[x-posted to utl]

"Bruce" wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14650757

Tube and train commuters caught on camera
By Matt Cooke
Reporter, BBC London

There are over 12 thousand CCTV cameras on the London Underground
system, monitoring the movements of millions of passengers every
single day.

But some commuters are also doing their own electronic reconnaissance.

There are a growing number of websites and photo galleries dedicated
to critiquing the appearance, dress and behaviour of fellow
travellers.

For the complete article, go to:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14650757

All part of the new world where everyone's got a camera in their pocket and
getting something 'published' on t'internet take the click of a button, or
more to the point the touch or two of a touchscreen smartphone.

None of the sites/ Twitter accounts mentioned in the article seem to be in
the business of purposefully mocking anonymous people - though there's
always the danger that such a thing could develop.

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:14:08 +0100
"Mizter T" wrote:
None of the sites/ Twitter accounts mentioned in the article seem to be in
the business of purposefully mocking anonymous people - though there's
always the danger that such a thing could develop.

Taking pictures of strangers to publish online is pervy so say the least. And
their suggestion that its ok to take pictures of men but not women is also the
worst kind of disingenuous politically correct feminist ********. Either its
ok to take pictures of everyone or no one.

B2003

wrote in message
...
Their suggestion that its ok to take pictures of men but not women is also
the
worst kind of disingenuous politically correct feminist ********. Either
its
ok to take pictures of everyone or no one.

I fully agree. Being selective and only taking pictures of men but not women
is very wrong.

The whole premise and purpose of the site seems to be very iffy.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:14:08 +0100
"Mizter T" wrote:
None of the sites/ Twitter accounts mentioned in the article seem to be in
the business of purposefully mocking anonymous people - though there's
always the danger that such a thing could develop.

Taking pictures of strangers to publish online is pervy so say the least.
And
their suggestion that its ok to take pictures of men but not women is also
the
worst kind of disingenuous politically correct feminist ********. Either
its
ok to take pictures of everyone or no one.

Yup.

I want my pervy collection of attractive women to be camouflaged by the
addition of a few city gents in suits too.
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
www.imagebus.co.uk/shop

On Aug 25, 8:25*am, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:14:08 +0100

"Mizter T" wrote:
None of the sites/ Twitter accounts mentioned in the article seem to be in
the business of purposefully mocking anonymous people - though there's
always the danger that such a thing could develop.

Taking pictures of strangers to publish online is pervy so say the least. And
their suggestion that its ok to take pictures of men but not women is also the
worst kind of disingenuous politically correct feminist ********. Either its
ok to take pictures of everyone or no one.

It is the world in which we live. The American word is Liberalism.
Unfortunately it does not fit the classic British understanding of
Liberal. According to their thinking: It is wrong to discriminate
against women or people of color (and I agree with that). But,
"affirmative action" (discrimination by another name) against men and
people of northern European extraction is fine.

If I am mugged it is a crime. If a homosexual is mugged it is a hate
crime. It is OK for the TSA to fondle little girls, and grandmothers.
But woe betide any TSA officer who stops a 25 year old muslim in his
garb.

The fun part is that these people continually preach "tolerance".
However, they have no tolerance for those with whom they disagree, to
wit Conservatives.

Say goodbye to the sane world we once knew.

In message
,
1506 wrote:
If I am mugged it is a crime. If a homosexual is mugged it is a hate
crime.

False.

If a homosexual is mugged *because* she is homosexual, it is a hate
crime. If she is mugged because some low-life wants cash for his drug
habit, it is not a hate crime, just a crime.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Aug 25, 1:29*pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" wrote:
In message
,

1506 wrote:
If I am mugged it is a crime. *If a homosexual is mugged it is a hate
crime.

False.

If a homosexual is mugged *because* she is homosexual, it is a hate
crime. If she is mugged because some low-life wants cash for his drug
habit, it is not a hate crime, just a crime.

When something happens to these people the usual assumptin is that it
happened because they are homosexual.

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:12:45 -0700 (PDT), 1506 wrote:

On Aug 25, 1:29*pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" wrote:
In message
,

1506 wrote:
If I am mugged it is a crime. *If a homosexual is mugged it is a hate
crime.

False.

If a homosexual is mugged *because* she is homosexual, it is a hate
crime. If she is mugged because some low-life wants cash for his drug
habit, it is not a hate crime, just a crime.

When something happens to these people the usual assumptin is that it
happened because they are homosexual.

This is only the usual assumption among people who routinely regard others
not as unique individuals entitled to equal consideration, but as
undifferentiated members of a group which they can label (often with a
label that has - in the eyes of the labeller - negative overtones).

The act of giving someone such a group-label always reveals the prejudice
of the person doing the labelling, and hardly ever adds any valid and
useful information about the individual who is being labelled.

See, e.g.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14679657

On 25/08/2011 21:29, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In message
,
1506 wrote:
If I am mugged it is a crime. If a homosexual is mugged it is a hate
crime.

False.

If a homosexual is mugged *because* she is homosexual, it is a hate
crime. If she is mugged because some low-life wants cash for his drug
habit, it is not a hate crime, just a crime.



Wasn't there a rule that the police have to investigate a crime as a
racist attack (or presumably later "hate" crime) if the victim believed
it to be one. They can then decide that it is not a racist/hate crime
but they have to investigate first.

On 25/08/2011 21:29, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In message
,
1506 wrote:
If I am mugged it is a crime. If a homosexual is mugged it is a
hate crime.

False.

If a homosexual is mugged *because* she is homosexual, it is a hate
crime. If she is mugged because some low-life wants cash for his drug
habit, it is not a hate crime, just a crime.

What happens if she believes it was because she is homosexual, but the
mugger disagrees? What standard of proof is needed?

IANAL, but I'm slightly uncomfortable with some classes of victims being
told their incident is "just" a crime. But I am somewhat biased as a
result of having been a young white male English-speaking locally-born
atheist heterosexual victim of an assault that I was quite lucky to survive.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK