A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

[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.

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

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

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

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.

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

"Mizter T" wrote:

[x-posted to utl]


Thank you, Mizter T. Apologies for the omission. ;-)

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

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

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

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.

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

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:

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

Once upon a time, 1506 wrote:

If I am mugged it is a crime. If a homosexual is mugged it is a hate
crime.

I don't know about the USA but in UK parlance I don't think that's quite
right.

If someone is mugged because they are gay, they yes, it's a hate crime.
But if someone is mugged just because the mugger wanted a new phone or
some cash, with no regard to the LGBT or otherwise status of their
victim, it's just a mugging.

Though muggings are abhorrent, regardless of motive.

As I understand it to get a hate crime charge to stand up in court the
prosecutors must be able to prove that the victim was targeted because
of a personal feature (colour, orientation, whatever), rather than just
having been robbed and happening to be gay / black / etc. This normally
required some evidence that the attacker chose their target for that
feature. Easier with skin colour than sexual orientation but still
provable if the necessary evidence can be found.

--
- The Iron Jelloid

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

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.

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:15:12 -0700 (PDT), 1506
wrote:

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.

Er, and what if someone is "mugged" simply because one is "perceived
to be Queer".

(And yes, I'm a Fag so I'm able to express myself thus.)

There have been cases in Metro Vancouver where young men have been
physically assaulted on account of the assailant's perception of their
target's sexuality.

So give all of use a break: assault is assault, but if the assault is
engendered because of notions of represssed sexuality (i.e. hate), go
take a running jump...

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.

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

If I am mugged it is a crime. If a homosexual is mugged it is a hate
crime.

Er, and what if someone is "mugged" simply because one is "perceived
to be Queer".

No, in both cases, no matter what the reason for the assault, it's still an
"assault" and should NOT be tagged one way or the other.

Yes, assaulting someone because of their perceived sexuality is wrong but so
is assaulting somebody because they are wearing the "wrong" hockey club
sweater, or look different, or are the "wrong" religion or the "wrong ethnic
group or the wrong whatever. One assault is no more serious than the other.
It's still an assault and any assault, no matter the motivation, should be
punished equally.


--
Cheers
Roger Traviss


Photos of the late GER: -
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

For more photos not in the above album and kitbashes etc..:-
http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l9...Great_Eastern/

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On Aug 25, 6:16*pm, "Roger Traviss"
wrote:
If I am mugged it is a crime. *If a homosexual is mugged it is a hate
crime.

Er, and what if *someone is "mugged" simply because one is "perceived
to be Queer".

No, in both cases, no matter what the reason for the assault, it's still an
"assault" and should NOT be tagged one way or the other.

Yes, assaulting someone because of their perceived sexuality is wrong but so
is assaulting somebody because they are wearing the "wrong" hockey club
sweater, or look different, or are the "wrong" religion or the "wrong ethnic
group or the wrong whatever. *One assault is no more serious than the other.
It's still an assault and any assault, no matter the motivation, should be
punished equally.

Thank you. Common sense at last.

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On Aug 25, 10:57*pm, Jeremy Double wrote:
Nobody wrote:
(And yes, I'm a Fag so I'm able to express myself thus.)

It's unuual for a cigarette to be posting on Usenet ;-)

This is *uk*.railway!

He may have posted on misc.transport.urban-transit, or
uk.transport.london

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
1506 wrote:
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.

Yup, completely agree. You only have to look at the witch hunt against
David Starkey for what I thought were fairly moderate comments on newsnight
the other night to see the kind of mass demensia thats seems to have
infected a lot of "academics" in the more wolly social subjects.

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

They wouldn't know real tolerance if it walked up to them and slapped them
in the face. In fact but some definitions these people would be called
facists.

B2003

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:37:19 -0700
Nobody wrote:
So give all of use a break: assault is assault, but if the assault is
engendered because of notions of represssed sexuality (i.e. hate), go
take a running jump...

But how can you tell which it was unless the attackers actually start
calling the victim names? Here it seems anything is a "hate" crime if
its done by white heterosexual males against a minority regardless. And as
for that old chesnut of hate being repressed sexuality , by that logic white
racists secretely want to be black. Ie its ********.

B2003

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On 26/08/11 08:27, 1506 wrote:
Common sense at last.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

(Albert Einstein)

Ian

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:06:53 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 25/08/11 18:15, 1506 wrote:
Say goodbye to the sane world we once knew.

Do you mean the sane world in which gay people were imprisoned, women
were forced to resign from their jobs when they got married and
discrimination against "******" was the norm? **

So whats your solution then? Swing the pendulum so far the other way that
it alienates white heterosexuals? Which you might need reminding make up
95% of the population of this country - something which metropolitan inner
city living liberals who never venture outside the M25 unless they're going to
the airport seem to forget.

** Starred out so I don't get nailed by the companies deep packet inspector and
having to spend the afternoon explaining myself to HR.

B2003

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:08:22 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/11 08:27, 1506 wrote:
Common sense at last.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

(Albert Einstein)

Which goes to prove even Einstein can get it wrong (we won't mention quantum
theory). Do you know many 18 year olds with common sense?

B2003

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On Aug 26, 1:46*am, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:15:12 -0700 (PDT)

1506 wrote:
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.

Yup, completely agree. You only have to look at the witch hunt against
David Starkey for what I thought were fairly moderate comments on newsnight
the other night to see the kind of mass demensia thats seems to have
infected a lot of "academics" in the more wolly social subjects.

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

They wouldn't know real tolerance if it walked up to them and slapped them
in the face. In fact but some definitions these people would be called
facists.

Got it in one. Is that the sound of hornets buzzing I hear?

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On 26/08/11 10:31, 1506 wrote:
The guy was badly beaten. And, IMHO, no-one should die like that.
There were no clues as to motive. However, the young fellow in
question happened to be homosexual. The case became a rallying point
for campaigners against hate crimes. Homosexuals for hundreds of
miles around demanded hate crime legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

But, why, I ask was the guys horrible death worse because he was
homosexual? Would you or I not have felt the blows just as much?

His experience was no worse than yours or mine might have been. But the
fact that he was tortured to death for being gay /additionally/
threatened other gay people and it's for that /additional/ effect that
/additional/ punishment is merited.

Or at least, that's the theory. Seems OK to me.

Ian

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On 26/08/11 10:13, d wrote:
So whats your solution then? Swing the pendulum so far the other way that
it alienates white heterosexuals?

You got any evidence that white heterosexuals as a group feel alienated
by tolerance of others?

Ian

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On 26/08/11 10:18, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:08:22 +0100
The Real wrote:
On 26/08/11 08:27, 1506 wrote:
Common sense at last.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

(Albert Einstein)

Which goes to prove even Einstein can get it wrong (we won't mention quantum
theory). Do you know many 18 year olds with common sense?

Whooooooooooosh. And point proved, I think.

Ian

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 02:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
1506 wrote:
But, why, I ask was the guys horrible death worse because he was
homosexual? Would you or I not have felt the blows just as much?

For some people it seems that suffering for what you are is a worse fate than
suffering for what you have. Presumably because you can change the latter
but not the former. Personally I think its a just a convenient soapbox for
self styled activists (ie people who make a lot of noise) who get off on self
righteous indignation to jump up and down and bang their drum.

B2003

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

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.

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:59:16 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/11 10:18, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:08:22 +0100
The Real wrote:
On 26/08/11 08:27, 1506 wrote:
Common sense at last.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

(Albert Einstein)

Which goes to prove even Einstein can get it wrong (we won't mention quantum
theory). Do you know many 18 year olds with common sense?

Whooooooooooosh. And point proved, I think.

No , not whoosh and point not proved. Common sense is something you aquire
as you get older. Him trying to equate it with something being fixed when
young is plain wrong. He wasn't trying to make the point that because
teenagers were clueless than means everyone who claims common sense is also
clueless - thats simply your reading of it.

B2003

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:56:06 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/11 10:13, d wrote:
So whats your solution then? Swing the pendulum so far the other way that
it alienates white heterosexuals?

You got any evidence that white heterosexuals as a group feel alienated
by tolerance of others?

When that tolerance swings to positive discrimination then yes. And also
when that tolerance goes against the public good - ie I have zero tolerance
of the muslim women who cover their faces (france had the right idea there)
or rastas who say that smoking canabis is part of their "religion" (what
religion would that be - the one where you laze around and do bugger all 24/7?).

B2003

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On Aug 26, 2:54*am, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/11 10:31, 1506 wrote:

The guy was badly beaten. *And, IMHO, no-one should die like that.
There were no clues as to motive. *However, the young fellow in
question happened to be homosexual. *The case became a rallying point
for campaigners against hate crimes. *Homosexuals for hundreds of
miles around demanded hate crime legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

But, why, I ask was the guys horrible death worse because he was
homosexual? *Would you or I not have felt the blows just as much?

His experience was no worse than yours or mine might have been. But the
fact that he was tortured to death for being gay /additionally/
threatened other gay people and it's for that /additional/ effect that
/additional/ punishment is merited.

IIRC There was no evidence with regard to motive.

Or at least, that's the theory. Seems OK to me.

It is nonsense. Until now, in civilized countries, we have tried
people for actions not thoughts and speech. Big Brother has arrived.

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On 26/08/11 11:17, d wrote:
No , not whoosh and point not proved. Common sense is something you aquire
as you get older. Him trying to equate it with something being fixed when
young is plain wrong.

But that's not what he's saying.

Ian

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On 26/08/11 11:28, 1506 wrote:
On Aug 26, 2:54 am, The Real wrote:
On 26/08/11 10:31, 1506 wrote:

His experience was no worse than yours or mine might have been. But the
fact that he was tortured to death for being gay /additionally/
threatened other gay people and it's for that /additional/ effect that
/additional/ punishment is merited.

IIRC There was no evidence with regard to motive.

Or at least, that's the theory. Seems OK to me.

It is nonsense. Until now, in civilized countries, we have tried
people for actions not thoughts and speech. Big Brother has arrived.

Who said anything about trying people for their thoughts and speech?
It's the /action/ of putting people in a state of fear and distress
which is the potential crime, not the thought processes behind it.

There have long been criminal sanctions for making threats,
intimidation, threatening violence and so on.

Ian

PS I agree that we became more civilised when we stopped prosecuting
people for blasphemy.

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On 26/08/11 11:01, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 02:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
wrote:
But, why, I ask was the guys horrible death worse because he was
homosexual? Would you or I not have felt the blows just as much?

For some people it seems that suffering for what you are is a worse fate than
suffering for what you have. Presumably because you can change the latter
but not the former. Personally I think its a just a convenient soapbox for
self styled activists (ie people who make a lot of noise) who get off on self
righteous indignation to jump up and down and bang their drum.

If Mr Shepherd had been killed by a couple of thugs who didn't like him,
or his clothes, that would have been dreadful but individual. By killing
him for what he was, they were also threatening other gay men, and it's
that threat which merited further punishment.

It's precisely the reason why terrorist murders - which are intended to
put non-victims in a state of fear and distress - are generally punished
more harshly than non-terrorist ones. More victims.

Ian

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On 26/08/11 11:19, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:56:06 +0100
The Real wrote:
On 26/08/11 10:13, d wrote:
So whats your solution then? Swing the pendulum so far the other way that
it alienates white heterosexuals?

You got any evidence that white heterosexuals as a group feel alienated
by tolerance of others?

When that tolerance swings to positive discrimination then yes. And also
when that tolerance goes against the public good - ie I have zero tolerance
of the muslim women who cover their faces (france had the right idea there)

Who gives a flying **** what you personally think about veiled women? Do
you have the same antipathy to veiled nuns, or is it the potential
presence of a non-white face which rings your bells?

or rastas who say that smoking canabis is part of their "religion" (what
religion would that be - the one where you laze around and do bugger all 24/7?).

Unlike those religions which have drinking alcohol as a central part of
their rituals?

What do white heterosexuals do which annoys you? Anything?

Ian

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On Aug 26, 3:19*am, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:56:06 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:

On 26/08/11 10:13, wrote:
So whats your solution then? Swing the pendulum so far the other way that
it alienates white heterosexuals?

You got any evidence that white heterosexuals as a group feel alienated
by tolerance of others?

When that tolerance swings to positive discrimination then yes. And also
when that tolerance goes against the public good - ie I have zero tolerance
of the muslim women who cover their faces (france had the right idea there)
or rastas who say that smoking canabis is part of their "religion" (what
religion would that be - the one where you laze around and do bugger all 24/7?).


In my professional life I have observed less qualified women promoted,
rather than better qualified men. That particular form of
"affirmative action" has been fashionable for a while.

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:46:33 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/11 11:17, d wrote:
No , not whoosh and point not proved. Common sense is something you aquire
as you get older. Him trying to equate it with something being fixed when
young is plain wrong.

But that's not what he's saying.

Really? Well we'll have to agree to differ unless you can borrow a tardis to
go back and ask him.

B2003

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:56:50 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/11 11:01, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 02:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
wrote:
But, why, I ask was the guys horrible death worse because he was
homosexual? Would you or I not have felt the blows just as much?

For some people it seems that suffering for what you are is a worse fate than
suffering for what you have. Presumably because you can change the latter
but not the former. Personally I think its a just a convenient soapbox for
self styled activists (ie people who make a lot of noise) who get off on self
righteous indignation to jump up and down and bang their drum.

If Mr Shepherd had been killed by a couple of thugs who didn't like him,
or his clothes, that would have been dreadful but individual. By killing
him for what he was, they were also threatening other gay men, and it's
that threat which merited further punishment.

So if they'd killed him because they didn't like say his blue shirt then
they were threatening everyone who wore blue shirts? Do me a fscking favour.

It's precisely the reason why terrorist murders - which are intended to
put non-victims in a state of fear and distress - are generally punished
more harshly than non-terrorist ones. More victims.

Except the minor point of there only being 1 victim in this case. Not quite
the same as blowing up a tube train.

B2003

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On 26/08/11 12:11, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:46:33 +0100
The Real wrote:
On 26/08/11 11:17, d wrote:
No , not whoosh and point not proved. Common sense is something you aquire
as you get older. Him trying to equate it with something being fixed when
young is plain wrong.

But that's not what he's saying.

Really? Well we'll have to agree to differ unless you can borrow a tardis to
go back and ask him.

Nah, I'll stick to "Reading and understanding the words".

Ian

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:58:48 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
You got any evidence that white heterosexuals as a group feel alienated
by tolerance of others?

When that tolerance swings to positive discrimination then yes. And also
when that tolerance goes against the public good - ie I have zero tolerance
of the muslim women who cover their faces (france had the right idea there)

Who gives a flying **** what you personally think about veiled women? Do
you have the same antipathy to veiled nuns, or is it the potential
presence of a non-white face which rings your bells?

Oh dear, you're losing the argument so you're using the tried and tested
right-on debating technique of going off on one.

Obviously you're a bit hard of thinking but i'll explain - you asked about
white heterosexuals being alienated by tolerance - i'm white and straight.
And I feel alienated in some parts of london. So what I think does matter
a flying fsck in this case.

And why bring skin colour into it other than a hackneyed straw man argument
which you have learnt verbatim from the Big Bumper Book of Politically Correct
Debating Techniques?

or rastas who say that smoking canabis is part of their "religion" (what
religion would that be - the one where you laze around and do bugger all
24/7?).

Unlike those religions which have drinking alcohol as a central part of
their rituals?

What , a sip of wine is the same as getting completely stoned?

What do white heterosexuals do which annoys you? Anything?

Plenty. But nothing to do with them being normal.

B2003

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:17:41 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
Really? Well we'll have to agree to differ unless you can borrow a tardis to
go back and ask him.

Nah, I'll stick to "Reading and understanding the words".

Pity you didn't apply that rule in this case.

B2003

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On 26/08/11 12:14, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:56:50 +0100
The Real wrote:

If Mr Shepherd had been killed by a couple of thugs who didn't like him,
or his clothes, that would have been dreadful but individual. By killing
him for what he was, they were also threatening other gay men, and it's
that threat which merited further punishment.

So if they'd killed him because they didn't like say his blue shirt then
they were threatening everyone who wore blue shirts? Do me a fscking favour.

If they had done it to intimidate all blue shirt wearers then yes,
undoubtedly an additional crime. We have that sort of problem up here in
Bonny Scotland, where beating people up for wearing orange or green is
likely to result in a more severe punishment than doing it on an
individually determined basis.

It's precisely the reason why terrorist murders - which are intended to
put non-victims in a state of fear and distress - are generally punished
more harshly than non-terrorist ones. More victims.

Except the minor point of there only being 1 victim in this case. Not quite
the same as blowing up a tube train.

You misunderstand. The other victims are the people who are put in a
state of fear by the original crime. If a drug dealer in Possilpark
chibs once of his late paying clients, well, that's all very unfortunate
for the victim and his family, but has no particular wider concerns. If,
on the other hand, a gay man is stabbed for no reason other than being a
gay man, other gay men will be put in a state of alarm.

Don't think of it as "hate crimes". Think of it as terrorism.

Ian

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On Aug 26, 4:14*am, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:56:50 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:





On 26/08/11 11:01, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 02:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
*wrote:
But, why, I ask was the guys horrible death worse because he was
homosexual? *Would you or I not have felt the blows just as much?

For some people it seems that suffering for what you are is a worse fate than
suffering for what you have. Presumably because you can change the latter
but not the former. Personally I think its a just a convenient soapbox for
self styled activists (ie people who make a lot of noise) who get off on self
righteous indignation to jump up and down and bang their drum.

If Mr Shepherd had been killed by a couple of thugs who didn't like him,
or his clothes, that would have been dreadful but individual. By killing
him for what he was, they were also threatening other gay men, and it's
that threat which merited further punishment.

So if they'd killed him because they didn't like say his blue shirt then
they were threatening everyone who wore blue shirts? Do me a fscking favour.

It's precisely the reason why terrorist murders - which are intended to
put non-victims in a state of fear and distress - are generally punished
more harshly than non-terrorist ones. More victims.

Except the minor point of there only being 1 victim in this case. Not quite
the same as blowing up a tube train.

Moreover terrorism is an act of war which demands a swift, firm,
military response. Describing it as a crime and involving the courts
is a big mistake. IMHO we have spent the past ten years being far too
soft in this regard.

Don't these pernickety, politically correct, lefties get to be
irritating? I am about ready to kill file the doc. Debating him is
like nailing jelly to a tree.

A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
 

On 26/08/11 12:28, 1506 wrote:
Moreover terrorism is an act of war which demands a swift, firm,
military response. Describing it as a crime and involving the courts
is a big mistake. IMHO we have spent the past ten years being far too
soft in this regard.

Yeah, it worked sooooo well in Norn Iron, didn't it?

Don't these pernickety, politically correct, lefties get to be
irritating? I am about ready to kill file the doc. Debating him is
like nailing jelly to a tree.

Diddums.

Ian