Athos your even boring me now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Christ Athos your even boring me now.


never mind, eh


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> Convenient.
> 
> Demonstrably, you haven't answered the *specific* question:
> 
> ...


I answered. Go look at my posts


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> We don't have to agree.
> 
> Nope...a doctor chose and trained as a doctor to treat and cure...I was not born to treat and cure other people's bigotry. It is not inherently my responsibility to deal with and educate them. I deserve to have a choice too so your analogy doesn't work at all. Racism isn't Black people's problem and responsibility to deal with just on account of them being Black for example. People have a choice how little or how much they engage with the struggle against it. It doesn't and nor should it define them and/or how they are characterised.
> 
> I dare say you did feel a sense of achievement. Not least as he is your kin.



We can agree that we don't have to agree.

But do you really believe it's impossible to change a bigot's opinion?  Do you think that they're stuck with it for life? Or that it can change, but the agency of others can play no part in effecting that change?

The middle part of your post is pure strawman.   Nothing I've said even remotely suggests it's your responsibility to change racism, or that you shouldn't have a choice, or that that choice should define you. And I know racism is not black people's problem; I said many pages back that it's society's. 

Yes, I did feel a sense of acheivment. Was that wrong?  Was the reference to him being my kin an implied smear?


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> I answered. Go look at my posts



You responded to it; you didn't answer it. 

Let's stop though, because even I'm embarrassed for you, now.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Christ Athos your even boring me now.


 You're


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Thread's done.

Has anyone had their mind changed?

Thought not!


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> You responded to it; you didn't answer it.
> 
> Let's stop though, because even I'm embarrassed for you, now.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Thread's done.
> 
> Has anyone had their mind changed?
> 
> Thought not!


I never even had a mind in the first place.  Ahead of the game.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> But do you really believe it's impossible to change a bigot's opinion? Do you think that they're stick with it for life? Or that it can change, but the agency of others can pay no post in effecting that change?



I think that it's not primarily my problem and IME a bigot doesn't stop being a bigot, they simply temper their expressions of that bigotry. Choosing when to express it and who with. _Bigotry_ is not simply holding a few dodgey views that can be easily corrected through discussion and examples afterall.



> The middle part off your post is pure strawman.   Nothing I've said even remotely suggests it's your responsibility to change racism, or that you shouldn't have a choice, or that that choice should define you. And I know racism is not black people's problem; I said many pages back that it's society's.



So you are accusing me posing a strawman even though I directly responded to a bad analogy that you posed and attempted to educate you about how bad it is an anology? 



> Yes, I did feel a sense of acheivment. Was that wrong?  Was the reference to him being my kin *an implied smear*?


 No, if anything it acknowledged your investment and connection to him.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I think that it's not primarily my problem and IME a bigot doesn't stop being a bigot, they simply temper their expressions of that bigotry. Choosing when to express it and who with. _Bigotry_ is not simply holding a few dodgey views that can be easily corrected through discussion and examples afterall.


Sadly, I also think this is generally true.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I think that it's not primarily my problem and IME a bigot doesn't stop being a bigot, they simply temper their expressions of that bigotry. Choosing when to express it and who with. _Bigotry_ is not simply holding a few dodgey views that can be easily corrected through discussion and examples afterall.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We've never disagreed about it not being your responsibility. 

Like you say, we can agree to disagree about the potential for bigots to genuinely change. But, in any event, there's also some value in just getting them not to give voice to those views. 

I accused you of a strawman because you always to be arguing against things I'd never said! 

Fair enough about my Great Uncle.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That doesn't quite work. Maomao has a point, imo. If (and fuck knows what actually happened), but _if_ they claimed discrimination on the basis of their sexuality when that was not the case, then they were attempting to take advantage of a group dynamic - _they_ were attempting, surely, to present _themselves_ as members of that 'community'. And it's not as if a situation where you can claim discrimination on the basis of your sexuality has just appeared out of nowhere - it's the product of the struggles of various people.
> 
> Clearly, only a homophobe will think less of gay people because of the actions of a couple of dicks who happen to be gay. Ditto only racists will think less of black people because of the actions of a couple of dicks who happen to be black. And of course, the reverse, thinking better of whatever group they categorise people in because they meet some nice ones. Only bigots judge according to those criteria. However, it is still inaccurate to depict EoY as one of those bigots for her comment - she was at most saying that you might damage the image of gay people in the eyes of homophobes. Objectionable on many levels as that comment may be, it doesn't actually place her as a homophobe, which is what the misrepresentation of her post did, saying that she herself thought it was a poor reflection on gay people, ie she is one of those bigots.
> 
> This stuff may seem like hair splitting, but it really isn't. It's why this thread has turned to such shit in the most part - people taking what someone else says, adding a new layer to it, and claiming that they actually said this new, more extreme thing. Ugly bunfights are the inevitable consequence.



When I hear of some person of color playing 'the race card' in a situation where it's obviously inappropriate, my reaction is that that person is a person of poor character; or a dick; or whatever phrasing you want to use. I have the same reaction to the suggestion that these two bus riders might have done something similar.

What I don't think is: ' boy oh boy, this is going to set back the black cause' - or, again, whatever phrasing you want to use. Because I don't - I can't - see 'blacks' as some sort of monolith. That is, apart from recognizing that many non-black people have it somewhere in their minds, to some degree, that 'black people' can be looked at in this way.

I honestly believe that there is a difference in perspective that operates in these sorts of situations; and in my opinion, the mindset that leads a person to think 'this will set back their cause' - stems from uninformed, or incorrect thinking - or whatever phrasing you want to use.

We - meaning anyone who fits within one of these minorities - will be where we want to be, where we should be and where we have a right to be - when most people of whatever color or persuasion, hear about these sorts of situations, and only think - 'that person was acting like a jerk'.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> I accused you of a strawman because you always to be arguing against things I'd never said!


 You don't have to say things directly to imply them. Your analogy about a doctor was loaded in that regard and I attempted to show you how.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 13, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> When I hear of some person of color playing 'the race card' in a situation where it's obviously inappropriate, my reaction is that that person is a person of poor character; or a dick; or whatever phrasing you want to use. I have the same reaction to the suggestion that these two bus riders might have done something similar.
> 
> What I don't think is: ' boy oh boy, this is going to set back the black cause' - or, again, whatever phrasing you want to use. Because I don't - I can't - see 'blacks' as some sort of monolith. That is, apart from recognizing that many non-black people have it somewhere in their minds, to some degree, that 'black people' can be looked at in this way.
> 
> ...


Yes, I think that's all completely fair. And it is well put - it does betray incorrect thinking.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> You don't have to say things directly to imply them. Your analogy about a doctor was loaded in that regard and I attempted to show you how.



It wasn't my intention to imply those things, and it doesn't strike me as a reasonable inference. But, hey ho.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 13, 2016)

Fucking hell, turn your back for five minutes and everybody's mates again!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Fucking hell, turn your back for five minutes and everybody's mates again!


yeh, it sucks


----------



## A380 (Sep 13, 2016)

Reno said:


> ....The only people I know of claiming that they were crying wolf are on this thread and until reports to the opposite emerge, it's based on nothing but bias and prejuduce.



Hang on a second; the allegation ( job threatening ) is being made against the bus driver. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Did Magna Carter die in vain?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> It wasn't my intention to imply those things, and it doesn't strike me as a reasonable inference. But, hey ho.



I didn't say it was your _intention_. I have repeatedly acknowledged on this thread that none of us are immune to this kind of stuff. Also, just because you haven't been asked to consider those things before doesn't mean my request that you do or my understanding/inference is _unreasonable_.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

A380 said:


> Hang on a second; the allegation ( job threatening ) is being made against the bus driver. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> Did Magna Carter die in vain?


----------



## A380 (Sep 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


>



 This is a big thread, but it's in bad shape.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I didn't say it was your _intention_. I have repeatedly acknowledged on this thread that none of us are immune to this kind of stuff. Also, just because you haven't been asked to consider those things before doesn't mean my request that you do or my understanding/inference is _unreasonable_.



I don't believe I implied those things, intentionally out otherwise. And it's not the case that I was being asked to consider things I'd not already thought about: I had already explicitly stated my position in respect of them; it was the opposite of what you seemed to imply e.g. I had said that you are not responsible for tackling racism. That was why it was unreasonable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

A380 said:


> T
> 
> 
> This is a big thread, but it's in bad shape.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> I don't believe I did those things, intentionally out otherwise. And it's not the case that I was being asked to consider things I'd not already thought about.  I had explicitly stated my position in respect of them; it was the opposite of what you seemed to imply e.g. I had said that you are not responsible for tackling racism. That was why it was unreasonable.




This particular back and forth/conversation started because of your doctor analogy. If you understood these things before you would not have used it IMO. If you haven't worked out why that is a bad analogy now there's sod all I can do. I've explained.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> This particular back and forth/conversation started because of your doctor analogy. If you understood these things before you would not have used it IMO. If you haven't worked out why that is a bad analogy now there's sod all I can do. I've explained.


Your criticism of the doctor analogy made no sense. It turned on the fact that the hypothetical doctor made a choice whereas you didn't.  But the analogy wasn't about you, it was explicitly a parallel to my *choice* to tackle my Great Uncle.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> Your criticism of the doctor analogy made no sense.


 Yes it does.



> It turned on the fact that the hypothetical doctor made a choice whereas you didn't, but the analogy wasn't about you, it was about my *choice* to takle my Great Uncle.



Nah you were also using that analogy to challenge why I think this...



> IME you can't change the attitudes of bigots and trying to is a waste of time. The process of trying to do so positions you as somehow 'responsible' for their bigotry and 'responsible' for changing it.



Although you misread it to mean that somehow I was also saying... 





> responsible for them initially holding those opinions.



Perhaps , if that misunderstanding is your focus here, this discussion is going nowhere.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> .... this discussion is going nowhere.


You reckon?


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Yes it does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your post to which I was replying with the doctor analogy referred (more than once) to "you" i.e. me.

And the comment about me  being responsible for their bigotry does imply a responsibility for them holding those views, rather than merely a responsibility for challenging them, as evidenced by the fact that you referred to that separately. In what other way could I be responsible? 

But it's clear you're just trying to save face,  now, so I'm happy to leave it if you are.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> Your post to which I was replying with the doctor analogy referred to "you" i.e. me.
> 
> And the comment about me  being responsible for their bigotry does imply a responsibility for them holding those views (rather than merely a responsibility for challenging them, as evidenced by the fact that you referred to that separately).
> 
> But it's clear you're just trying to save face,  now, so I'm happy to leave it if you are.


You are really quite something. Baffling. Hey ho.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> You are really quite something. Baffling. Hey ho.



You're easily baffled.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You reckon?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> But it's clear you're just trying to save face,  now, so I'm happy to leave it if you are.



What an arsehole thing to say. I have been perfectly civil and engaged with you honestly.  We don't agree and don't seem to be able to. In your logic that means I am trying to save face? I still think all those things you condescending prick. You don't understand some things so therefore they don't exist? Seriously.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> What an arsehole thing to say. I have been perfectly civil.


Yes, you've been civil, albeit intellectually dishonest. But I still think you're just trying to save face because many of your points don't hold water.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> What an arsehole thing to say. I have been perfectly civil and engaged with you honestly.  We don't agree and don't seem to be able to. In your logic that means I am trying to save face? I still think all those things you condescending prick. You don't understand some things so therefore they don't exist? Seriously.



No, it's not the fact that we don't agree that suggests you're trying to save face; it's the fact that you're desperately pursuing points that you surely can't fail to understand don't stack up. Or maybe I've overestimated you, and you really do believe them. Either way, I understand your points, I just think they are often so poorly thought through as to bear little scrutiny.  

I think we're done.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

I'm intellectually dishonest because your intellect and experiences don't stretch to any understanding of what is being explained to you? Yet others seem to get it.  We are all wrong though yeah. Nothing for you to consider or learn? 

Seriously take a bow. I'll remember in future that you can't manage. So yes... We are done.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> What an arsehole thing to say. I have been perfectly civil and engaged with you honestly.  We don't agree and don't seem to be able to. In your logic that means I am trying to save face? I still think all those things you condescending prick. You don't understand some things so therefore they don't exist? Seriously.


Nothing you're doing looks like you're trying to save face. Athos is just an energy-draining brick wall. I can't tell if it's willful misunderstanding or not, but I've given up (again!). Your points are clear.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> Yes, some people would feel aggrieved by the black man's behaviour in that scenario, some of them long-established anti-racist campaigners. But to do so would require thinking that his actions represent black people to some degree, albeit not to the degree of thinking that all/most/many may behave similarly.
> 
> A white man stands up and says he thinks white men are superior in every way. Some people, on hearing that, will think less of white men as a whole for it. Will you? He's not just a white man himself, he's also talking about white men...


Sorry I have not replied to this sooner, appart from a brief break for lunch I've been at work all day.

Unlike some people on the thread you seem willing to engage properly and explain your position. I'm still trying to make sure I understand your position correctly, so if you feel I am misrepresenting it in the following post please feel free to correct me.

Before I go any further I want to lay some groundwork, so to speak. First we do not currently know that the two men at the centre of this incident we're lying, however since topcat's posts the thread has tended to go with the assumption that they are, as most people quite rightly trust him. It is that assumption that has lead to the current argument and I will continue with it, but that means that everything that follows is essentially hypothetical. 

From what I can see there are two positions on this thread. The first is that proven false allegations of homopbia do not negatively impact anyone apart from those making the allegations. The second position is that proven false allegations have negative impacts on gay men and women beyond those making the allegations. Those who hold the first position claim that the second position requires on general assumptions about gay people. Specifically that, since some gay people have been found to be lying about homophobic abuse then others must do so as well. I hope that's not a terribly inaccurate representation of your position.

I am going to outline what I believe to be some the possible negative consequences of false allegations, and this case in particular. However it's worth noting that any 'damage' done is likely to be relatively minor. Much of this I posted earlier, but want to go over it again as these specifics don't seem to be discussed.

First I think false allegations make genuine victims of homophobic abuse who come forward less likely to be believed, and they will be subject to greater scrutiny then they may have been previously. As a consequence of this I think it may deter genuine victims from coming forward. In order to challenge homopbia I think victims should feel able to speak up and their allegations taken seriously. False allegations make this more difficult. 

Numerous people have spoken up to defend these two men. If their allegation is shown to be false then it puts them in a difficult position. This may make them less likely to speak up in future. Meaning that when genuine victims come forward there will be fewer voices supporting them and those that do speak up may do so with less conviction.

Finally I think that it gives ammunition to the bigots out there. They are likely to feel more confident and better able to push the boundaries of what they can get away with. If nothing else anyone who speaks up about a similar incident in the near future is probably going to be meet with a chorus of 'what about those two guys who lied about the bus driver'.

Now your position seems to be that the above relies upon some people making generalised assumption about gay people. I'm not completely convinced this is true. But regardless I think all the above are plausible and negstive results of false allegations. And as such cannot be ignored. 

I can only think of three ways to argue they should not be considered. The first two are that I am simply wrong and they are either not plausible or not negative. The third is that that the negative consequences of allowing for the fact that some degree of generalisation may happen are worse (I'm not sure that is very clear but can't think of a better way to put it right now). But I would need some convincing to accept any of them. Off course there is probably something totally obvious I've missed. 

Belive it or not there was more I was thinking of saying, but I think that's quite enough for now.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I'm intellectually dishonest because your intellect and experiences don't stretch to any understanding of what is being explained to you? Yet others seem to get it.  We are all wrong though yeah. Nothing for you to consider or learn?
> 
> Seriously take a bow. I'll remember in future that you can't manage. So yes... We are done.



No, it's because what's "being explained" to me is drivel (as I've demonstrated).  And the fact that other fools buy your bullshit doesn't make it true. But, have it your way, if it makes you feel better. Call it a moral victory, if nothing else.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> Nothing you're doing looks like you're trying to save face. Athos is just an energy-draining brick wall. I can't tell if it's willful misunderstanding or not, but I've given up (again!). Your points are clear.


You didn't so much give up as retreat, when you couldn't answer a question that was put to you three times, because to do so would expose how wrong you were.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> You didn't so much give up as retreat, when you couldn't answer a question that was put to you three times, because to do so would expose how wrong you were.


Be thankful. The normal urban response to being unable to give a reasoned argument (because they're wrong and there isn't one) is to just call you stupid for not getting it.

There has been plenty of the adult version of "you're stupid". "no you are!" On this thread though.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Sorry I have not replied to this sooner, appart from a brief break for lunch I've been at work all day.
> 
> Unlike some people on the thread you seem willing to engage properly and explain your position. I'm still trying to make sure I understand your position correctly, so if you feel I am misrepresenting it in the following post please feel free to correct me.
> 
> ...


There is something totally obvious that you have missed. You are starting with false premises (presumably you know your own position but you certainly don't know mine from what you say in this post). It is difficult to explain to you further as I have said my position very clearly in several posts in several ways. I understand that you don't get those posts, but given that you didn't get them, me saying it again probably won't help. All I can suggest is that you read back a bit or that you talk to someone else for a differently conveyed version.

TopCat's integrity is not in question. None of what I'm saying relies on him being wrong.

I suspect that you didn't mean it to be so, but when you start out with (or state anywhere) that "you're not like those others who share your opinion; _you _can be reasoned with", as you implied in your second sentence, you're invoking a divide-and-rule cunt's trick, however unintentionally. Engage with the people you want to engage with, by all means. But don't try to pick any of them off as being worthwhile because their approach suits the way you feel the argument should go; not on this type of topic, anyway. It has a history linked to oppression, again, to tiptoe around any fragility as a gesture of goodwill, that you probably don't intend, but should not be invoked if you are sincere about communicating on equal terms.

tc;du  Don't pit the intellectual/arguing/engagement skills (as you perceive them) of the person you're talking to against someone else you don't agree with unless you're happy to use an abusive tactic.

No apology needed for the delay!


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> You didn't so much give up as retreat, when you couldn't answer a question that was put to you three times, because to do so would expose how wrong you were.


My answer is there for all to see (in a number of posts). We aren't just talking to each other. With every post you make that claims I didn't answer you, you only further demonstrate your lack of understanding. I'm aware that you will think the same of me and my posts. Hey ho.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> My answer is there for all to see (in a number of posts). We aren't just talking to each other. With every post you make that claims I didn't answer you, you only further demonstrate your lack of understanding. I'm aware that you will think the same of me and my posts. Hey ho.



Indeed, the truth is there for everyone to see. Maybe you could assist them by giving the numbers of the posts which you claim contain your answer to the following specific question? 



Athos said:


> Yes, so, do you now accept that, insofar as those "some people" are less likely to respond to other boys' (genuine) alarms,  the first boy's false alarm had a role (as did those people's own poor reasoning) in causing an objective harm to the other boys' interests?





Athos said:


> You haven't answered that specific question. Can you?
> 
> Do you now accept that, insofar as those "some people" are less likely to respond to other boys' (genuine) alarms, the first boy's false alarm had a role (as did those people's own poor reasoning) in causing an objective harm to the other boys' interests?
> 
> Cue some bluster about not having to comply with my agenda.





Athos said:


> Convenient.
> 
> Demonstrably, you haven't answered the *specific* question:
> 
> ...


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 13, 2016)

this thread is now so bad tempered (46 pages!) that I'm cancelling the gay disco on the no23. 

Move along there inside...


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> Indeed, the truth is there for everyone to see. Maybe you could assist them by giving the numbers of the posts which you claim contain your answer to the following specific question?


I am satisfied that anyone reading will have got that as they go along. If you think they won't have, do quote my 'non-answers', by all means.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> this thread is now so bad tempered (46 pages!) that I'm cancelling the gay disco on the no23.
> 
> Move along there inside...


Noooo!

This is why we can't have nice things


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> I am satisfied that anyone reading will have got that as they go along. If you think they won't have, do quote my 'non-answers', by all means.



How can I quote what doesn't exist? 

If you think you have answered, it'd be the easiest thing in the world for you to point everyone to those answers. But you, me, and everyone else knows you haven't, and your desperate attempts to pretend otherwise are just embarrassing.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> How can I quote what doesn't exist?
> 
> If you think you have answered, it'd be the easiest thing in the world for you to point everyone to those answers. But you, me, and everyone else knows you haven't, and your desperate attempts to pretend otherwise are just embarrassing.


So you're saying I haven't posted any non-answers?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> There is something totally obvious that you have missed. You are starting with false premises (presumably you know your own position but you certainly don't know mine from what you say in this post). It is difficult to explain to you further as I have said my position very clearly in several posts in several ways. I understand that you don't get those posts, but given that you didn't get them, me saying it again probably won't help. All I can suggest is that you read back a bit or that you talk to someone else for a differently conveyed version.
> 
> TopCat's integrity is not in question. None of what I'm saying relies on him being wrong.
> 
> ...


But mation... Not you, you are not like those others... Seriously?  What is the point...that is age old and basic... Argh.   Yet we still need to explain how insidious this shit is? And we are still wrong...don't forget that. BORING


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)




----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> So you're saying I haven't posted any non-answers?



I'm saying you haven't answered the question.  What is a non-answer?  Any post in which you don't answer the question, I suppose.  So do you want me to quote all your posts?  Or rather than expecting me to prove the negative, if you assert you have answered it, why don't you just say where?

Meantime, here's the three occasions I asked the question, and the three times you responded to those posts.  In none of those responses did you answer it, did you?  Bizarely, your response to the first time I asked the question was to claim that you'd already answered it i.e. before I'd asked it!



Athos said:


> Yes, so, do you now accept that, insofar as those "some people" are less likely to respond to other boys' (genuine) alarms,  the first boy's false alarm had a role (as did those people's own poor reasoning) in causing an objective harm to the other boys' interests?





Mation said:


> I've answered you already, Athos. Knowing that some people will be influenced by the false alarms doesn't lead inexorably to your viewpoint.





Athos said:


> You haven't answered that specific question. Can you?
> 
> Do you now accept that, insofar as those "some people" are less likely to respond to other boys' (genuine) alarms, the first boy's false alarm had a role (as did those people's own poor reasoning) in causing an objective harm to the other boys' interests?
> 
> Cue some bluster about not having to comply with my agenda.





Mation said:


> I have. You just don't recognise it as an answer because you have a particular answer-shape in your head. We're going round in circles and you haven't understood anything. This is a waste of my time.





Athos said:


> Convenient.
> 
> Demonstrably, you haven't answered the *specific* question:
> 
> ...





Mation said:


> I answered. Go look at my posts



To keep pretending you've answered the question whilst not being able to show where is excruciating.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> I'm saying you haven't answered the question.  What is a non-answer?  Any post in which you don't answer the question, I suppose.  So do you want me to quote all your posts?  Or rather than expecting me to prove the negative, if you assert you have answered it, why don't you just say where?
> 
> Meantime, here's the three occasions I asked the question, and the three times you responded to those posts.  In none of those responses did you answer it, did you?  Bizarely, your first response to the questions claimed that you'd already answered it i.e. before I'd asked it!
> 
> ...



What is the post number of the original post where you first give this example concerning an untruthful boy?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What is the post number of the original post where you first give this example concerning an untruthful boy?


how original is anything we say? perhaps asking for the first post where ... might be better.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> how original is anything we say? perhaps asking for the first post where ... might be better.



Has he given the full example in more than one post?


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

It was kabbes who raised it, and others (including Mation) responded before I commented.  Here's what I think are the relevant parts of the relevant posts (though don't want to be accused of editing wih an agenda, so please feel free to point out any I've missed), from the first mention of the boy until the first time I asked the question.



kabbes said:


> Isn't it as straightforward as being a case of crying wolf?  A concept so old that Aesop himself wrote about it.  The more that "wolf" is cried when there is no wolf, the less people will believe it when there is one.





Mation said:


> That only works if the boys cries prevent other boys from being believed.
> ...





ItWillNeverWork said:


> Which it might well have done. Not disbelieved by anyone here on this thread, but certainly by some people out there. That's the point that EoY was making I think.





Mation said:


> Yes she may well have been, but it's not the boy's cries that would prevent other boys being believed; it would be people's own beliefs about whether or how you can generalise.





Athos said:


> No. The false alarms would play a causative role (admittedly alongside a number of othet factors); without the false alarms, the other boys' cries would probably have been taken at face value (given the first boy's were in the first instance). That's not to say the villagers aren't wrong to assume the other boys are lying, of course.





Mation said:


> For some people.





Athos said:


> Yes, so, do you now accept that, insofar as those "some people" are less likely to respond to other boys' (genuine) alarms,  the first boy's false alarm had a role (as did those people's own poor reasoning) in causing an objective harm to the other boys' interests?


----------



## snadge (Sep 13, 2016)

Awesome boys, carry on.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Has he given the full example in more than one post?



I've asked the specific question in three; she's not answered it.  Her vague responses to the general hypothetical do not amount to responses to the specific question (and cannot as most of them pre-date it).


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 13, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> this thread is now so bad tempered (46 pages!) that I'm cancelling the gay disco on the no23.
> 
> Move along there inside...





on a gay forum i used to bother with, some people did get discussing the idea of getting an ageing bus, painting it pink and calling it dorothy...


----------



## Santino (Sep 13, 2016)

'Why are you refusing to answer to my very simplistic, leading, context-free question about a range of complex issues so that I can draw inferences that will allow me to accuse you of hypocrisy or stupidity?!? '


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Santino said:


> 'Why are you refusing to answer to my very simplistic, leading, context-free question about a range of complex issues so that I can draw inferences that will allow me to accuse you of hypocrisy or stupidity?!? '



It's neither leading nor context free. And we all know full well why she can't answer it.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> I've asked the specific question in three; she's not answered it.  Her vague responses to the general hypothetical do not amount to responses to the specific question (and cannot as most of them pre-date it).


Posts 1205 & 1254. Post 1254 was directly in response to kabbes, but it's the question you've been asking for an answer to.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> It's neither leading nor context free. And we all know full well why she can't answer it.


Who's "we", white man?

(lol)


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Santino said:


> 'Why are you refusing to answer to my very simplistic, leading, context-free question about a range of complex issues so that I can draw inferences that will allow me to accuse you of hypocrisy or stupidity?!? '


Because we are intellectually dishonest that is why. What other reason could there be? He is right, we are wrong. He has nothing to prove or learn. It's our problem.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> Who's "we", white man?
> 
> (lol)


We is everyone who is not you Mation. You know the drill he speaks for everyone. The voice of the people. You are wrong because he can't understand you or your perspective. That he can't understand and refuses to learn is also your fault.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> Posts 1205 & 1254. Post 1254 was directly in response to kabbes, but it's the question you've been asking for an answer to.



None of those answer the pecific question, as you well know.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> Who's "we", white man?
> 
> (lol)



Those reading the thread, who can see what's happened.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> .





Rutita1 said:


> Because we are intellectually dishonest that is why. What other reason could their be? He is right, we are wrong. He has nothing to prove or learn. It's our problem.





Rutita1 said:


> We is everyone who is not you Mation. You know the drill he speaks for everyone. The voice of people. You are wrong because he can't understand you or your perspective.



Notable for your failure to say anything on the substative point.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> None of those answer the pecific question, as you well know.


I'm aware that you believe that


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

Round and round and round it goes 
Where it stops no one knows


----------



## maomao (Sep 13, 2016)

Fuck I'm glad I was busy today.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> Posts 1205 & 1254. Post 1254 was directly in response to kabbes, but it's the question you've been asking for an answer to.



So, the last post in the conversation below is the one which you claim provides an answer to the specific question: 'Do you now accept that, insofar as those "some people" are less likely to respond to other boys' (genuine) alarms, the first boy's false alarm had a role (as did those people's own poor reasoning) in causing an objective harm to the other boys' interests?'



kabbes said:


> How many false allegations on a topic would it take before _you _started to disbelieve allegations on that topic?  Regardless of topic and source of allegation?





Mation said:


> It would depend on what 'the topic' comprised.





kabbes said:


> Why?





Mation said:


> If there is a context to false alarms that explains why they might be likely to occur often under certain circumstances or amongst a particular group of people, then being alerted to it might make me more likely to question subsequent potential instances.
> 
> If there is no such link between the people and circumstances, I'd look at each instance individually. Like tossing a coin. Prior observations have no effect on my belief about what the next result will be because I know that it's not relevant. I'm aware that other people may think it is relevant (and that you're not one of them). To think it's relevant you must think one toss affects another to some degree.



And, for clarification, is that a 'yes' or 'no' to the question I asked (three times)?


----------



## Ole (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos would be in charge of enhanced interrogations come The Revolution. Utterly unflinching. Steel will.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> It was kabbes who raised it, and others (including Mation) responded before I commented.  Here's what I think are the relevant parts of the relevant posts (though don't want to be accused of editing wih an agenda, so please feel free to point out any I've missed), from the first mention of the boy until the first time I asked the question.



Like I said in a post above, this all stems from a thinking problem. Specifically, a logic problem.

A boy named Little Billy cries wolf, when there isn't any wolf.

What can we know for sure from those facts/

Little BIlly is a boy.

Little billy is untruthful.




To put it in the language of logic:

A[Little Billy] = B[a boy]

A[Little Billy] = C[untruthful]

What does NOT follow from that, is B = C.

To use a more neutral example:

This leaf I'm holding[A] is green

This leaf I'm holding[A] is fragile[C]

If I conclude from this that all green things are fragile [B =C], I'm making a logical error.



The answer to this problem isn't to produce an honest boy for consideration, to prove that boys can be truthful. That's just employing the same faulty logic.

The solution to the problem of bigoted people thinking that one black or gay person acting badly goes to prove something about all black or gay people, isn't for black or gay people to act in some different way or another.

The solution is to correct their[the bigots] problems with logic and thinking.

That isn't something that we members of minority groups can do, by being on our best behavior.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Like I said in a post above, this all stems from a thinking problem. Specifically, a logic problem.
> 
> A boy named Little Billy cries wolf, when there isn't any wolf.
> 
> ...



I've not suggested B=C; rather, I've acknowledged that some people wrongly think B=C, and that theit faulty logic can have harmful effects.

But I've not suggested those effects should be countered by black people acting differenty; in fact, I've said just the opposite - that the 'credit to his race' argument is an equally bigoted position.

In fact, in post #1234, I said : '_Nobody is suggesting that, though. It's been recognised that the 'credit to your kind' argument is just as bigoted as the 'typical of that lot' type mentality. Someone can play a part in being factually causative without being culpable themselves, or diminishing others' culpability.
_
Also, I lost count of the number of times I said to Rutita that I'm not saying it's her responsibility, or that of black people more generally, to tackle bigotry.

You seem to be arguing against something I haven't said.


----------



## Purdie (Sep 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Round and round and round it goes
> Where it stops no one knows


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 13, 2016)

I was attempting to address this, which you did say:



> Yes, so, do you now accept that, insofar as those "some people" are less likely to respond to other boys' (genuine) alarms, the first boy's false alarm had a role (as did those people's own poor reasoning) in causing an objective harm to the other boys' interests?



If what you're saying is that people with thinking and logic problems come to faulty conclusions, then yes, we agree.

And the answer lies in correcting their ability to think logically, so that they don't make these sorts of errors anymore.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I was attempting to address this, which you did say:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, I am saying that people with faulty thinking and logic come to faulty conclusions.

I agree with your assessment of where the solution lies.

But none of that changes the fact that the boy who cried wolf may have been a cause of the villagers' failure to respond to other boys' cries (insofar as they would have responded to the other boys' cries but for the first boy's cries, in the same way that they did respond to the boy in the first instance), abeit that there is also another cause - the villagers' faulty logic, for which thinking the boy who cried wolf cannot be held responsible.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> abeit that there is also another cause - the villagers' faulty logic, for which thinking the boy who cried wolf cannot be held responsible.



There is only one cause: the faulty logic. The fact that Little Billy is untruthful, tells nothing about Little Bobby's honesty or lack thereof.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There is only one cause: the faulty logic. The fact that Little Billy is untruthful, tells nothing about Little Bobby's honesty or lack thereof.



I'm not suggesting Billy's conduct says anyting about Bobby's; I agree with you on that.

But, had the first boy not cried wolf, the subsequent boys would have been believed (in the same way that the first boy was initially believed).  To that extent, him crying wolf is a 'but for' cause of the villagers' subsequent decision not to respond; that's to say, but for him doing that, the outcome would have been different.  But that's not to say he is culpable for their faulty logic.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> I'm not suggesting Billy's conduct says anyting about Bobby's; I agree with you on that.
> 
> But, had the first boy not cried wolf, the subsequent boys would have been believed (in the same way that the first boy was initially believed).  To that extent, him crying wolf is a 'but for' cause of the villagers' subsequent decision not to respond; that's to say, but for him doing that, the outcome would have been different.  But that's not to say he is culpable for their faulty logic.


Ok, I think Johnny has helped us to the nub of the problem.

You keep saying that the boy who cried wolf is the cause.

Johnny has said that there is no cause but faulty logic.

Do you see the difference between those things?


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> Ok, I think Johnny has helped us to the nub of the problem.
> 
> You keep saying that the boy who cried wolf is the cause.
> 
> ...



The boy who cried wolf is one of two causes; the other is the villagers' faulty logic.  The outcome would have been different absent either or both of them i.e. had the boy not cried would they would not have reached that conclusion about the subsequent boys' honesty; nor woulld they have reached that conslusion had they employed sound reasoning notwithstanding his false alarms.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 13, 2016)

I ride motorbikes. Everyone knows that motorbike riders are the spawn of Satan, the scum of the earth, and they all ride at ridiculous speeds and eat baby panda and swan liver pâté sandwiches. Of course, in reality, the vast majority of motorbike riders aren't like that, but you never hear about all the charity runs we do, because that doesn't sell papers. You only hear about the lad caught speeding at 150mph, which is why I facepalm whenever I see that sort of riding on the roads, because I know how it will inevitably _make all_ bike riders look bad, in the eyes of some. Of course, those lads riding at 150mph aren't representing or representative of all bikers, but a lot of people do tar us all with the same brush. It's what happens when you're 'different'.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 13, 2016)

The upshot of the 'Boy Who Cries Wolf' story, is that the villagers don't respond when actual danger appears.

In other words, a negative consequence flows from some antecedent. The question is, what is the principal antecedent bringing about the consequence. In the original story, it is the boy who cries wolf who later isn't believed: the moral being that untruthfulness can lead to negative consequences.

In yours, or kabbes' version, Little Billy's lies lead the villagers to disbelieve Little Bobby - a logical error.

Yes, you are right: if Billy hadn't lied, the logical error wouldn't have taken place.

Similarly, if Billy hadn't been born, the error wouldn't have taken place.

However, the primary antecedent is the logical error made by the villagers.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2016)

So was this boy on the bus too?


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The upshot of the 'Boy Who Cries Wolf' story, is that the villagers don't respond when actual danger appears.
> 
> In other words, a negative consequence flows from some antecedent. The question is, what is the principal antecedent bringing about the consequence. In the original story, it is the boy who cries wolf who later isn't believed: the moral being that untruthfulness can lead to negative consequences.
> 
> ...



We're very close to agreement.  

Though I'm not sure I agree that "[t]he question is, what is the principal antecedent bringing about the consequence."  I see no reason why we ought to narrow the issue to one principal antecedent.

In any event, I disagree that, from the perspective of factual causation, you can convincingly assert the primacy of a factor that would not have become operative but for the other factor.  To my mind, both are necessary but not sufficient preconditions (in isolation) for that outcome.

However, I have always accepted that the villlagers' faulty logic ought to have primacy in terms of the relative culpability, and the focus on preventing that outcome.

And, the point about Billy not being born is a red herring, I might just as well say it's not the villagers' faulty logic, it's the fact they've been born!


----------



## alan_ (Sep 13, 2016)

In every "cry wolf"  fable I have encountered, there was only one protagonist. He cried wolf and he was eaten. It was nothing to do with any others and what happened subsequently, we just don't know.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2016)

he was a fool, single wolves are no more than starving dogs, you can kill or drive them off easily. Its a pack you have to worry about. Two creatures on this earth that will track prey for the longest distance? wolf pack or humans.

I myself have often killed wolves with my bare hands.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> I ride motorbikes. Everyone knows that motorbike riders are the spawn of Satan, the scum of the earth, and they all ride at ridiculous speeds and eat baby panda and swan liver pâté sandwiches. Of course, in reality, the vast majority of motorbike riders aren't like that, but you never hear about all the charity runs we do, because that doesn't sell papers. You only hear about the lad caught speeding at 150mph, which is why I facepalm whenever I see that sort of riding on the roads, because I know how it will inevitably _make all_ bike riders look bad, in the eyes of some. Of course, those lads riding at 150mph aren't representing or representative of all bikers, but a lot of people do tar us all with the same brush. It's what happens when you're a 'different'.


The difference is here:
1) You know that the 150mph speeding biker_ will make_ all bike riders look bad in the eyes of some (causal link that _you_ are making)
2) You know that some people will believe that all bike riders are bad due to the 150mph speeder (causal link that some other people are making)

In 1) You believe the cause to be the biker's behaviour, resulting in a conclusion that both you and I think illogical
In 2) You understand that the biker's behaviour is an antecedent, but not a cause

It's a really important distinction. Thinking either can lead you to the surface position of "people are wrong to extrapolate from this biker's behaviour to another's", but it is problematic because it accepts the premise that the biker is responsible for the feelings towards them.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 13, 2016)

i don't think you're allowed to take a wolf on a london bus


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> We're very close to agreement.
> 
> But I disagree that, from the perspective of factual causation, you can convincingly assert the primacy of a factor that would not have become operative but for the other factor.  To my mind, both are necessary but not sufficient preconditions (in isolation) for that outcome.
> 
> ...



We've sort of varied the language between the language of causation, and the language of responsibility, or culpability.

I'm thinking of an alternate situation: a drunken patron walking down the hallway from the loo at the pub, spots money lying there. Being drunk, he yells out 'There's a fiver on the floor!'

Another patron, hard of hearing, thinks he hears 'There's a fire on this floor!'

The second patron yells 'Fire!', there's a stampede, and people are injured as a result.

No doubt, if the first patron hadn't yelled anything, nothing would have happened. If one was looking to assign blame or responsibility, it seems reasonable to hold the faulty hearing to be the primary cause.

In this example, needless to say, the faulty hearing substitutes for the faulty logic.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> We've sort of varied the language between the language of causation, and the language of responsibility, or culpability.
> 
> I'm thinking of an alternate situation: a drunken patron walking down the hallway from the loo, spots money lying there. Being drunk, he yells out 'There's a fiver on the floor!'
> 
> ...



I would say tht the incident had two causal factors, the drunk's shout, and the mistake by the person with the hearing impairment.  I'm not sure why you insist on artificially narrowing the question of causation to one primary cause?

In any event, I'm not sure I'd apportion culpability to a person becasue they're hearing impaired.  In this example, I'm not sure that anyone is to blame, notwithstanding they both (together) caused the stamede.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> The difference is here:
> 1) You know that the 150mph speeding biker_ will make_ all bike riders look bad in the eyes of some (causal link that _you_ are making)
> 2) You know that some people will believe that all bike riders are bad due to the 150mph speeder (causal link that some other people are making)
> 
> ...



What do you mean by the tems 'antecedent', 'cause' and 'responsible'?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Round and round and round it goes
> Where it stops no one knows



This thread is in danger of disappearing up its own arse.


----------



## alan_ (Sep 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> he was a fool, single wolves are no more than starving dogs, you can kill or drive them off easily. Its a pack you have to worry about. Two creatures on this earth that will track prey for the longest distance? wolf pack or humans.
> 
> I myself have often killed wolves with my bare hands.


Dude that is point THERE WAS NO WOLF. Until there was one then it ate him.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I myself have often killed wolves with my bare hands.



they got better because they're playing Newcastle on Saturday


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> What do you mean by the tems 'antecedent', 'cause' and 'responsible'?



and what do you mean by 'mean'?


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> What do you mean by the tems 'antecedent', 'cause' and 'responsible'?


Me: *tedium*

Athos: But why haven't you answered my questions!

Everyone else: *tedium*

Athos: I don't know why you think you can speak for whoever it is you're speaking for. I want you to answer [thing that is perfectly clear] *stomps foot*

Universe: *tedium*

...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> In any event, I'm not sure I'd apportion culpability to a person becasue they're hearing impaired.



I didn't: I apportioned blame, or responsibility, to the hearing impairment.

Raises an interesting question, though: if the bigots are possessed of poor logical reasoning powers, are they to be held to blame for the failure in the education system to impart those  skills to them?

In other words, are the ignorant [in any life situation] blameworthy for their ignorance?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> This thread is in danger of disappearing up its own arse.


No danger, it did that a page or three back


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> Me: *tedium*
> 
> Athos: But why haven't you answered my questions!
> 
> ...



Very good, except I've neither said nor implied those things.

What's the issue with making sure we're using terms in the same way?  That's a pretty basic principle of any discussion, I'd have thought.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> Me: *tedium*
> 
> Athos: But why haven't you answered my questions!
> 
> ...



Those questions are just the latest example of the mean spiritedness and condescension at play here. As if you can't possibly be using those words correctly because if you did you would be agreeing with him. It's a fucking joke, but not alas a funny.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 13, 2016)

If little Bobby AND little Billy BOTH falsely cry wolf then is it reasonable for the villagers to subsequently doubt little Jimmy?  What if they believe Jimmy but then he does it too -- will they then believe little Johnny when he cries wolf?

Does Bobby get to claim that he has had no impact on wolf-denial just because he was only one individual part of the chain?


----------



## alan_ (Sep 13, 2016)

kabbes said:


> If little Bobby AND little Billy BOTH falsely cry wolf then is it reasonable for the villagers to subsequently doubt little Jimmy?  What if they believe Jimmy but then he does it too -- will they then believe little Johnny when he cries wolf?
> 
> Does Bobby get to claim that he has had no impact on wolf-denial just because he was only one individual part of the chain?


The writer of history would be the kid who could run faster


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 13, 2016)

What if little Billy has red hair: should the villagers disbelieve all little boys, PLUS any redhead of whatever gender?


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I didn't: I apportioned blame, or responsibility, to the hearing impairment.
> 
> Raises an interesting question, though: if the bigots are possessed of poor logical reasoning powers, are they to be held to blame for the failure in the education system to impart those  skills to them?
> 
> In other words, are the ignorant [in any life situation] blameworthy for their ignorance?



I think to apportion blame to a hearing impairment would be to use blame in a way other than it's generally understood i.e. to be worthy of censure.

And the latter is an interesting point.  But, before we come onto that, you didn't explain why you seek to artifically narrow causation to one primary factor.  And, if you don't, whether you accept that, in the original example, both the false cry and the false logic are factual causes.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

kabbes said:


> If little Bobby AND little Billy BOTH falsely cry wolf then is it reasonable for the villagers to subsequently doubt little Jimmy?  What if they believe Jimmy but then he does it too -- will they then believe little Johnny when he cries wolf?
> 
> Does Bobby get to claim that he has had no impact on wolf-denial just because he was only one individual part of the chain?


I suspect that people who have an external locus of control (this happened because of such and such a circumstance/other person _outside myself_) will be more likely to think that Bobby has a causal role in the chain re villagers' beliefs. And that those with an internal locus (my actions are down to me, whatever the circumstances, _I_ responded) will think that the fault lies with the villagers because they choose how to respond to the circumstances.

I'd be interested to look at or find out whether the experience of discrimination has an effect on your locus of control. Too tired to look now, though.


----------



## xenon (Sep 13, 2016)

Are we having fun yet?


----------



## xenon (Sep 13, 2016)

The lesson of the boy who cried wolf, is about an individuals  honesty. How can you read  fables  and not get that. Some of you are fucking lost.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Those questions are just the latest example of the mean spiritedness and condescension at play here. As if you can't possibly be using those words correctly because if you did you would be agreeing with him. It's a fucking joke, but not alas a funny.



I realise you're reduced to sniping from the sidelines, but you're quite wrong, again.  I'm trying to understand what Mation means.  There are many different meaning of 'cause' e.g. _sine qua non_, proximate, and four from Aristotle alone; similarly, 'responsible' could mean anything from factually causative to cupable/blameworthy.  She can choose to engage with the discussion or not, but you're quite wrong to describe my genuine questions as you have done.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> But, before we come onto that, you didn't explain why you seek to artifically narrow causation to one primary factor.



I didn't; which is why I mentioned that the language of causation, responsibility, and blameworthiness, seem to be getting intermingled a little.

In terms of causation, it can be argued that every thing that happens in one instant, is causative of everything that happens in the next instance. But that's looking at it from a metaphysical level.

The issue of whether or not the actions of individual gay or black people, create or perpetuate typecasting in the minds of certain people, arguably relates more to the language of responsibility, even blameworthiness, as opposed to the language of metaphysics.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> I realise you're reduced to sniping from the sidelines, but you're quite wrong, again.  I'm trying to understand what Mation means.  There are many different meaning of 'cause' e.g. _sine qua non_, proximate, and four from Aristotle alone; similarly, 'responsible' could mean anything from factually causative to cupable/blameworthy.  She can choose to engage with the discussion or not, but you're quite wrong to describe my genuine questions as you have done.


You missed my post on the cunts' trick, then.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2016)

could someone clarify what we mean by 'bus' since this seems to get to the heart of it


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> I suspect that people who have an external locus of control (this happened because of such and such a circumstance/other person _outside myself_) will be more likely to think that Bobby has a causal role in the chain re villagers' beliefs. And that those with an internal locus (my actions are down to me, whatever the circumstances, _I_ responded) will think that the fault lies with the villagers because they choose how to respond to the circumstances.
> 
> I'd be interested to look at or find out whether the experience of discrimination has an effect on your locus of control. Too tired to look now, though.



This post is a good exampe of you blurring the distinction between causation and fault.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> You missed my post on the cunts' trick, then.



Nah, just thought it was bollocks.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I didn't; which is why I mentioned that the language of causation, responsibility, and blameworthiness, seem to be getting intermingled a little.
> 
> In terms of causation, it can be argued that every thing that happens in one instant, is causative of everything that happens in the next instance. But that's looking at it from a metaphysical level.
> 
> The issue of whether or not the actions of individual gay or black people, create or perpetuate typecasting in the minds of certain people, arguably relates more to the language of responsibility, even blameworthiness, as opposed to the language of metaphysics.



So, sticking with the wolf analogy, do we both agree that both the conduct of the boy and the villagers' faulty logic are factual causes, but that, in terms of culpability the villagers are more to blame, and should be the focus of any actions to 'cure' the problem?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> So, sticking with the wolf analogy, do we both agree that both the conduct of the boy and the villagers' faulty logic are factual causes, but that, in terms of culpability the villagers are more to blame, and should be the focus of any actions to 'cure' the problem?


Yes.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Yes.



 That's the position I've maintained from the outset.


----------



## Mation (Sep 13, 2016)

two sheds said:


> could someone clarify what we mean by 'bus' since this seems to get to the heart of it




I am off to bed before I veer into territory I tell other people off for

(not directed towards two sheds!)


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> I realise you're reduced to sniping from the sidelines, but you're quite wrong, again.  I'm trying to understand what Mation means.



I am not reduced to anything of the sort as much as I can imagine you like to convince yourself of that, I believe my observations are correct. Also, you don't get to tell me how I do and don't engage with this thread.



> There are many different meaning of 'cause' e.g. _sine qua non_, proximate, and four from Aristotle alone; similarly, 'responsible' could mean anything from factually causative to cupable/blameworthy.  She can choose to engage with the discussion or not, bit you're quite wrong to describe my genuine questions as you have done.



I think I have a good handle on you and the methods you are employing. Your little performance here where you have tried to set the agenda, impose your perspective as truth, decide what makes sense or not, insist whose experiences are valid and actual knowledge is legitimised are nothing new to most of us.

In case you haven't got it yet...you are not in charge and no one here is not asking for your permission.

What's more I don't think any of this actually means anything to you and i couldn't give two shits abut how many stories you want to relate about challenging bigotry with a mythical uncle. You are merely entertaining yourself and indulging in a bit of theatre where you've cast yourself in the lead role and believe you'll be thrown a bouquet and be applauded at the end of it.


Little wonder you didn't want to acknowledge 'the cunt's trick' post.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> That's the position I've maintained from the outset.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I am not reduced to anything of the sort as much as I can imagine you like to convince yourself of that, I believe my observations are correct.


As you said yourself, we can agree to disagree.




Rutita1 said:


> Also, you don't get to tell me how I do and don't engage with this thread.


I've commented on what you are doing, not what you can or can't do.




Rutita1 said:


> I think I have a good handle on you and the methods you are employing. Your little performance here where you have tried to set the agenda, impose you perspective as truth, decide what makes sense or not, insist whose experiences are valid and actual knowledge is legitimised are nothing new to most of us.


You seem to have a very fluid concept of what 'truth' is.  And your slurs are a desperate attempt to cover the paucity of your arguments.




Rutita1 said:


> In case you haven't got it yet...you are not in charge and no one here is not asking for your permission.


No one is not asking?! D'oh!




Rutita1 said:


> What's more I don't think any of this actually means anything to you and i couldn't give two shits abut how many stories you want to relate about challenging bigotry with a mythical uncle.


It's certainly fair to say that what you think of me doesn't mean anything to me.  And it was my Great Uncle.




Rutita1 said:


> You are merely entertaining yourself and indulging in a bit of theatre where you've cast yourself in the lead role and believe you'll be thrown a bouquet and be applauded at the end of it.


You know nothing of me and my motivations or beliefs, but if it helps you to believe that, then at least you can claim a moral victory, if nothing else.




Rutita1 said:


> Little wonder you didn't want to acknowledge 'the cunt's trick' post.


I did. I replied directly to it.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


>



Why the ?  Have I said anything inconsistent with that?  Didn't I make the distinction between culpability and facual causation very early on?  Didn't I agree that it's not black people's responsiblilty to correct bogots' faulty logic with their behaviour?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> As you said yourself, we can agree to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's just it there is nothing to win, no victory...the very fact you perceive it like that confirms my observations. Also, now you are getting all upset at perceived 'slurs' ? Even though you've done more than your far share of attempting ridicule and downright nastiness during this discussion, another example of your double standards at play.

My points on this thread were/are valid. Just because you can't bring yourself to engage with them or try to understand them means nothing more that you are unable to do that. The lack is yours.

I think my observations are correct.

I don't care if you agree.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What if little Billy has red hair...


What if Little Willy Willy won't ... go home. And you can't push Willy round, Willy won't go?

If you try telling everybody but, oh no! Little Willy Willy just ... won't go!

I think there's a lesson to be learned here.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> Why the ?  Have I said anything inconsistent with that?  Didn't I make the distinction between culpability and facual causation very early on?  Didn't I agree that it's not black people's responsiblilty to correct bogots' faulty logic with their behaviour?



I was just chuckling to myself that it's pretty standard for an internet discussion, that it takes umpteen posts to clarify what's being said.

Given that I was chuckling to myself, I popped in that smilie.

I did it without nefarious intent nor untoward purpose.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> That's just it there is nothing to win, no victory...the very fact you perceive it like that confirms my observations. Also, now you are getting all upset at perceived 'slurs' ? Even though you've done more than your far share of attempting ridicule and downright nastiness during this discussion, another example of your double standards at play.
> 
> I think my observations are correct.
> 
> I don't care if you agree.



I don't doubt that you belive what you say.  Those who said the world was flat believed it, based on their lived experience, and in the face of science and logic.  Belief and truth are not the same thing.

I'm not upset by the slurs; I said very clearly that I couldn't care less what you think of me.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I was just chuckling to myself that it's pretty standard for an internet discussion, that it takes umpteen posts to clarify what's being said.
> 
> Given that I was chuckling to myself, I popped in that smilie.
> 
> I did it without nefarious intent nor untoward purpose.



Ok, no worries.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> What if Little Willy Willy won't ... go home. And you can't push Willy round, Willy won't go?
> 
> If you try telling everybody but, oh no! Little Willy Willy just ... won't go!
> 
> I think there's a lesson to be learned here.



I think your post is inappropriate, given the recent passage of Gene Wilder.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 13, 2016)

Willy did, in fact, go.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> I don't doubt the fact that you belive what you say.  Those who said the world was flat believed it, based on their lived experience, and in the face of science and logic.
> 
> I'm not upset by the slurs; I said very clearly that I couldn't care less what you think of me.



Keep it up... Keep swimming around in that putrid pool of your own _divine_ piss...believing science and logic are yours because anyone who dares to disagree with you or has a differing perspective is somehow primitive and intellectually challenged. Again, it's clear why you didn't like the _cunt's trick_ post.

If no one has posted you a bouquet by the morning I might be generous and do it.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 13, 2016)

What has a Sweet song got to do with Gene Wilder 
BTW. I really thought there was no place on this forum for racism, sexism, homophobia and the like. So for anyone arguing about such things here, may I suggest you step outside ( the forum ) and settle your squabbles elsewhere.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Keep it up... Keep swimming around in that putrid pool of your own _divine_ piss...believing science and logic are yours because anyone who dares to disagree with you or has a differing perspective are somehow primitive and intellectually challenged.  Again, it's clear why you didn't like the _cunt's trick_ post.
> 
> If no one has posted you a bouquet by the morning I might be generous and do it.



You certainly have a different 'perspective' from logic.

But I don't think that everyone who holds a different view is "intelletually challanged."  Those whose views are demonstrably nonsense, and who can't string together a conherent argument in support of them, are a different matter, though.

I didn't dislike the 'cunt's trick' post; just thought it was more bollocks.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I think your post is inappropriate, given the recent passage of Gene Wilder.


You would say that. Personally I think there's nothing better than two lawyers kicking the shit out of each other on the internet. 

You should continue to fly it all out like an eagle in a sunbeam, geezer. Just fly it all out like you are a bird. 

I hope you get that.

Dude.


----------



## Athos (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You would say that. Personally I think there's nothing better than two lawyers kicking the shit out of each other on the internet.
> 
> You should continue to fly it all out like an eagle in a sunbeam, geezer. Just fly it all out like you are a bird.
> 
> ...



Sadly for the spectators, we're in complete agreement, now.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> Sadly for the spectators, we're in complete agreement, now.


Jackpot!

You get the tall hat and the tattered gown.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You would say that. Personally I think there's nothing better than two lawyers kicking the shit out of each other on the internet.
> 
> You should continue to fly it all out like an eagle in a sunbeam, geezer. Just fly it all out like you are a bird.
> 
> ...



Gotcha.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 13, 2016)

Wear your hair long like rhe people of the Beltane.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Gotcha.


You say that, JC, but do you mean it?

I've never seen any evidence that you'd ride a white swan like (for instance) a Druid in a beltane way, and THAT my friend, negates your input on this thread.

Prove me wrong.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You say that, JC, but do you mean it?
> 
> .


Think about it. You've been reading my words for what? Fifteen years?

Come on.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 14, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Think about it. You've been reading my words for what? Fifteen years?
> 
> Come on.


Ta da dee tee taaaa ....


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 14, 2016)

Bloody druids


----------



## two sheds (Sep 14, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I was just chuckling to myself that it's pretty standard for an internet discussion, that it takes umpteen posts to clarify what's being said.
> 
> Given that I was chuckling to myself, I popped in that smilie.
> 
> I did it without nefarious intent nor untoward purpose.



could you define 'nefarious' and 'untoward' there please?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 14, 2016)

I reckon all of this bunfight could have been avoided if humans communicated via venn diagrams and algebraic logic rather than English. Or maybe pure steams of consciousness beamed into each others minds wirelessly.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 14, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> on a gay forum i used to bother with, some people did get discussing the idea of getting an ageing bus, painting it pink and calling it dorothy...


Bus gender stereotyping 

Why not Timothy?


----------



## Mation (Sep 14, 2016)

Athos said:


> This post is a good exampe of you blurring the distinction between causation and fault.


We're talking about people and behaviour not physical laws.


----------



## Athos (Sep 14, 2016)

Mation said:


> We're talking about people and behaviour not physical laws.


In both instances, words have meanings, and confusing or conflating those meanings leads to unsound conclusions.  Which was why I asked what you meant by certain terms, but you attempted to ridicule rather than provide a substantive reply.


----------



## Mation (Sep 14, 2016)

Athos said:


> In both instances, words have meanings, and confusing or conflating those meanings leads to unsound conclusions.  Which was why I asked what you meant by certain terms, but you attempted to ridicule rather than provide a substantive reply.


Yes. You've been applying the wrong terms.


----------



## Athos (Sep 14, 2016)

Double post.


----------



## Athos (Sep 14, 2016)

Mation said:


> Yes. You've been applying the wrong terms.


I have made it clear how I am using terms (e.g. the distinction between factual causation and culpability).  Perhaps you could do the same, and explain how you think I've been applying the wrong terms?


----------



## Mation (Sep 14, 2016)

Athos said:


> I have made it clear how I am using terms. Perhaps you could do the same, and/or explain how you think I've been applying the wrong terms?


Athos it's impossible to have a conversation with you. You ask questions, I answer them, you don't recognise the answers. And where exactly have you made it clear?

Goes away muttering: Why oh why oh why did I start this again. It's my own fault. He's led you down a side issue again.


----------



## Athos (Sep 14, 2016)

Mation said:


> Athos it's impossible to have a conversation with you. You ask questions, I answer them, you don't recognise the answers. And where exactly have you made it clear?
> 
> Goes away muttering: Why oh why oh why did I start this again. It's my own fault. He's led you down a side issue again.



You haven't answered the question about how you are using those terms. Instead of doing so, you tried to take the piss.  At least be honest about it; it's there in black and white!

Throughout the discussion, I've made it clear that there's a distinction between factual 'but for' type causation (and that more than one such cause can coexist), and the idea of culpable responsibility. A distinction you don't seem to grasp, as demonstrated by the recent post I quoted, in which you seemed to conflate them.

So, can you explain how you use those terms? Or how I'm applying the wrong terms?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

Mation said:


> Goes away muttering: Why oh why oh why did I start this again. It's my own fault. He's led you down a side issue again.


let this be a lesson to you


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Bus gender stereotyping
> 
> Why not Timothy?


Because you don't understand the context 

Next


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

hash tag said:


> What has a Sweet song got to do with Gene Wilder
> BTW. I really thought there was no place on this forum for racism, sexism, homophobia and the like. So for anyone arguing about such things here, may I suggest you step outside ( the forum ) and settle your squabbles elsewhere.


Fuck off and don't tell us what we may discuss. You've all the political nous of a rotting aubergine as can be seen from the op to your thread 'jeremy corbyn's time is up'


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 14, 2016)

You tell him, son


----------



## hash tag (Sep 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Fuck off and don't tell us what we may discuss. You've all the political nous of a rotting aubergine as can be seen from the op to your thread 'jeremy corbyn's time is up'



And why not, it's not necessarily whats dicsussed but the way you discuss it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You tell him, son


i will, pa


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

hash tag said:


> And why not, it's not necessarily whats dicsussed but the way you discuss it.


if you desire to be a moderator please contact editor, who will be happy to consider your application.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i will, pa


Good lad.

Tell him that anyone who confuses The Sweet with T Rex isn't worth listening to.


----------



## A380 (Sep 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Good lad.
> 
> Tell him that anyone who confuses The Sweet with T Rex isn't worth listening to.


Mistakes like that just Muddy the water.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

A380 said:


> Mistakes like that just Muddy the water.


yeh but auld man river don't care


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Tell him that anyone who confuses The Sweet with T Rex isn't worth listening to.


i see he's not talking to you again.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 14, 2016)

Muddy Waters is pretty good, heard him play when I hitchhiked to Chicago


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> Muddy Waters is pretty good, heard him play when I hitchhiked to Chicago


'hitchhiking to chicago' of course one of ruddy yurts' best tunes, off his 1975 album 'gobble woe whoa'

Libertad


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 14, 2016)




----------



## pengaleng (Sep 14, 2016)

tune


----------



## A380 (Sep 14, 2016)

Sweet Home Chicago, a great hit by Robert Johnson obviously.


----------



## A380 (Sep 14, 2016)

The grown ups will be back soon to tell us off for messing with their thread.


----------



## souljacker (Sep 14, 2016)

A380 said:


> The grown ups will be back soon to tell us off for messing with their thread.



There's been a grown up on this thread?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 14, 2016)

English Breakfast


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 14, 2016)

A380 said:


> The grown ups will be back soon to tell us off for messing with their thread.




o noes !!!!

they fucked it up.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 14, 2016)

A380 said:


> Sweet Home Chicago, a great hit by Robert Johnson obviously.



love that song 

baby dont you wanna go???


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

A380 said:


> Sweet Home Chicago, a great hit by Robert Johnson obviously.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 14, 2016)

Down with this sort of thing


----------



## Athos (Sep 14, 2016)

Needs more of this:


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 14, 2016)

sinatra was not a great blues singer.


----------



## campanula (Sep 14, 2016)

No but he could emote with the best of them. September Song causes me to practically well up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> sinatra was not a great blues singer.


he knew bare gangsters tho


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

campanula said:


> No but he could emote with the best of them. September Song causes me to practically well up.


ruddy yurts' 'january blues' causes grown men to cry.

Libertad


----------



## A380 (Sep 14, 2016)

So, to get the thread back on track: Were the two men right to block the runway at City Airport or not?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 14, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> on a gay forum i used to bother with, some people did get discussing the idea of getting an ageing bus, painting it pink and calling it dorothy...


not keen on pink in general, but sounds ideal for a bus named dorothy (is that better than a streetcar named desire?)

Anyway what were you planning to do with this ageing pink bus?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 14, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Bus gender stereotyping
> 
> Why not Timothy?


 But why timothy,has Timothy got friends?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> But why timothy,has Timothy got friends?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 14, 2016)

A380 said:


> The grown ups will be back soon to tell us off for messing with their thread.


  this thread needed some messing with


----------



## alan_ (Sep 14, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> But why timothy,has Timothy got friends?


timothy has back door


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> this thread needed some messing with


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

alan_ said:


> timothy has back door


(((tim))) no front door


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 14, 2016)

Surely Julian or Sandy would be better names for a pink bus, or how about a more gender neutral Bona Bus?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> Surely Julian or Sandy would be better names for a pink bus, or how about a more gender neutral Bona Bus?


i think anyone who tried to bona bus would run the risk of getting nicked.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 14, 2016)

Mation I think if we want to have any meaningful discussion we should talk about the village people  and whilst we are there we can ponder why the potential differing experiences, influences and therefore reactions of the hypothetical 'villagers' were not discussed or seen as relevant. There was/is a clear assumption that they would all react pretty much the same. What purpose does that assumed homogeneity serve? Who's perspective, when we characterise them in such a way is given validity, authority and awarded the status of logical?


----------



## Cid (Sep 14, 2016)

We need more jolly busses...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)




----------



## Athos (Sep 14, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Mation I think if we want to have any meaningful discussion we should talk about the village people  and whilst we are there we can ponder why the potential differing experiences, influences and therefore reactions of the hypothetical 'villagers' were not discussed or seen as relevant. There was/is a clear assumption that they would all react pretty much the same. What purpose does that assumed homogeneity serve? Who's perspective, when we characterise them in such a way is given validity, authority and awarded the status of logical?


No such assumption was made, necessary or relevant. Even if some of the villagers didn't display faulty logic in response to the first boy's false alarms, the fact that some did would amount to an objective harm to the subsequent boys' interests, such that all the questions of causation would be unaffected by that change to the hypothetical scenario.

And, in fact, in the (first)  question which Mation repeatedly failed to answer, I explicitly referred to "some" people, so your suggestion that the argument turns on a false assumption of homogeneity is utterly incorrect.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)




----------



## souljacker (Sep 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


>




Nice one Pickmans, I've not heard that one in years.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 14, 2016)

Athos said:


> Even if some of the villagers didn't display faulty logic in response to the first boy's false alarms, the fact that some did would amount to an objective harm to the subsequent boys' interests, such that all the questions of causation would be unaffected by that change to the hypothetical scenario.



Makes me think of another scenario: back in the day, various villagers in various villages, burnt women and men for being witches. We can I think, make a safe assumption that none of the people burned, had the hex power, nor had had sexual relations with the Devil.

The villagers were applying faulty logic.

According to historians, the witch-accusations in an area could begin with the accusation of a woman with the ability to make medicine from herbs; or it might have been a loner regarded as odd, who would 
be the first accused.

So: the subsequent killings of falsely-accused witches were caused by, in different instances, a woman practicing rudimentary medicine; or an old person being standoff-ish?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 14, 2016)




----------



## Athos (Sep 14, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Makes me think of another scenario: back in the day, various villagers in various villages, burnt women and men for being witches. We can I think, make a safe assumption that none of the people burned, had the hex power, nor had had sexual relations with the Devil.
> 
> The villagers were applying faulty logic.
> 
> ...





Johnny Canuck3 said:


> In terms of causation, it can be argued that every thing that happens in one instant, is causative of everything that happens in the next instance. But that's looking at it from a metaphysical level.





But, being serious for a moment...  In terms of factual causation (as distinguished from culpability), if we assume that prior killings had the potential to impact on subsequent ones e.g. the idea of the growing momentum of witch-hunting hysteria, then those things were *a* (not *the*) 'but for' type cause of the subsequent killings of falsely accused witches.

Your obvious retort would a be a refernece to victim blaming/wrongful exculpation of those who ought to be held responsible, but that is negated by the distinction between causation and culpability.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 14, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> not keen on pink in general, but sounds ideal for a bus named dorothy (is that better than a streetcar named desire?)
> 
> Anyway what were you planning to do with this ageing pink bus?


 
At this distance in time, I really can't remember.   Possibly to take to Pride events and the like.  Or bus events.  Or possibly both.  One or more participants in the discussion might have been pissed at the time, as well. 

then a few months later, Reading Buses did this (each of the main routes in Reading has a specific colour for that route - pink is the Caversham routes)






And I don't know if now is a good time to mention the branding that Ribble / Standerwick used briefly for what were then their state of the art double deck coaches on London - Lancashire routes in the late 50s / early 60s (the vehicles survived longer than the brand name did and as far as I know were never pink) - more if you want it here


----------



## Gromit (Sep 15, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> But why timothy,has Timothy got friends?


No, because no one picks Timothy. They always pick Dorothy. 

(((Timothy)))


----------



## andysays (Sep 15, 2016)

Oh Gromit, how I wish someone would throw you *under* a bus...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2016)

andysays said:


> Oh Gromit, how I wish someone would throw you *under* a bus...


or off the top of one


----------



## jakejb79 (Sep 15, 2016)

Has there been a news article saying that they lied, it was all over the news when the allegations was first made.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 15, 2016)

Is the outcome of the investigation newsworthy? 
There'd be an outcry if there was a report denouncing the gay couple as liars as itd be seen as having a homophobic agenda. 
The only people who'll know the outcome are those who are connected to that industry - hence where topcat might be getting his info.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> or off the top of one


Of the top of one and under another.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 15, 2016)

And besides there'll be an investigation including fact finding, a date for a disciplinary set, the disciplinary, chance to appeal etc.
The process doesn't lend itself well to 'news'. 
You might hear about a prosecution but not a sacking and certainly not if the worker keeps his job.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And besides there'll be an investigation including fact finding, a date for a disciplinary set, the disciplinary, chance to appeal etc.
> The process doesn't lend itself well to 'news'.
> You might hear about a prosecution but not a sacking and certainly not if the worker keeps his job.


Correction p82 of the mail


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Correction p82 of the mail



The only way we *might* learn more is if what the accusers described as 'wanting more than an apology' means them becoming plaintiffs (?) in suing TFL or some such over the matter.
That's not going to be particularly instant either but probably will be newsworthy if it goes ahead.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 15, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> At this distance in time, I really can't remember.   Possibly to take to Pride events and the like.  Or bus events.  Or possibly both.  One or more participants in the discussion might have been pissed at the time, as well.
> 
> then a few months later, Reading Buses did this (each of the main routes in Reading has a specific colour for that route - pink is the Caversham routes)
> 
> ...


love the Gay Hostess! Your knowledge of buses is truly impressive, take no notice of any other posters.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 15, 2016)

and i'm not sure i should mention this






(it's a village in lincolnshire - map)


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 15, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is the outcome of the investigation newsworthy?
> There'd be an outcry if there was a report denouncing the gay couple as liars as itd be seen as having a homophobic agenda.



Only if it wasn't backed up by evidence surely.

Or do you think there is likely to be an outcry regardless as the gays just love spreading false accusations of homophobia around?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 15, 2016)

Gromit said:


> No, because no one picks Timothy. They always pick Dorothy.
> 
> (((Timothy)))


because Dorothy has so many friends





and Timothy doesn't, sorry.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 15, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The only way we *might* learn more is if what the accusers described as 'wanting more than an apology' means them becoming plaintiffs (?) in suing TFL or some such over the matter.
> That's not going to be particularly instant either but probably will be newsworthy if it goes ahead.



I don't think it means that.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 15, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Only if it wasn't backed up by evidence surely.
> 
> Or do you think there is likely to be an outcry regardless as the gays just love spreading false accusations of homophobia around?



There's a lot of due process missing from all of this, no?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 16, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> This thread is in danger of disappearing up its own arse.



I think we are beyond the mere danger phase . I christened this thread _Lemmiwinks_ many moons back .


----------



## Libertad (Sep 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> 'hitchhiking to chicago' of course one of ruddy yurts' best tunes, off his 1975 album 'gobble woe whoa'
> 
> Libertad





Pickman's model said:


> ruddy yurts' 'january blues' causes grown men to cry.
> 
> Libertad



Both came up on shuffle the other day, little bit spooky.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 16, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Only if it wasn't backed up by evidence surely.
> 
> Or do you think there is likely to be an outcry regardless as the gays just love spreading false accusations of homophobia around?


Bus driver being a cunt = news

Bus driver being put upon by cunts = standard week. Not news.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 16, 2016)

Back to homophobia. This is a maths test paper from the royal grammar school, High Wycombe apparently. See Q.7!


----------



## hash tag (Sep 16, 2016)

Not sure why that happened...from another source


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2016)

hash tag said:


> Not sure why that happened...from another source



79%


----------



## andysays (Sep 16, 2016)

hash tag said:


> Back to homophobia. This is a maths test paper from the royal grammar school, High Wycombe apparently. See Q.7!



Are Tower Transit making all their drivers pass the royal grammar school maths test before they give them a job?


----------



## Gromit (Sep 16, 2016)

hash tag said:


> Not sure why that happened...from another source


God works in mysterious ways but we know what he intended. Aren't we clever?!

It's the wedding ring trees that give it away.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> I think we are beyond the mere danger phase . I christened this thread _Lemmiwinks_ many moons back .




Yeah. I could just see you were itching to bring a gerbil into the thread. Cunt.


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Sep 16, 2016)

hash tag said:


> Not sure why that happened...from another source



Most people sympathise with LGBT, but don't want minority LGBT philosophies (for want of a better word) to be uppermost in their kids thinking.  

This is an example of a badly worded exam  which seems more religious zealotry than anything else.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 16, 2016)




----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 16, 2016)

,  and thrice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Most people sympathise with LGBT, but don't want minority LGBT philosophies (for want of a better word) to be uppermost in their kids thinking.
> 
> This is an example of a badly worded exam  which seems more religious zealotry than anything else.


Hello. Who are you? 

Just about the only thing I can say in favour of that question is that it is not badly worded.


----------



## Santino (Sep 16, 2016)

Just ban them now, save everyone the grief.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> 79%


I make it 78.75 per cent exactly.

/can't resist a maths question even a bigoted homophobic one.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 16, 2016)

if i didn't know any better i'd say "hello ninja bored again?"


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I make it 78.75 per cent exactly.


Pedant.


> ... can't resist a maths question even a bigoted homophobic one.


Same here. I gave up on number 6 though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Pedant.
> .


The homophobic religious nut did not ask you to round to the nearest percentage point.

/Gives spymaster half marks.

Bad question, mind. Far more satisfying for this kind of question to produce a more round answer. It's getting the method that counts.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 16, 2016)

What grade is that test for, anyway?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 16, 2016)

Reading those questions, I get a feeling like simultaneously falling into a stupor and becoming slightly nauseous.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 16, 2016)

that's british education


----------



## Athos (Sep 16, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Most people sympathise with LGBT, but don't want minority LGBT philosophies (for want of a better word) to be uppermost in their kids thinking.
> 
> This is an example of a badly worded exam  which seems more religious zealotry than anything else.



Philosophies?  

Do your lot normally refer to the 'gay  agenda'?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What grade is that test for, anyway?


Unless kids have got significantly brighter since I was at school (which I'm pretty certain isn't the case) I reckon that's A level standard algebra and trig.

8 is a great question.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 16, 2016)

One of the things I loved about university: no math courses.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 16, 2016)

difficult if you're doing electronics


----------



## alan_ (Sep 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> 79%





littlebabyjesus said:


> I make it 78.75 per cent exactly.
> 
> /can't resist a maths question even a bigoted homophobic one.



Can you please show your working as I get 80% but suspect that is the trap


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2016)

alan_ said:


> Can you please show your working as I get 80% but suspect that is the trap


I'm trying q8 now. and it's annoying me. My guess is 48 and 50, but that is only an educated guess, which really isn't good enough. 

But workings, yes:

7m = 9f

so

m = 9f/7

For convenience say there are 70 women, so 63 are married. also 63 men are married, so that's 63 out of 90.

So 126/160 of the people are married. = 78.75 %


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 16, 2016)

two sheds said:


> difficult if you're doing electronics


 That's why I don't have a  BSc.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 16, 2016)

me neither I got a Beng


----------



## alan_ (Sep 16, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm trying q8 now. and it's annoying me. My guess is 48 and 50, but that is only an educated guess, which really isn't good enough.
> 
> But workings, yes:
> 
> ...



Well until a mathematician comes around, 70 plus 90 percent
70/100   + 90/100 == 160/200

ie 80%
I can see another way of doing this so maybe reading question wrong, but I think this is the trap the scholars were meant to fall into


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2016)

alan_ said:


> Well until a mathematician comes around, 70 plus 90 percent
> 70/100   + 90/100 == 160/200
> 
> ie 80%
> I can see another way of doing this so maybe reading question wrong, but I think this is the trap the scholars were meant to fall into


The percentages refer to the percent of men or of women, not the percentage of the total. 

Cheeky fucker. 'until a mathematician comes round'.  

Read my workings. They're right.


----------



## alan_ (Sep 16, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The percentages refer to the percent of men or of women, not the percentage of the total.
> 
> Cheeky fucker. 'until a mathematician comes round'.
> 
> Read my workings. They're right.


Oops sorry, are you a mathematician. I knew the answer lay in the methodology (as opposed to hard sums) but that is what makes a good mathematician the ability to analyse a problem and apply the correct solution


----------



## two sheds (Sep 16, 2016)

56.25


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 16, 2016)

hash tag said:


> Not sure why that happened...from another source


 What that question makes me wonder is why is there such an imbalance of males/females in that population? Sex selective abortions? (for extra evidence see Q2 and 4) or do the women just move to other towns with fewer religious zealots?


----------



## two sheds (Sep 16, 2016)

7*x/10 = 9*y/10
so 7*x=9*y

and x+y=1

which makes x+7/9x=1

so x = 9/16 = 0.5625

where x=men and y=women

qed


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2016)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 16, 2016)

At least 3 people with math/science education come up with three different answers?

What was that about British education?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2016)

You've worked out what percentage of the population are men there, sheds.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 16, 2016)

and checking as we always should 70*0.5625 = 90*0.4375 =39.375  

rather than 50% which you'd expect


----------



## two sheds (Sep 16, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You've worked out what percentage of the population are men there, sheds.



so?


----------



## two sheds (Sep 16, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> At least 3 people with math/science education come up with three different answers?
> 
> What was that about British education?



qed 

Eta: sorry i been at the port


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2016)

two sheds said:


> and checking as we always should 70*0.5625 = 90*0.4375 =39.375
> 
> rather than *50% which you'd expect*


As _God intended_.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2016)

two sheds said:


> qed
> 
> Eta: sorry i been at the port


I prefer your answer on reflection. You have ably illustrated the ungodly nature of maths.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 16, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Most people sympathise with LGBT, but don't want minority LGBT philosophies (for want of a better word) to be uppermost in their kids thinking.
> 
> This is an example of a badly worded exam  which seems more religious zealotry than anything else.


Hello Mr squeaky bum. *

I've had to put up with being brought up with the majority christian 'philosophies' telling me that I didn't or shouldn't exist. That masculinity was naturally superior and heterosexuality was the only way. Still ended up happily queer and aetheist. 

Not sure that what kids learn at school is ever uppermost in their minds

* I think you can get a cream for that


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Sep 16, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hello. Who are you?
> 
> Just about the only thing I can say in favour of that question is that it is not badly worded.



Hello, just someone who doesn't care about people's sexuality or gender. 



Athos said:


> Philosophies?
> 
> Do your lot normally refer to the 'gay  agenda'?



Philosophy was the wrong word, used in haste.  
"Your lot" is equally bad, but I suspect used on purpose. What is "my lot", Athos?


----------



## Gromit (Sep 16, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> That's why I don't have a  BSc.


I have a BSa* which is why I had the answer as 'rescue a rubber coated brick whilst dressed in pajamas'. 




* Bronze Swimming Award


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 16, 2016)

If you read the Sun article about this story, 'jedi68' says the correct answer is 80%

That would have been my guess.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 16, 2016)

(((canadian education)))


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> At least 3 people with math/science education come up with three different answers?
> 
> What was that about British education?


I did it the same way as LBJ but assumed I'd fucked it up because the answer would be a whole number, so I rounded it up.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 16, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The homophobic religious nut did not ask you to round to the nearest percentage point.
> 
> /Gives spymaster half marks.
> 
> Bad question, mind. Far more satisfying for this kind of question to produce a more round answer. It's getting the method that counts.


As you can't have 0.75% of a person the answer is 78. You round down to the last whole person.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2016)

Too drunk to do any more maths. 

Suffice to say that various wrong answers have got more likes than my right answer.

Broken Britain.


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Sep 16, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> Hello Mr squeaky bum. *
> 
> I've had to put up with being brought up with the majority christian 'philosophies' telling me that I didn't or shouldn't exist. That masculinity was naturally superior and heterosexuality was the only way. Still ended up happily queer and aetheist.
> 
> ...



Queer atheist is cool, I'm a straight atheist. So we have something in common.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 16, 2016)

Gromit said:


> As you can't have 0.75% of a person the answer is 78. You round down to the last whole person.



neither can you have .78 of a person the answer is clearly 1 so all of them.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 16, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Queer atheist is cool, I'm a straight atheist. So we have something in common.


You both smell of farts?


----------



## alan_ (Sep 16, 2016)

apologies had to edit that out


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 16, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I make it 78.75 per cent exactly.
> 
> /can't resist a maths question even a bigoted homophobic one.


 
I agree (with the answer that is).



Spoiler: show your workings below



70% of the men in town must be the same number as 90 % of the women in town.

Lowest possible number of married couples that can make this work with whole numbers is 7 x 9 = 63

63 men are married - 63 is 70% of 90

63 women are married - 63 is 90% of 70

That makes 126 married people out of 160

(or any multiple of 160 with the same proportions)

which is 78.75 %


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Sep 16, 2016)

Gromit said:


> You both smell of farts?



If we're going to be grown ups about this: you do.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 16, 2016)

> 2/3 x = 3/5 y



where does that come from???


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I agree (with the answer that is).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's more elegant than mine.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 16, 2016)

alan_ said:


> First, assign variables.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 16, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> Not sure that what kids learn at school is ever uppermost in their minds


 
it can take a bit of education (not to be confused with what you're taught in school) to get over what you learn in school, though...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> it can take a bit of education (not to be confused with what you're taught in school) to get over what you learn in school, though...


This is absolutely true except, ironically enough, in the subject of maths.

Pay attention to your maths teachers, kids. They are the only ones that you can know are not telling you lies.

( cue someone coming on and telling us about proving everything from scratch using the empty set)


----------



## two sheds (Sep 16, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You've worked out what percentage of the population are men there, sheds.



I think you're right - or at least which percentage of the married population are men  

or something


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Sep 16, 2016)

63/90 men (70%) are married to 63/70 women (90%) = 126/160 people are married (78.75%)
Approx


----------



## two sheds (Sep 17, 2016)

shurrup firky


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> 63/90 men (70%) are married to 63/70 women (90%) = 126/160 people are married (78.75%)
> Approx


Yay. the troll fails by adding the 'approx'.


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Sep 17, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yay. the troll fails by adding the 'approx'.


Yay! The "troll" gets the correct answer!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 17, 2016)

This would be my Arts reasoning:

x = males

y = females

7/10(x) = 9/10 (y)

Assign a random number to x: 100 males total in the population.

70 are married.

70 = 9/10 of the female population: 77.777 rounded up to 78.

So the total population is 178.

140 of them are married.

That's 78.65% of the population.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Yay! The "troll" gets the correct answer!


Nope. The correct answer is not 78.75 approx. You've introduced a level of doubt into your answer that should not be there. Minus 1 mark.

One beauty of maths is that you can check your answer and know that you are right.


----------



## alan_ (Sep 17, 2016)

"In a certain village 2/3 (two thirds) of the men are married to
3/5 (three fifths) of the women. What proportion of the population
as a whole is married?"

First, assign variables.

x = male population
y = female population
z = percentage of married people

Assuming that every one married male is married to one female:

2/3 x = 3/5 y
 divide both sides by 2/3
x = 9/10 y

So the male population is nine-tenths the size of the female
population.

z = the percentage of married people that is married/total
population

z = (2/3 x + 3/5 y)/(x+y)

But we substitute for x:

z = (2/3 (9/10 y) + 3/5 y)/(9/10 y +y)

We do some calculations:

z = (3/5 y + 3/5 y)/(19/10 y)...

This just makes sense because the number of
	married people should be 2* 3/5 y.

z = 6/5 y/(19/10)y

Divide out the y's:

z = (6/5)/(19/10) or z= 12/19

If we divide that out we see that 63.1% of the population is
married.

obs not my answer but included for method


----------



## Gromit (Sep 17, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> If we're going to be grown ups about this: you do.


Touché monsieur.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 17, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I agree (with the answer that is).
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Have a go at #6


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 17, 2016)

Doing it absolutely correctly, ie using the proper number for the female population at 77.77, the percentage comes out to 78.75%


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Sep 17, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> This would be my Arts reasoning:
> 
> x = males
> 
> ...



You don't know what you're talking about.



littlebabyjesus said:


> Nope. The correct answer is not 78.75 approx. You've introduced a level of doubt into your answer that should not be there. Minus 1 mark.
> 
> One beauty of maths is that you can check your answer and know that you are right.



I added the 'approx' to appear like a bumbling know-it-less. Now I know you prefer pure maths answers over personality, I'll go with my original 78.75.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 17, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> .



But.... I got the same answer as you.


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Sep 17, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Doing it absolutely correctly, ie using the proper number for the female population at 77.77, the percentage comes out to 78.75%


[ME EARLIER] You don't know what you're talking about. [/ME EARLIER]
Now you do


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> I added the 'approx' to appear like a bumbling know-it-less. Now I know you prefer pure maths answers over personality, I'll go with my original 78.75.


Your method was correct. You're still a twat. 


Correct mathematics can't save you, I'm afraid.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 17, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Doing it absolutely correctly, ie using the proper number for the female population at 77.77,



=0.4375/0.5625 which is what I said  



> the percentage comes out to 78.75%



this bit being irrelevant


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Sep 17, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> But.... I got the same answer as you.


You were 0.10 off in your original calculation. Then you upped your game and readjusted, and got the correct answer.


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Sep 17, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Your method was correct. You're still a twat.
> 
> 
> Correct mathematics can't save you, I'm afraid.



Save me from what?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2016)

SBT trying to join in.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Save me from what?


Being a cunt.

What else?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2016)

You need to fuck off now. 

Seriously.

And don't try to joke with me, you utter fucking cunt.


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Sep 17, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Being a cunt.
> 
> What else?





littlebabyjesus said:


> You need to fuck off now.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> And don't try to joke with me, you utter fucking cunt.






			
				littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> "Cunt." "Utter fucking cunt." "Don't try to joke with me".



I think you have anger issues.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> I think you have anger issues.


Yep that's it.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 17, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're still a twat.
> 
> 
> Correct mathematics can't save you, I'm afraid.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 17, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Being a cunt.
> 
> What else?





littlebabyjesus said:


> You need to fuck off now.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> And don't try to joke with me, you utter fucking cunt.



LBJ's never this rude to people.

Been on the sauce, geezer?


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Sep 17, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep that's it.



Thought so. Please don't call me a cunt, OK? It's uncalled for.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> LBJ's never this rude to people.
> 
> Been on the sauce, geezer?


Yeah. Mean it though. .and now off to bed . Training at 10 tomorrow.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Thought so. Please don't call me a cunt, OK? It's uncalled for.


Sorry, cunt.


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Sep 17, 2016)

Wow


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Sep 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> LBJ's never this rude to people.
> 
> Been on the sauce, geezer?



Assume you're a friend of his, Bernie?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 17, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Assume you're a friend of his, Bernie?


I am. I find he's a good judge of character.


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Sep 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I am. I find he's a good judge of character.


Agreed. But not knowing my character means your judgement is skewed. Not saying that's a bad thing, just skewed.


----------



## captainmission (Sep 17, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm trying q8 now. and it's annoying me. My guess is 48 and 50, but that is only an educated guess, which really isn't good enough.



You're correct on question 8. The incentre of a triangle occurs at the intersection of the angle bisectors and is the centre of the the largest circle which touches all 3 sides. Bit of trig gets you the rest.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 17, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> But not knowing my character means your judgement is skewed.


I've made no judgement on your character.


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Sep 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I've made no judgement on your character.



I think this was a form of judgement...



Spymaster said:


>



Lol, for fucks sake

ETA Silence is golden, as ever


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 17, 2016)

captainmission said:


> You're correct on question 8. The incentre of a triangle occurs at the intersection of the angle bisectors and is the centre of the the largest circle which touches all 3 sides. Bit of trig gets you the rest.


? Who can crack this code?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> ? Who can crack this code?


A trigonometrist

Next


----------



## A380 (Sep 17, 2016)

So, does the plane take off ?


----------



## Athos (Sep 17, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Philosophy was the wrong word, used in haste.
> "Your lot" is equally bad, but I suspect used on purpose. What is "my lot", Athos?



Bigots or trolls. Let's just say 'cunts', as that captures both.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 17, 2016)

Gromit said:


> You both smell of farts?



He who smelt it dealt it.


----------



## captainmission (Sep 17, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> ? Who can crack this code?



It means that that if you take any triangle and draw a straight line through each corner, cutting the angle of that corner in half, all these lines will meet. At the point where they meet you can take a compass and draw a circle that touches all 3 sides of the triangle.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 17, 2016)

captainmission said:


>


That brings back memories.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 17, 2016)

Threads boring. Maths FFs.

I like this instead.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Same here. I gave up on number 6 though.


This is my solution

 

How do I rotate the image though?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2016)

kabbes said:


> This is my solution
> 
> View attachment 92660
> 
> How do I rotate the image though?


Use a matrix to translate it through an angle if 90 degrees


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 17, 2016)

Maths wankers


----------



## captainmission (Sep 17, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Threads boring. Maths FFs.
> 
> I like this instead.




Yeah, cos it was a really great thread until everyone started talking about maths!



kabbes said:


> This is my solution
> 
> View attachment 92660
> 
> How do I rotate the image though?



I just used the formula for the harmonic mean


----------



## kabbes (Sep 17, 2016)

captainmission said:


> Yeah, cos it was a really great thread until everyone started talking about maths!
> 
> 
> 
> I just used the formula for the harmonic mean


I'm not seeing that it's obvious that it should be the harmonic mean?  Maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 17, 2016)




----------



## captainmission (Sep 17, 2016)

kabbes said:


> I'm not seeing that it's obvious that it should be the harmonic mean?  Maybe I'm missing something.



Cos we're looking at the average of 2 rates. Your answers much more impressive though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> That brings back memories.


Do share, pa


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Agreed. But not knowing my character means your judgement is skewed. Not saying that's a bad thing, just skewed.


Sobered up now. Find myself in agreement with drunk me.


----------

