Racist rants inadvisable now fellow-passengers have camera phones

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:20 pm

spot;1384855 wrote: Are there any mainstream religions - or even fringe sects - which deplore the influx of immigrants to the UK? I'm not familiar with any.

You won't get pakis go home but there are plenty expressing concern about the rise of islam in particular. Also since they can't directly attack other religions they choose to rave on about militant secularism instead as the main threat to the church.

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali: Radical Islam is filling void left by collapse of Christianity in UK - Telegraph

Unholy War | Watch Free Documentary Online

Citizen Warrior: The Betrayal of the Christians of Bradford UK

The godly are trying to get us all involved in their insane arguments over who is right about god and given half a chance any one of them would have us living under a theocracy.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:31 pm

My impression is that monotheism is on its last legs in the UK, having been just about laughed and scorned into oblivion. And not before time either. Give it another fifty years and I'll check again but I doubt I'm wrong.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:32 pm

Bruv;1384874 wrote: Blimey don't you go on ?I could think of no briefer way of answering the question!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:35 pm

What about Islam ?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:41 pm

Spot... were you In court with Emma and her supporters ?

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:42 pm

Bruv;1384933 wrote: What about Islam ?

People are expressing Islam and converting to Islam in the UK because it offers support against Capitalist oppression and stands against Western Imperialist values with regard to the Middle East, particularly Palestine. It's a protest, not a sudden adherence to one of the monotheist faiths. Once Islam reverts to being more a cultural expression again, the way it's mostly been since its inception, and less a scream of outrage, it will conform to the pattern of Christianity, Latter Day Saintistry and Judaism in this country - excuses for fêtes and other social gatherings.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:44 pm

Bruv;1384933 wrote: What about Islam ?Islam is monotheistic, isn't it?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:47 pm

spot;1384930 wrote: My impression is that monotheism is on its last legs in the UK,

spot;1384937 wrote: People are expressing Islam and converting to Islam in the UK

So.......what about Islam ?

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:50 pm

Bruv;1384940 wrote: So.......what about Islam ?

The bit you excised explained why Islam's a temporary small-scale blip for secular, partly political and partly social, reasons which does nothing to negate my overall hypothesis.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:53 pm

spot;1384941 wrote: The bit you excised explained why Islam's a temporary small-scale blip for secular, partly political and partly social, reasons which does nothing to negate my overall hypothesis.

Were you In court with Emma and her supporters ?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:54 pm

spot;1384941 wrote: The bit you excised explained why Islam's a temporary small-scale blip for secular, partly political and partly social, reasons which does nothing to negate my overall hypothesis.

This 'temporary small-scale blip' ..........how many centuries will it last ?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:09 pm

Spot's statement that Emma did not want the support of Nationalist parties nor her family wanting them Is wrong.

He Is going by a third rate rag... something he railed against yesterday In his thread on James Whitickar.

British National Party Ideas » Emma West Magistrate

Leaders of the BNP, EDL, NF all came together to support Emma.......... with her and her family's approval.

Just thought I'd clear that up as Spot was not there at the time and knows zilch about what Is happening behind the scenes.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:09 pm

Bruv;1384943 wrote: This 'temporary small-scale blip' ..........how many centuries will it last ?

A couple of generations at the most. Let's check around 2060.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:13 pm

oscar;1384945 wrote: Just thought I'd clear that up as Spot was not there at the time and knows zilch about what Is happening behind the scenes.I know the court case doesn't start until Friday, if that helps. "Were you In court with Emma and her supporters" is a somewhat meaningless question since nobody was.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:16 pm

spot;1384946 wrote: A couple of generations at the most. Let's check around 2060.You'll still be here? I'd be 104.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:22 pm

spot;1384947 wrote: I know the court case doesn't start until Friday, if that helps. "Were you In court with Emma and her supporters" is a somewhat meaningless question since nobody was.

You're wrong again.

Emma appeared before Croyden Magistrates Court In early january where she pleaded not guilty to all charges and elected to be tried by Jury.

Leaders of the BNP, NF and EDL supporters were all In court with her at her and her family's approval. Andrew Brons travelled from Brussels to be there.

All leaders and supporters aong with reps from nationlist parties will be In court with her during the forth coming trial with her approval.

You stated that Involvement of Nationalist Parties was not with her and her family's approval.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:26 pm

oscar;1384950 wrote: You're wrong again.

Emma appeared before Croyden Magistrates Court In early january where she pleaded not guilty to all charges and elected to be tried by Jury.

Leaders of the BNP, NF and EDL supporters were all In court with her at her and her family's approval. Andrew Brons travelled from Brussels to be there.

All leaders and supporters aong with reps from nationlist parties will be In court with her during the forth coming trial with her approval.

You stated that Involvement of Nationalist Parties was not with her and her family's approval.

Good Christ you're such a bore.

The article I cited quoted two far-right websites this week discussing the possible appearance of Nationalist supporters at the court case this Friday, not at the remand hearing five weeks ago. The article you cited relates to support back then on January 6th. They're two different appearances separated by over a month.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:28 pm

With all due respect Oscar........

spot;1384853 wrote:

A post on white supremacist website Stormfront, however, warns her supporters to leave "party badges or affiliations at home". Member 'Whitehammer1; said: "Any party trying to gain points are acting against the wishes of Emma's family."

Woman accused of "My Tram Experience" race rant to appear in court | This is Croydon

oscar;1384950 wrote:

You stated that Involvement of Nationalist Parties was not with her and her family's approval.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:35 pm

spot;1384951 wrote: Good Christ you're such a bore.

The article I cited quoted two far-right websites this week discussing the possible appearance of Nationalist supporters at the court case this Friday, not at the remand hearing five weeks ago. The article you cited relates to support back then on January 6th. They're two different appearances separated by over a month.

1 ) The two far right websites you cited are merely forums and opinions such as this one. However, they are used In the main by the EDL and the BNP get a hard time on both.

2 ) The article I cited Is the proof that BNP, NF and EDL leaders and supporters were at her hearing In January with her approval as they are going to be during her trial.

You stated that Involvement by Nationalist Parties was with out the approval of Emma or her family. The mere fact that all were In court In Croyden shows that you know nothing of which you state.

I am a bore because for daring to correct the erroneous dribbings of Spot am I ?

Cease writing such crap and I will have no reason to correct you.

By the way.... guess who's funding Emma?

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:59 pm

What I actually wrote was "The court case starts tomorrow, if anyone's watching". The indented section is from the local paper relating to Friday's court date. The local paper, in turn, is quoting websites and says it's quoting websites. I'm not responsible for the content of the far-right websites, neither am I responsible for the content of the local paper. What I'm responsible for is "The court case starts tomorrow, if anyone's watching". As for whether or not the quoted content of the far-right websites is actually accurate or not in this instance I doubt whether even the site's members themselves know.

As to your "where she pleaded not guilty to all charges and elected to be tried by Jury", I have no idea on either point. I've seen it said that no plea was entered as well as a not guilty plea was entered, both on the BBC if I remember right. Is she really facing a jury tomorrow? That would surprise me. The article says "Emma West, 34, is due to appear at Croydon Crown Court on Friday for a plea and case management hearing. [...] West has yet to enter a plea to either charge".

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:14 pm

spot;1384954 wrote: Is she really facing a jury tomorrow? That would surprise me. The article says "Emma West, 34, is due to appear at Croydon Crown Court on Friday for a plea and case management hearing. [...] West has yet to enter a plea to either charge".

Get your facts right.

Woman accused of racist outburst on tram appears in court | UK news | guardian.co.uk

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:21 pm

oscar;1384955 wrote: Get your facts right.

Woman accused of racist outburst on tram appears in court | UK news | guardian.co.uk
I did say "I've seen it said that no plea was entered as well as a not guilty plea was entered". The local paper says tomorrow's hearing is in part to hear a plea entered. Personally I'm quite happy to sit back and wait for the ambiguity to resolve itself.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:22 pm

spot;1384956 wrote: I did say "I've seen it said that no plea was entered as well as a not guilty plea was entered". The local paper says tomorrow's hearing is in part to hear a plea entered. Personally I'm quite happy to sit back and wait for the ambiguity to resolve itself. You'd seen It said ????

:yh_rotfl

Do some proper research next time

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:28 pm

oscar;1384957 wrote: You'd seen It said ????

:yh_rotfl

Do some proper research next time

Are you drunk? Or are you just merely uncouth?

An administrative error earlier led to Ms West entering a not guilty plea.

The court file was later amended to show she has not yet pleaded.

BBC News - Racist tram rant accused Emma West remanded after court hearing

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:38 pm

spot;1384958 wrote: Are you drunk? Or are you just merely uncouth?

An administrative error earlier led to Ms West entering a not guilty plea.

The court file was later amended to show she has not yet pleaded.

BBC News - Racist tram rant accused Emma West remanded after court hearing

The fact that she was not dealt with on the day bt Croyden Magistrates shows that a not guilty or no plea was entered.

However, I am going not only by newsapers who were In court on the day and heard her say 'Not guilty' but by the people who were with her and also reported her saying It. If you do a little more research you will find reports that the story of an admin error Is actually untrue.

I don't drink unlike you.

You've found a conflicting Item. Well done... Pity you couldn't have done adequate research before you had to resort to ' I saw It said somewhere'.

Let's wait and see shall we?

Andrew Brons who was In court throughout with Emma stated:

"At the hearing she was told that a further charge was being brought, following a complaint that had subsequently been lodged against her, presumably by a passenger on the tram. Both the original and latest charges were still deemed by the magistrate to be capable of being heard by the magistrate’s court, there and then. However, as she is entitled, she was offered the opportunity for them to be heard by the crown court, in front of a judge and jury, which she elected to do, and she was told by the magistrate that this would be on the 17th of February. And so the hearing came to its brief end."

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:46 pm

oscar;1384959 wrote: I don't drink unlike you.

You've found a conflicting Item. Well done... Pity you couldn't have done adequate research before you had to resort to ' I saw It said somewhere'.

Let's wait and see shall we?

If you'd bothered to check you'd have found that I'd already quoted those two sentences from that BBC article earlier, with attribution. It's not me who's failing to keep up.

"Let's wait and see shall we" equates to my "Personally I'm quite happy to sit back and wait for the ambiguity to resolve itself", does it?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:47 pm

spot;1384960 wrote: If you'd bothered to check you'd have found that I'd already quoted those two sentences from that BBC article earlier, with attribution. It's not me who's failing to keep up.

"Let's wait and see shall we" equates to my "Personally I'm quite happy to sit back and wait for the ambiguity to resolve itself", does it?

Andrew Brons who was In court throughout with Emma stated:

"At the hearing she was told that a further charge was being brought, following a complaint that had subsequently been lodged against her, presumably by a passenger on the tram. Both the original and latest charges were still deemed by the magistrate to be capable of being heard by the magistrate’s court, there and then. However, as she is entitled, she was offered the opportunity for them to be heard by the crown court, in front of a judge and jury, which she elected to do, and she was told by the magistrate that this would be on the 17th of February. And so the hearing came to its brief end."

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:53 pm

oscar;1384959 wrote: The fact that she was not dealt with on the day bt Croyden Magistrates shows that a not guilty or no plea was entered.

You have the advantage of first-hand experience, madam. Unlike me.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:56 pm

spot;1384962 wrote: You have the advantage of first-hand experience, madam. Unlike me.

It's on the BNP Idea's web site I linked earlier. Andrew would never put anything Into print on the site unless It was 100 %. Yes, I do know him, I know him well but you're assuming he's a member of the BNP.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:00 pm

I am??

You're short of several cells if you feel justified in making that assertion.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:03 pm

spot;1384964 wrote: I am??

You're short of several cells if you feel justified in making that assertion.

Really ??? Then answer this :

Is Andrew Brons a member of the BNP ?

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:05 pm

Why ask me? I've never heard the bugger's name before in my life.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:08 pm

spot;1384966 wrote: Why ask me? I've never heard the bugger's name before in my life.

The European Member of Parliament elected under the BNP.... Oh I think you have Spot.

You just can't find anything to say yes or no.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:15 pm

oscar;1384967 wrote: The European Member of Parliament elected under the BNP.... Oh I think you have Spot.

You just can't find anything to say yes or no.

No, it's just that he's an obscure little ****, that's all. I've never heard the bugger's name before in my life, not that I recall. A quick look on Wikipedia gives me enough background to know I've no interest in him. If it comes to that, unless Ian White is still doing the job, I've no idea who my own MEP is.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:07 am

spot;1384930 wrote: My impression is that monotheism is on its last legs in the UK, having been just about laughed and scorned into oblivion. And not before time either. Give it another fifty years and I'll check again but I doubt I'm wrong.

Don't kid yourself it will never go away and is busy retrenching and trying to exert itself on public policy. That most people are secular in outlook I would not dispute that our politicians think they have to pay lip service and are not averse to using the decline of Christian values card and blaming the decline of the family values, single parents etc etc for all societies ills when it suits them with rags like the daily mail beating the drum - see David Cameron. How about Tony Blair? His religious academies are something that will do enormous damage in the years to come, had he come out as a catholic maybe he wouldn't have got away with it, who knows.

The most frightening channel on TV

GOD TV

Started in the UK and has gone global. The mistake you make IMO is to assume rationality comes in to it, when it comes to religion rational is not a word that belongs in the same sentence., you can't reason with someone believes they are obeying god's law. We have had our religious wars and the enlightenment and freedom from religious dominance won out but it's never really gone away. We tolerate the bigotry of the religious in the cause of respecting their right to their beliefs they do not reciprocate and there will always be those who want to have their religion dominant, it's an inherent flaw of monotheism, it is a selfish religious belief system that claims everything and will tolerate no dissent, sometimes all that is left is smacking them down hard.

America is supposedly a secular state yet there the religious right are trying to ban contraception and actually succeeding in some states despite it being a minority that oppose it in the first place.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:07 am

gmc;1384998 wrote: The mistake you make IMO is to assume rationality comes in to it................

Spot inevitably never takes into account the human factor.

There is no way to measure it and it's affects, and it always throws any logically calculated thesis. People and their foibles are the trouble.

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:44 am

Here we are - whether she'd validly pled before or not, she has now.A woman has pleaded not guilty over an alleged racist rant on a tram in south London [...] She will stand trial on 11 June.

BBC News - Tram race rant accused Emma West pleads not guilty

At which stage, presumably, a jury will be selected.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:11 am

spot;1385014 wrote: Here we are - whether she'd validly pled before or not, she has now.A woman has pleaded not guilty over an alleged racist rant on a tram in south London [...] She will stand trial on 11 June.

BBC News - Tram race rant accused Emma West pleads not guilty

At which stage, presumably, a jury will be selected.

Which was what you were told but you just wouldn't have It would you?

Now who's the bore?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon May 14, 2012 7:52 am

an interesting turn of events on another forum . I was given a warning for making a racist remark because I stated that I didn't believe that she was being racist...but frustrated. that's it nothing else . apparently if yoiu don't see an event as racist ...you're racist? interesting not?

Post by **spot** » Mon May 14, 2012 8:43 am

fuzzywuzzy;1393555 wrote: an interesting turn of events on another forum . I was given a warning for making a racist remark because I stated that I didn't believe that she was being racist...but frustrated. that's it nothing else . apparently if yoiu don't see an event as racist ...you're racist? interesting not?

"I agree with her observations" is racist. "I think her intention was... " isn't, regardless of whether your opinion of her intention is accurate or not.

theia · Post by **theia** » Mon May 14, 2012 9:10 am

spot;1393568 wrote: "I agree with her observations" is racist. "I think her intention was... " isn't, regardless of whether your opinion of her intention is accurate or not.

Am I missing something or is it "me age" again :-3

Post by **spot** » Mon May 14, 2012 9:35 am

theia;1393571 wrote: Am I missing something or is it "me age" again :-3

Fuzzy's comment seems to me to be about why the woman said what she said, which doesn't strike me as capable of being racist.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon May 14, 2012 9:37 am

spot;1393568 wrote: "I agree with her observations" is racist. "I think her intention was... " isn't, regardless of whether your opinion of her intention is accurate or not.

I thought she was just having a bad day . And took it out on all and sundry ...she did go off a the white woman too. and the black woman makes the comment that the English don't work. Isn't that racist? Saying that others HAVE TO come to the country because the English don't work?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon May 14, 2012 9:40 am

spot;1393572 wrote: Fuzzy's comment seems to me to be about why the woman said what she said, which doesn't strike me as capable of being racist.

that's why I'm having a whinge... I disagreed that it was racist ...which is apparently a racist comment. If you go back to that transcript she's got it in for everyone. lol

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon May 14, 2012 9:57 am

That in a nutshell is one of my observations about racism and political correctness.

Any possible 'sensitive' reference, seen any other way than the PC route is Racist.

That is why Blackboards are taboo, in this strange new PC world.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 14, 2012 10:14 am

Bruv;1393576 wrote: That in a nutshell is one of my observations about racism and political correctness.

Any possible 'sensitive' reference, seen any other way than the PC route is Racist.

That is why Blackboards are taboo, in this strange new PC world.

You can't safely call anyone a nig-nog any longer either. It's sheer ignorance on the part of those who feel offended.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon May 14, 2012 11:03 am

Well they think it's racist ...but I'm gunna call it a robust discussion on immigration.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon May 14, 2012 3:07 pm

spot;1393580 wrote: You can't safely call anyone a nig-nog any longer either. It's sheer ignorance on the part of those who feel offended.

I was talking of 'embarrassing' words like tan or darker, or strangely enough whiter or phrases like large lips.

And the irony is the said sensitive words only offend or embarrass the right on anally retentive politically correct or the everyday kind of Joe who is unsure of where they stand when mixing with 'ethnics'...................due to the afore mentioned do gooder's advice.

Even most of the 'ethnics' are embarrassed by their 'right on' helpers. While there are some ethnics that use this hyper sensitivity to their advantage.......

I have said it before but it is worth saying again, one day we will be able to argue with a black guy the same as we argue with a white guy, calling him a black idiot the same as we might call a white guy a ginger loudmouth......and it will not matter.

It aint gonna happen anytime soon though.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Mon May 14, 2012 3:38 pm

I know absolutely nothing about British law. Is the tram operated by a private company? If so, do they have standards of behavior for passengers, such as disturbing the peace? By her racist rants directly to other passengers, was she endangering the safety and welfare of her child?

I consider freedom of speech important, if those listening can choose to walk away. It is common in the US for a bus driver to ask a passenger to leave the bus if they are inciting other passengers or the driver feels that violence may result.

If the woman stood up in a theater and began her rant, would she be asked to be quiet or leave? If she refused, would the police be called?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon May 14, 2012 3:51 pm

We have a saying here called "spot the aussie". 24 years ago I lived in the place that was all white ..very few asians. I went back to that place 4 years ago ..and it really was 'spot the aussie' ... Now am I being racist for pointing out a fact?

If she stood up in a theatre and ranted, yes certainly she would be asked to leave ...but in my experience of theatre someone would probably begin an intellectual debate with her that she would not keep up with and end up leaving herself.

Are you saying that if an area company or place is privately owned we lose our freedom of speech? Because that's the excuse used now for public protests.

Uh ha!!! I think I just worked out how 'they' are going to silence the populace!!!!!!