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

blinding

MrFresh wrote: »

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.

Sometimes scumbags are just scumbags .

Scumbags can and will find reasons to be scumbags .

ohnonotgmail

blinding wrote: »

Sometimes scumbags are just scumbags .

Scumbags can and will find reasons to be scumbags .

and what reason did they find in this instance?

blinding

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and what reason did they find in this instance?

Two people they considered vulnerable to their scumbagery .

These scumbags would probably have found other vulnerable people that night .

It should not be forgotten that the scumbags also stole from their victims .

I doubt they solely steal from homosexual people .

Could be , not saying it is : Scumbags attack and rob homosexual people or anyone else for that matter .

Lets put it this way . I’ m guessing these scumbags would not have taken on Two 6 foot 4 Inch well capable of looking after themselves homosexual men .

ohnonotgmail

blinding wrote: »

Two people they considered vulnerable to their scumbagery .

These scumbags would probably have found other vulnerable people that night .

It should not be forgotten that the scumbags also stole from their victims .

I doubt they solely steal from homosexual people .

Could be , not saying it is : Scumbags attack and rob homosexual people or anyone else for that matter .

Lets put it this way . I’ m guessing these scumbags would not have taken on Two 6 foot 4 Inch well capable of looking after themselves homosexual men .

but why did they focus on these two people?

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

this would be a start

we're not quite at an impasse between

- these ****s wouldve found another target

and

- the important part about this is that the victims were gay

but i dont see the gap in positions closing

one side's line of question is "why wont you admit the motive- the homophobia is the major problem?"

the other side's is "these attacks occur all the time, why wont you admit that the only reason you're hearing about this is the sexual identity of the victims- thats the problem?"

don't see it coming to anything tbh and thread therefore holds little enough interest ( do appreciate kikilarue and others taking fair part in it)

blinding

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but why did they focus on these two people?

Two vulnerable people on a bus . Two people who would be unable to defend themselves against scumbags .

Any vulnerable people would be seen as potential victims to these scumbags .

ohnonotgmail

blinding wrote: »

Two vulnerable people on a bus . Two people who would be unable to defend themselves against scumbags .

Any vulnerable people would be seen as potential victims to these scumbags .

no, that is not why they singled them out. At least be honest about that much.

blinding

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no, that is not why they singled them out. At least be honest about that much.

It will be interesting to see / hear if these scumbags have form for many forms of scumbag-ery .

Even if they are too young it would be interesting to hear their ‘ Form “.

I believe one of them is 18 . Hopefully we get to hear of his criminal background in crime if he has it .

martingriff

I have been in this thread and have walked away and come back again and I think I see the point those are making in saying it is not a homophobic attack. It is in relation to a definition given a few posts back that a homophobic attach is perpetrated by someone who hates gay people and these scum primary reason was they do not hate gays they attacked them because they would not do what they wanted.

Deebles McBeebles

martingriff wrote: »

I have been in this thread and have walked away and come back again and I think I see the point those are making in saying it is not a homophobic attack. It is in relation to a definition given a few posts back that a homophobic attach is perpetrated by someone who hates gay people and these scum primary reason was they do not hate gays they attacked them because they would not do what they wanted.

Both sides have valid points, definitely. The only way to know for sure is to speak to the scumbags so this might go on for a while.

ohnonotgmail

blinding wrote: »

It will be interesting to see / hear if these scumbags have form for many forms of scumbag-ery .

Even if they are too young it would be interesting to hear their ‘ Form “.

I believe one of them is 18 . Hopefully we get to hear of his criminal background in crime if he has it .

can you not answer a simple question?

biko

Four male teenagers aged between 15 and 18 have been arrested.

We need names and pictures of these scumbags so other people around them know what they are.

blinding

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

can you not answer a simple question?

Until we see all the evidence , Its difficult to give a definitive answer .

Put it this way I’m guessing that these guys have committed farmer scumbag crime than homophobic crime .

Might as well wait for the court cases and hopefully get to hear their crime history .

Lets say they committed 100 general scumbag crimes and this was their first homophobic crime would that suggest that this was a targeted homophobic crime ?

I'm guessing ‘ Opportunist Scumbags '

Hardcharger

I presume the Brits have the same problems with their criminal underclass? Generations of the same families leaving school early living on welfare not working committing crimes being sexually loose and producing fatherless uneducated abused violent angry young boys who in and out of prison?

All the CCTV law enforcement pride etc in the world will not deter scum from being scum.

The two girls are extraordinarily naive if they thought they could stand up to a pack of bullies who were bigger stronger and aggressive than they are.

If it was a young couple or a commuter going to work or an elderly person etc they probably would have attacked them too if they were on their own.

The police can't be eveeywhere.

When you encounter gangs of thugs on a bus or train just get off or if you are in a place where they are causing trouble just leave.

You are not Jackie Chan or Arnold. You can't physically take them on without being battered or worse killed and they will only get a slap on the wrist or get a reduced or suspended sentence.

Debating or reasoning with knuckle draggers who make racist homophobic remarks is pointless if they will respond with violence.

The poor girls were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It will be somebody else next week.

martingriff

martingriff wrote: »

I have been in this thread and have walked away and come back again and I think I see the point those are making in saying it is not a homophobic attack. It is in relation to a definition given a few posts back that a homophobic attach is perpetrated by someone who hates gay people and these scum primary reason was they do not hate gays they attacked them because they would not do what they wanted.

i think (and its easy to get knocked one way and another into defensive lines or side alleyways for posters of good will on both sides) that for me it boils down to

problem: "theres a gang of lads looking for trouble"

solution: "quick, eliminate all possible trouble!"

is never going to work. the homophobic expression of the aggression and will to violence here is not disputed but if you make it the point, you are imo missing the point.

i know its getting heated and im sure ive been more caustic than requires in responding to some posts but i do think the above position is the best one to take to address the wider issue.

ohnonotgmail

blinding wrote: »

Until we see all the evidence , Its difficult to give a definitive answer .

Put it this way I’m guessing that these guys have committed farmer scumbag crime than homophobic crime .

Might as well wait for the court cases and hopefully get to hear their crime history .

Lets say they committed 100 general scumbag crimes and this was their first homophobic crime would that suggest that this was a targeted homophobic crime ?

I'm guessing ‘ Opportunist Scumbags '

Ok, i'll make it as simple as i can for you. Assuming the information we have at present is correct why did they pick on these two girls?

martingriff

blinding wrote: »

Until we see all the evidence , Its difficult to give a definitive answer .

Put it this way I’m guessing that these guys have committed farmer scumbag crime than homophobic crime .

Might as well wait for the court cases and hopefully get to hear their crime history .

Lets say they committed 100 general scumbag crimes and this was their first homophobic crime would that suggest that this was a targeted homophobic crime ?

I'm guessing ‘ Opportunist Scumbags '

What's a farmer scumbag crime.

Something with a sheep:p:p:D

blinding

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Ok, i'll make it as simple as i can for you. Assuming the information we have at present is correct why did they pick on these two girls?

Was there anybody else even more vulnerable about ?

ohnonotgmail

blinding wrote: »

Was there anybody else even more vulnerable about ?

You really just dont want to answer do you? As to even admit that they were attacked because they were gay forces you to admit that there is homopohobia in the world. You just dont want to admit it even exists.

blinding

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You really just dont want to answer do you? As to even admit that they were attacked because they were gay forces you to admit that there is homopohobia in the world. You just dont want to admit it even exists.

Of course there is homophobia . Doesn’t mean these scumbags starting picking on people for any reason they feel like it .

Morons doing moronic things in not unusual .

Hoboo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but why did they focus on these two people?

Easy targets.

Outlaw Pete

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.

Well, I haven't said it wasn't a homophobic attack, just that I don't see much evidence of it haven't been one.

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?

The following certainly appears to have been one as the couple involved appear to have been attacked for no reason:

https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/16884690.couple-overwhelmed-with-support-after-homophobic-attack/

But in general an attack where there appears to be no rhyme or reason for an attack other than the fact that are the people are gay. That's not the case here however.

Seems to me that these louts started jeering these girls because they liked what they saw and wanted to see more of it and after their attention was initially well received, it no longer was once it became more enthusiastic and sexually explicit. Words were exchanged, coins thrown and "fighting" broke out.

Again, Melania says: "The next thing I know is that Chris is in the middle of the bus fighting with them". Well, how did she get there and why was she there? My guess would be she (understandably) didn't appreciate scumbags throwing coins at her and her girlfriend but this is the real world we live in, it's not a Marvel movie, and a group of young drunk scumbags are going to beat the s**t out of you if you stand up to them and you're alone and they are not.

Chris says that she's not afraid to be visibly queer and that she hopes this emboldens others. Well, on one hand I would say good for her, she shouldn't be afraid to be visibly queer, but it's foolish to suggest (and she is) that what she did was the correct thing to do, as it could have ended up with her dead. In a city where knife crime is sky high right now, the last thing people should be doing (particularly young females) is physically trying to take on (even verbally) a group of young scumbags.

Course if the Police had a campaign tomorrow about how people should deal with such threats of violence and how it's best that they try to get away from such people as quickly as possible as soon as they sense a desire to intimidate, they would no doubt be accused of victim blaming. These girls got seven bells knocked out of them and so no, I do not hope anyone is emboldened by the actions of these girls. On the contrary, I hope it informs them of what not to do.

ohnonotgmail

blinding wrote: »

Of course there is homophobia . Doesn’t mean these scumbags starting picking on people for any reason they feel like it .

Morons doing moronic things in not unusual .

so what would have to happen in your mind for an attack to be classified as homophobic?

FunLover18

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

I understand your position now however it's important to point out that the problem is not the same across the three positions.

Your position is that this should just be reported as an attack by thugs against two people, the issue with that (sad as it is) is that that's not news. People get attacked by thugs every day. Find a news story about a random attack and start a thread on it if that's what you want, I'd be curious to see where it goes but I suspect it would just be people expressing sympathy with the victims and calling the attackers names. You might get some debate about the length of prison sentences they should be getting.

Which brings us onto the second position, the wording of which is another thread altogether. There is a homophobic element to this attack, you cannot deny it. It's there in the attitude of the attackers, the specific nature of their request, the slurs used. It was also deeply misogynistic. These attitudes are what makes this attack standout and unfortunately more newsworthy. But to say "yes, it was homophobic but we need to talk about it like a regular crime" is to undermine the homophobia and sweep it under the mat like it wasn't important. I'm not going to go so far as to say this was a hate crime, I believe that is a term that does need some protection, but the homophobia is blatant in this attack and homophobia and the discrimination of others based on sexuality or race is a far greater threat to society.

We can deal with crime (the action of crime at least), we know how to combat crime in the short term (there's probably a thread to had on the long term solution). So yes there is an angle on this story and it is being used to bring attention to a problem but that is how problems get discussed and hopefully solved. To call it a "political agenda" however makes it sound far more sinister than it is.

blinding

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so what would have to happen in your mind for an attack to be classified as homophobic?

If scumbags set out specifically to attack homosexual people .

Scumbags like this could pick on you with the ‘ What are you looking at ? ‘


Bullies enjoy bullying . They may well find a way .

I assume there will be a court case . Though these scumbags may admit something to stop court cases .

FunLover18

FunLover18 wrote: »

I understand your position now however it's important to point out that the problem is not the same across the three positions.

Your position is that this should just be reported as an attack by thugs against two people, the issue with that (sad as it is) is that that's not news. People get attacked by thugs every day. Find a news story about a random attack and start a thread on it if that's what you want, I'd be curious to see where it goes but I suspect it would just be people expressing sympathy with the victims and calling the attackers names. You might get some debate about the length of prison sentences they should be getting.

Which brings us onto the second position, the wording of which is another thread altogether. There is a homophobic element to this attack, you cannot deny it. It's there in the attitude of the attackers, the specific nature of their request, the slurs used. It was also deeply misogynistic. These attitudes are what makes this attack standout and unfortunately more newsworthy. But to say "yes, it was homophobic but we need to talk about it like a regular crime" is to undermine the homophobia and sweep it under the mat like it wasn't important. I'm not going to go so far as to say this was a hate crime, I believe that is a term that does need some protection, but the homophobia is blatant in this attack and homophobia and the discrimination of others based on sexuality or race is a far greater threat to society.

We can deal with crime (the action of crime at least), we know how to combat crime in the short term (there's probably a thread to had on the long term solution). So yes there is an angle on this story and it is being used to bring attention to a problem but that is how problems get discussed and hopefully solved. To call it a "political agenda" however makes it sound far more sinister than it is.

very fair post.

i think (hope) my own post since is a better attempt to acknowledge the elements of the attack that involve homophobia while still outlining the problems i have with what gets presented to us and why, and why it matters

ohnonotgmail

blinding wrote: »

If scumbags set out specifically to attack homosexual people .

Scumbags like this could pick on you with the ‘ What are you looking at ? ‘


Bullies enjoy bullying . They may well find a way .

I assume there will be a court case . Though these scumbags may admit something to stop court cases .

and in this case they did. they attacked them specifically because they were gay. now it may have been the case that if those two ladies were not there they would have found somebody else to attack but these two ladies were picked out because they were gay. your reluctance to admit that is very telling.

Outlaw Pete

blinding wrote: »

Though these scumbags may admit something to stop court cases .

Can't see them avoiding a court case given how much attention it has received, politicians tweeting about it etc, and so at the very least some of them will be done for the theft. As for the assaults, it will most likely depend on who hit who first. They have the bus CCTV and so should be easy to establish.

suicide_circus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and in this case they did. they attacked them specifically because they were gay. now it may have been the case that if those two ladies were not there they would have found somebody else to attack but these two ladies were picked out because they were gay. your reluctance to admit that is very telling.

did they attack them because they were gay?

did they attack them because they were two women and an easy target?

we dont actually know the answer to that question.

do these scrotes have a hatred for homosexuals?

how many people did they beat and rob who were not homosexuals and were therefore not newsworthy?

we dont know.

ohnonotgmail

suicide_circus wrote: »

did they attack them because they were gay?

did they attack them because they were two women and an easy target?

we dont actually know the answer to that question.

do these scrotes have a hatred for homosexuals?

how many people did they beat and rob who were not homosexuals and were therefore not newsworthy?

we dont know.

they singled them out because they were gay so ,yes, they did attack them because they were gay.