Homophobic attack on London bus - mod warning, please see OP

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

quote~~~

explaining how everyone you disagree with thinks -charming trait btw, always very convincing rhetorically-

~~~

so what is your explaination for posters ignoring the obvious homophobia in the attack?

KikiLaRue

When this thread was opened I genuinely thought most of the responses would be along the lines of “Jesus, that’s terrible. Isn’t it a shame that lesbian couple couldn’t just have a night out in peace?”

KikiLaRue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

quote~~~

explaining how everyone you disagree with thinks -charming trait btw, always very convincing rhetorically-

~~~

But can you tell me in your own words why you are so determined to disregard the fact that the motive for this attack was homophobia?

ohnonotgmail

KikiLaRue wrote: »

When this thread was opened I genuinely thought most of the responses would be along the lines of “Jesus, that’s terrible. Isn’t it a shame that lesbian couple couldn’t just have a night out in peace?”

Jeez, how naive are you. Were you not aware of the ongoing "who is the biggest ****" competition?

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I don’t understand why you want to ignore the blatant homophobia of the attack?

i do understand why this one line response to my reply is exactly the type of line taken

"but why do you hate gay people?!"

the last poster has chosen to lecture me about my homophic thoughts and acts.

lads, do you see why the inevitable accusations of being a troll or whatever start to get wearing?

do ye see why complaints from the right-on side to mods about how after hours is a cesspit and how awful this thread is are aggravatory, given your own responses to what is a genuine post?

ye want to debate or ye dont.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so what is your explaination for posters ignoring the obvious homophobia in the attack?

"when did you stop beating your wife"

ever heard of that rhetorical device

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

i do understand why this one line response to my reply is exactly the type of line taken

"but why do you hate gay people?!"

the last poster has chosen to lecture me about my homophic thoughts and acts.

lads, do you see why the inevitable accusations of being a troll or whatever start to get wearing?

do ye see why complaints from the right-on side to mods about how after hours is a cesspit and how awful this thread is are aggravatory, given your own responses to what is a genuine post?

ye want to debate or ye dont.

what is your issue with highlighting the homophobia in the attack?

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

"when did you stop beating your wife"

ever heard of that rhetorical device

you seem to think i am addressing you personally. dont take it so personally. I asked a legitimate question.

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

But can you tell me in your own words why you are so determined to disregard the fact that the motive for this attack was homophobia?

edit: first line was in error, rescinded!


but I've posted at fair length in this thread already that i dont for a second believe these bucks had gone a week without giving someone else a battering and the week before and the week before

if let out they will do it again next week.

thats why i genuinely believe that the focus here should be on those responsible.

but we didnt hear about last weeks attack, we wont hear about next weeks

declaring that the motive for this was homophobic is simplistic and a sop to populism -which of course has its left wing strains

if the same people liking and sharing and holding up an egon spengler care-o-meter against everyone about this attack cared themselves as much about 'ordinary' criminal violence, this attack becomes a lot less likely to have happened

tldr : my position: care seriously about crime against everyone or youre part of the problem

your position: care more about crimes against certain demographics or youre part of the problem

fairest position, probably: people who attack other people are all of the problem

but ye dont like my fairest position, as far as i can tell!

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you seem to think i am addressing you personally. dont take it so personally. I asked a legitimate question.

ohnonotgmail
Registered User
Quote: KikiLaRue
I don’t understand why you want to ignore the blatant homophobia of the attack?


Because if they acknowledge that the attack was homophobic (and it certainly was) then they might have to acknowledge that some of their own thoughts and actions are homophobic. If they keep the bar for homophobia high enough they dont have to do that.


end quote/


i absolutely do not accept your swerve away from the fact that you made that remark about me.

im still here trying to make fair points, but you said it and lets not kissyface around it.

Sonics2k

"It wasn't a homophobic attack."

"Well if it was a homophobic attack then it was a Muslim Homophobic attack, white Christians don't do that."

That's basically the TLDR for a lot of people on this thread.

Sonics2k

Sonics2k wrote: »

"It wasn't a homophobic attack."

"Well if it was a homophobic attack then it was a Muslim Homophobic attack, white Christians don't do that."

That's basically the TLDR for a lot of people on this thread.

yeah look im about as fond of that strain of attack as most of the posters im arguing with but theres other points being made (and what fun it is)

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

ohnonotgmail
Registered User
Quote: KikiLaRue
I don’t understand why you want to ignore the blatant homophobia of the attack?


Because if they acknowledge that the attack was homophobic (and it certainly was) then they might have to acknowledge that some of their own thoughts and actions are homophobic. If they keep the bar for homophobia high enough they dont have to do that.


end quote/


i absolutely do not accept your swerve away from the fact that you made that remark about me.

im still here trying to make fair points, but you said it and lets not kissyface around it.

again, you take it personally. It was not aimed directly at you. Get over yourself, you're not as important as you think.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

again, you take it personally. It was not aimed directly at you. Get over yourself, you're not as important as you think.

hey I'm not awaiting mod action on it or anything.

and theres no 'again' im pointing out, in direct response to you, that you said that and it was about- literally- me. read back, or don't, whatever.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

hey I'm not awaiting mod action on it or anything.

and theres no 'again' im pointing out, in direct response to you, that you said that and it was about- literally- me. read back, or don't, whatever.

how in the name of god do you think it was directed at you in particular? I did not quote any of your posts in the reply. the language i was general not specific. You seem to be seriously paranoid. Dont bother replying i'm putting you on ignore.

PistolsAtDawn

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What? This has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The men wanted the women to put on a show for them. When they refused they beat them. So not just a homophobic attack, a misogynistic one too from men who think that women exist for their titillation, and who don't like to be told no

You go girl!

KikiLaRue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

i do understand why this one line response to my reply is exactly the type of line taken

"but why do you hate gay people?!"

the last poster has chosen to lecture me about my homophic thoughts and acts.

lads, do you see why the inevitable accusations of being a troll or whatever start to get wearing?

do ye see why complaints from the right-on side to mods about how after hours is a cesspit and how awful this thread is are aggravatory, given your own responses to what is a genuine post?

ye want to debate or ye dont.

You’re the one who keeps avoiding a genuine question. I’m asking you in very simple terms to explain your position, and instead of giving me your point of view you are going on the attack. I never said you hate gay people.

I’m asking you why you think that the reasonable thing to do in this situation is to completely ignore the motive for the attack? Can you explain that?

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

You’re the one who keeps avoiding a genuine question. I’m asking you in very simple terms to explain your position, and instead of giving me your point of view you are going on the attack. I never said you hate gay people.

I’m asking you why you think that the reasonable thing to do in this situation is to completely ignore the motive for the attack? Can you explain that?

many other posters as well as myself have questioned what the motive for this attack and robbery was- the victims are gay, 100% agreed.

the police have described it as a homophobic attack, agreed. ideally we'd all agree that this is just window-dressing but ive seen it offered as justification not to discuss any further (from people who would im sure support the police in all their endeavours)

when an elderly person is attacked and robbed the motive isnt hatred for the aged.

im asking you why you think the reasonable thing to do is to concentrate on the incidental item?

how many posters need to agree that this aspect is the most important thing about this attack before the thread is deemed acceptably respectful of the observances?

KikiLaRue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

many other posters as well as myself have questioned what the motive for this attack and robbery was- the victims are gay, 100% agreed.

the police have described it as a homophobic attack, agreed. ideally we'd all agree that this is just window-dressing but ive seen it offered as justification not to discuss any further (from people who would im sure support the police in all their endeavours)

when an elderly person is attacked and robbed the motive isnt hatred for the aged.

im asking you why you think the reasonable thing to do is to concentrate on the incidental item?

how many posters need to agree that this aspect is the most important thing about this attack before the thread is deemed acceptably respectful of the observances?

Because it wasn’t incidental, it was clearly central to the attack. All the evidence points this way. If you and others want to claim it wasn’t a homophobic attack in the face of the evidence you need to come up with a stronger argument than “Even though the victims were gay and the suspects verbally made it abundantly clear that this was the motive for the attack, I don’t think it was so there!”

Can you point to anything which suggests their sexuality was not the motive?

There was never a point in society where we denied older people rights based on their age, so it’s not a valid comparison and you know it.

KikiLaRue

Also, if this attack was not homophobic, what would actually have to happen in your eyes for an attack to be considered homophobic?

RIGOLO

RasTa wrote: »

One thing we do know is that it was teenagers who did it now can everyone please shut the **** up about muslims ffs.

I doubt they where devout asking them to kiss if it disgusts the Muslims so much.

My money is on atheist kids.

Finally we have found something EVERYONE can agree on . It was KIDS.

Heres an idea, why doesnt the UK bring in mandatory same-sex relationship education in schools for over 12s, and hopefully this will educate ALL KIDS (white,black,asian,muslim,atheist,CE) to be respectful of same-sex couples .

Oh hang on they are doing that in 2020.

And in fact one Head TEacher in Birmingham is so supportive of this measure she decided to bring it in one year early.
And she now has 500 Muslims (many of whom are NOT attached to her school) outside her school gates each morning protesting.

Many in the LGBT community are missing the point being raised in this and many other threads, they are missing the elephant in the room as others have stated.

Posters would leave Islam out of these LGBT discussions, if Islam was to stay out of LGBT way of living.

Sonics2k wrote: »

"It wasn't a homophobic attack."

"Well if it was a homophobic attack then it was a Muslim Homophobic attack, white Christians don't do that."

That's basically the TLDR for a lot of people on this thread.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

when an elderly person is attacked and robbed the motive isnt hatred for the aged.

im asking you why you think the reasonable thing to do is to concentrate on the incidental item?

Generally when an elderly person is attacked and robbed, the incident isn't preceded by the perpetrators egging the victims on to "be old" for their amusement/titillation.

Sonics2k

RIGOLO wrote: »

Finally we have found something EVERYONE can agree on . It was KIDS.

Heres an idea, why doesnt the UK bring in mandatory same-sex relationship education in schools for over 12s, and hopefully this will educate ALL KIDS (white,black,asian,muslim,atheist,CE) to be respectful of same-sex couples .

Oh hang on they are doing that in 2020.

And in fact one Head TEacher in Birmingham is so supportive of this measure she decided to bring it in one year early.
And she now has 500 Muslims (many of whom are NOT attached to her school) outside her school gates each morning protesting.

Many in the LGBT community are missing the point being raised in this and many other threads, they are missing the elephant in the room as others have stated.

Posters would leave Islam out of these LGBT discussions, if Islam was to stay out of LGBT way of living.

Rigolo. I know your post history far too well. So let's not pretend you give a flying donkey about LGBT rights.

Outlaw Pete

This story is a mess and there are some gaping holes in it. On the evidence which is currently available, or from what I've seen of it at least, I don't know how anyone could view it as a homophobic attack (although it may turn out to have been one).

So these girls get on a night bus and sit at the front. They start kissing and get jeered. Some sexually suggestive comments are made by the young guys and one the girls makes some jokes back. Coins are thrown and the lads become more "enthusiastic".

Here's were there is a gaping hole: Melania says "The next thing I know is that Chris is in the middle of the bus fighting with them". Note 'fighting with them' and not 'getting attacked by them'.

Fcuk knows what happened here really and I'd suggest waiting until this one hits the courts before determining if it was a homophobic attack or not. I have seen enough heterosexual couples get jeered on late night public transport to know that that element of things at least is not something which only those who are gay have to contend with from groups of beered up young arseholes.

Indeed, back in '89 four of five pricks (townies as they'd have been called back then) began jeering myself and the girl I was with as we waited for her bus on the quays. My having long hair, and kissing a girl with long hair, confused the poor lads, and so to them I was a 'long haired f*gg**'. Anyway, one of them didn't like what I'd said in return and threw a kick, which I caught and threw one of my own. A few bouncers from a nearby bar slowly started walking up, telling them to fcuk off and so that was the end of it. Lucky escape for them as we had just seen Roadhouse in the Savoy and so I could easily have taken the whole lot of them.

Seriously though, not seeing any evidence of 'homophobia' here, other than that is clearly the narrative that these two girls absolutely want it to be. Although not above a mea culpa if that's what it turns out to be.

Biggest take away of all this should be that if some drunk young louts throw coins at you upstairs on a late night bus, get thee downstairs as quick as humanly possible. That goes for heterosexual couples as well as gay ones. Or even if you're just two friends and have no sexual interest in each other.Scumbags will always out scumbag you, you can be sure of that.

ohnonotgmail

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This story is a mess and there are some gaping holes in it. On the evidence which is currently available, or from what I've seen of it at least, I don't know how anyone could view it as a homophobic attack (although it may turn out to have been one).

So these girls get on a night bus and sit at the front. They start kissing and get jeered. Some sexually suggestive comments are made by the young guys and one the girls makes some jokes back. Coins are thrown and they become more "enthusiastic".

Here's were there is a gaping hole: Melania says "The next thing I know is that Chris is in the middle of the bus fighting with them". Note 'fighting with them' and not 'getting attacked by them'.

Fcuk knows what happened here really and I'd suggest waiting until this one hits the courts before determining if it was a homophobic attack or not. I have seen enough heterosexual couples get jeered on late night public transport to know that that element of things at least is not something which only those who are gay have to contend with from groups of young beered up young arseholes.

Indeed, back in '89 four of five pricks (townies as they'd have been called back then) began jeering myself and the girl I was with as we waited for her bus on the quays. My having on long long hair, and kissing a girl with long hair, confused the poor lads, and so to them I was a 'long haired f*gg**'. Anyway, one of them didn't like what I'd said in return and threw a kick, which I caught and threw one of my own. A few bouncers from a nearby bar slowly started walking up, telling them to fcuk off and so that was the end of it. Lucky escape for them as we had just seen Roadhouse in the Savoy and so I could easily have taken the whole lot of them.

Seriously though, not seeing any evidence of 'homophobia' here, other than that is clearly the narrative that these two girls absolutely want it to be. Although not above a mea culpa if that's what it turns out to be.

Biggest take away of all this should be that if some drunk young louts throw coins at you upstairs on a late night bus, get thee downstairs as quick as humanely possible. That goes for heterosexual couples as well as gay ones. Or even if you're just two friends and have no sexual interest in each other.Scumbags will always out scumbag you, you can be sure of that.

Perhaps you might actually read the story before commenting. There is no mention of them kissing before the abuse started.

Outlaw Pete

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Perhaps you might actually read the story before commenting. There is no mention of them kissing before the abuse started.

---

Last Wednesday, I had a date with Chris. We got on the Night Bus, heading for her place in Camden Town, climbed upstairs and took the front seats. We must have kissed or something because these guys came after us. I don’t remember if they were already there or if they got on after us. There were at least four of them. They started behaving like hooligans, demanding that we kissed so they could enjoy watching, calling us ‘lesbians’ and describing sexual positions. I don’t remember the whole episode, but the word "scissors" stuck in my mind. It was only them and us there. In an attempt to calm things down, I started making jokes. I thought this might make them go away. Chris even pretended she was sick, but they kept on harassing us, throwing us coins and becoming more enthusiastic about it. The next thing I know is that Chris is in the middle of the bus fighting with them. On an impulse, I went over there only to find her face bleeding and three of them beating her up. The next thing I know is I'm being punched. I got dizzy at the sight of my blood and fell back. I don’t remember whether or not I lost consciousness. Suddenly the bus had stopped, the police were there and I was bleeding all over. Our stuff was stolen as well. I don’t know yet if my nose is broken, and I haven’t been able to go back to work, but what upsets me the most is that VIOLENCE HAS BECOME A COMMON THING, that sometimes it’s necessary to see a woman bleeding after having been punched to feel some kind of impact. I’m tired of being taken as a SEXUAL OBJECT, of finding out that these situations are usual, of gay friends who were beaten up JUST BECAUSE. We have to endure verbal harassment AND CHAUVINIST, MISOGYNISTIC AND HOMOPHOBIC VIOLENCE because when you stand up for yourself **** like this happens. By the way, I am thankful to all the women and men in my life that understand that HAVING BALLS MEANS SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. I just hope that in June, Pride Month, stuff like this can be spoken out loudly so they STOP HAPPENING!

KikiLaRue

I’ll pose this question a third time since none of the “It wasn’t homophobia” crowd seem to want to answer it.

If this attack (trying to get lesbians to kiss for you and beating them up when they don’t) is not a homophobic attack, what is? What would constitute a homophobic attack in your view?

ohnonotgmail

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I’ll pose this question a third time since none of the “It wasn’t homophobia” crowd seem to want to answer it.

If this attack (trying to get lesbians to kiss for you and beating them up when they don’t) is not a homophobic attack, what is? What would constitute a homophobic attack in your view?

something along the lines of "We're going to beat you up because you are queer and no other reason". They would also have to put that in writing and sign in case anybody tried to misconstrue their motives. Nothing less will be accepted.

RIGOLO

Sonics2k wrote: »

Rigolo. I know your post history far too well. So let's not pretend you give a flying donkey about LGBT rights.

I knew there was one tactic of the left Id forgotten about .

First - its the you cant make that point.
Second - its the theres no basis for your point
Third - its the RAYCIST card
Fourth - its the FASHIST card , (although the most militant like to play this first)

Fifth - the one Id forgotten to mention earlier its the you dont believe anything you have just said .

and then they repeat it ad-nauseum.

Liberal left word bingo .... your guaranteed 'House' every time

MrFresh

Deleted User wrote: »

edit: first line was in error, rescinded!


but I've posted at fair length in this thread already that i dont for a second believe these bucks had gone a week without giving someone else a battering and the week before and the week before

if let out they will do it again next week.

thats why i genuinely believe that the focus here should be on those responsible.

but we didnt hear about last weeks attack, we wont hear about next weeks

declaring that the motive for this was homophobic is simplistic and a sop to populism -which of course has its left wing strains

if the same people liking and sharing and holding up an egon spengler care-o-meter against everyone about this attack cared themselves as much about 'ordinary' criminal violence, this attack becomes a lot less likely to have happened

tldr : my position: care seriously about crime against everyone or youre part of the problem

your position: care more about crimes against certain demographics or youre part of the problem

fairest position, probably: people who attack other people are all of the problem

but ye dont like my fairest position, as far as i can tell!

The attackers saw the women were a couple and specifically targeted them for this reason. They then tried to get them to perform homosexual acts for their amusement. When the women wouldn't perform they attacked them. They chose them because they were gay. That's what makes it homophobic. It is very unlikely they would have put two straight women through the same ordeal or even engaged with them.