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

Gimme A Pound · 12-06-2019 11:43am

RIGOLO wrote: »

A dedicated thread and 62 pages later .. ..

Where the thread on after-hours for this poor woman ..Stabbed in Islington yesterday

Is it because she was married to a man she doesnt deserve a thread and 62 pages ...

Mother-of-three is stabbed after 'refusing to hand over phone to teenage mugger' as she pushed her son in a buggy in north London street

btw the police DID release a desciption for this crime

Interesting how they never released any description of the attackers for the 2 girls getting on the bus ... mmm I wonder why

Is that a nettle I see before me, best not not grasp it , you dont want to be having any uncomfortable conversations taking you out of your comfort zone now do we ...

I agree with you about the selective coverage (even though people think you're Lucifer himself for having a differing view, I don't think they were necessarily attacked because they're gay/women - I think they were attacked for not complying with scumbag demands). Although I think the attack is worse.

But I mean really, where is the evidence that the attackers are muslim or black? Not publishing that they are? I mean it wouldn't be said if they were white. And they could be.

Grayson · 12-06-2019 11:52am

RIGOLO wrote: »

The poster doth protest too much , methinks.

It's because they made arrests and the offenders were minors. So they don't release information about minors they arrest. you won't find any details about them.

Of course for you I'm sure it's a big conspiracy.

Brian? · 12-06-2019 12:14pm

Hector Savage wrote: »

But he makes good points, why in 2019 is an attack on 2 lesbians on a bus causing more outrage then the MURDER of a young woman in front of her child ???

Then why didn’t he start a thread about the murder instead of coming here?

Outlaw Pete · 12-06-2019 12:23pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

I also think it's important to take into account the victims' accounts and from the stories I've read it's quite clear that two women feel they were attacked because of their sexuality and not because they were women.

....and right wing populism, don't forget that. Just surprised they didn't blame Trump.

MrFresh · 12-06-2019 12:47pm

recedite wrote: »

Its a bit strange. The Straits Times of Singapore reports that they are out on bail, which would normally mean they have been charged with something. But no actual charges are mentioned.

Police can bail people to allow further time to investigate. It works the same as the other bail except you come back to the police for further questioning/charge instead of going to court.

klaaaz · 12-06-2019 1:06pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

....and right wing populism, don't forget that. Just surprised they didn't blame Trump.

Right wing populism with its followers has a habit of disliking the LGBT community.

blinding · 12-06-2019 1:24pm

klaaaz wrote: »

Right wing populism with its followers has a habit of disliking the LGBT community.

Check out Douglas Murray . A Gay Man with very interesting views on this sort of stuff.

Brian? · 12-06-2019 5:55pm

blinding wrote: »

Check out Douglas Murray . A Gay Man with very interesting views on this sort of stuff.

Not interesting. Mostly wrong.

I only say mostly because I haven’t read everything he’s written.

MoashoaM · 12-06-2019 6:17pm

Brian? wrote: »

Not interesting. Mostly wrong.

I only say mostly because I haven’t read everything he’s written.

If you don't mind, could you tell us his points and what's wrong with them?

Brian? · 12-06-2019 6:25pm

MoashoaM wrote: »

If you don't mind, could you tell us his points and what's wrong with them?

All of his points? Or is there something specific you’d care to discuss?

MoashoaM · 12-06-2019 6:32pm

Brian? wrote: »

All of his points? Or is there something specific you’d care to discuss?

All of his points would be a headache. Instead we could take a segment from a video where he gives his spiel. Joe Rogan or at a college. The Strange of Europe or something.

Or just tell me what you disagree with primarily.

pinkyeye · 12-06-2019 6:38pm

Hector Savage wrote: »

But he makes good points, why in 2019 is an attack on 2 lesbians on a bus causing more outrage then the MURDER of a young woman in front of her child ???

Calm the fcuk down, that woman was not MURDERED.

Talk about a hysterical over reaction. :rolleyes:

pinkyeye · 12-06-2019 6:41pm

Brian? wrote: »

Then why didn’t he start a thread about the murder instead of coming here?

Because there was no murder.

:D

FaxingBerlin · 12-06-2019 6:44pm

pinkyeye wrote: »

Because there was no murder. :D

The news article was posted nobody read it lol

Brian? · 12-06-2019 6:45pm

MoashoaM wrote: »

All of his points would be a headache. Instead we could take a segment from a video where he gives his spiel. Joe Rogan or at a college. The Strange of Europe or something.

Or just tell me what you disagree with primarily.

I disagree with his apocalyptic view of Europe’s future, the great replacement of white Europeans with Asian and African Muslims. There is projection that supports it.

recedite · 12-06-2019 8:19pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Probably because you are not comparing like with like. One was a failed mugging - the other was seemingly an attack on people purely for being who they are.

Except that these 2 girls were robbed, which makes it (at least partially) a successful mugging.

Therefore not just "an attack on people purely for being who they are".
I'm guessing the police are now trying to work out what to charge the perpetrators with. Maybe multiple charges, but it will be interesting to see.
And then, when it goes to court, we'll see which charges actually stick.
In the courtroom, the fact that the victims were homosexual may not get the same prominence as was given by the media.

Blueshoe · 12-06-2019 9:11pm

Brian? wrote: »

I disagree with his apocalyptic view of Europe’s future, the great replacement of white Europeans with Asian and African Muslims. There is projection that supports it.

Vague. Piss poor

Brian? · 12-06-2019 9:54pm

Blueshoe wrote: »

Vague. Piss poor

My answer or his idea?

It was a pretty vague question to begin with.

ohnonotgmail · 12-06-2019 11:04pm

recedite wrote: »

Except that these 2 girls were robbed, which makes it (at least partially) a successful mugging.

Therefore not just "an attack on people purely for being who they are".
I'm guessing the police are now trying to work out what to charge the perpetrators with. Maybe multiple charges, but it will be interesting to see.
And then, when it goes to court, we'll see which charges actually stick.
In the courtroom, the fact that the victims were homosexual may not get the same prominence as was given by the media.

Unsurprisingly you would be very wrong on that. according to the CPS in the UK

In 2016/17, 83% of hate crimes cases we prosecuted led to a conviction or guilty plea. Because of the serious nature of these offences, the CPS can apply to the courts for a 'sentence uplift' which is an increased punishment for the crime. Last year, more than half of our requests led to offenders having their sentence increased because it was motivated by hate.

recedite · 13-06-2019 10:19am

having their sentence increased because it was motivated by hate

I would not be surprised if that eventually happens here. But first the motivation for the crime has to be proved in court.
Mugging a homosexual person is not necessarily a more serious crime than mugging a heterosexual person.
Homosexuals are not more important in the hierarchy of victimhood. People saying that in this thread are being accused of homophobia for saying it.
If muggers demanded that a hetero couple kiss for the muggers amusement, before escalating it into a fight and a robbery, would that be a heterophobic hate crime?

What if the muggers were homosexuals, would that make any difference?

ohnonotgmail · 13-06-2019 10:27am

recedite wrote: »

I would not be surprised if that eventually happens here. But first the motivation for the crime has to be proved in court.
Mugging a homosexual person is not necessarily a more serious crime than mugging a heterosexual person.
Homosexuals are not more important in the hierarchy of victimhood. People saying that in this thread are being accused of homophobia for saying it.
If muggers demanded that a hetero couple kiss for the muggers amusement, before escalating it into a fight and a robbery, would that be a heterophobic hate crime?

What if the muggers were homosexuals, would that make any difference?

i've no interest in your stupid what-ifs. Targetting somebody BECAUSE of their sexuality is a hate crime in the UK. In this incident it is quite clear to me that the two ladies were targetted because of their sexuality.

13-06-2019 10:29am

recedite wrote: »

Except that these 2 girls were robbed, which makes it (at least partially) a successful mugging.

I am not sure that really negates the point I made. One was a mugging as the intent of the attack - the other is being claimed (to be honest I do not know either way) as an attack on them for who they were which might - incidently - have included some of their possessions being taken.

recedite wrote: »

Therefore not just "an attack on people purely for being who they are".

I do not know the intent of the attack - none of us do I guess. But if it was an attack on them for being who they were - then the fact that taking some of their possessions was part of that attack does not change the nature and intent of the attack.

I think where we differ here - see if you agree - is you are defining the nature of the attack based on what was done _during_ the attack - whereas I would be defining it based on the _intention_ of the attack regardless of what they actually did during the attack.

I suppose both are equally valid. But only one answers the question I was answering when I replied to Hector. Which is to explain why one attack might result in more discussion than the other. Which is that a mugging - an attack with the intention of taking someone's possessions is - while horrific and to be condemned - is at least easy to understand.

Whereas attacking someone - whether you take their stuff or not while doing it - purely because of who they are as a person - has an extra dimension of horror and confusion and distaste to us and some people find it harder to understand.

batgoat · 13-06-2019 10:31am

Blueshoe wrote: »

Vague. Piss poor

If you subscribe to the great replacement, it's a moronic conspiracy theory that racists tend to love. Also the New Zealand killer subscribed to it. A bit like a protocols of zion style conspiracy.

Professor Moriarty · 13-06-2019 10:35am

recedite wrote: »

I would not be surprised if that eventually happens here. But first the motivation for the crime has to be proved in court.
Mugging a homosexual person is not necessarily a more serious crime than mugging a heterosexual person.
Homosexuals are not more important in the hierarchy of victimhood. People saying that in this thread are being accused of homophobia for saying it.
If muggers demanded that a hetero couple kiss for the muggers amusement, before escalating it into a fight and a robbery, would that be a heterophobic hate crime?

What if the muggers were homosexuals, would that make any difference?

There's a slim chance that some people would see your argument as dissembling. Almost as if you are discounting what happened to these women. Kind of as if you were dismissing them. But I'm sure nothing could be further from the truth.

recedite · 13-06-2019 10:39am

Deleted User wrote: »

I do not know the intent of the attack - none of us do I guess. But if it was an attack on them for being who they were - then the fact that taking some of their possessions was part of that attack does not change the nature and intent of the attack.

I think where we differ here - see if you agree - is you are defining the nature of the attack based on what was done _during_ the attack - whereas I would be defining it based on the _intention_ of the attack regardless of what they actually did during the attack.

I think we broadly agree. Except that you have already defined the attack based on the intention, while at the same time admitting you don't know the intent.

I haven't taken that step, preferring instead to wait and see what the perps are charged with, and whether those charges are proven.

13-06-2019 10:42am

recedite wrote: »

I think we broadly agree. Except that you have already defined the attack based on the intention, while at the same time admitting you don't know the intent.

Sure - no problem there. We do not know the intention of the attack I admit. But if we did then I _would be_ defining it by that - not the actions that occurred during it.

There is no conflict there between the two statements. In fact I actually posted my post - then went back and edited it to specifically put in the "would be" for that very reason

I kinda predicted the response you would give

I think I am getting to know you. At this rate we will be having beers by Sunday

But I think we are allowed to postulate to answer Hectors question as to why one murder gets almost no discussion and this attack does. I think we can answer that users question working entirely with hypotheticals?

FaxingBerlin · 13-06-2019 10:49am

Just a quick question that may or may not have been answered previously in the thread, how did these attackers know the two girls were gay?

FunLover18 · 13-06-2019 11:09am

FaxingBerlin wrote: »

Just a quick question that may or may not have been answered previously in the thread, how did these attackers know the two girls were gay?

I think they were holding hands.

MrFresh · 13-06-2019 12:43pm

recedite wrote: »

I would not be surprised if that eventually happens here. But first the motivation for the crime has to be proved in court.

You can be charged with a hate crime but you can also be charged with a regular assault and the judge can take your victim's circumstances and what he believes your motivations were into account when deciding your punishment.

13-06-2019 1:08pm

FaxingBerlin wrote: »

Just a quick question that may or may not have been answered previously in the thread, how did these attackers know the two girls were gay?

The article linked in the OP is not clear on that. The article just indicated that at first they did not know - but came to know. The article just said the harassment began "when they discovered they were a couple" but does not mention how or at what point. Though I am sure a few people would be wondering why this is relevant really?

They may not even know themselves to be honest. When my GFs are out they try not to make it at all obvious they are also together. Yet some people cop sometimes anyway and the girls have no idea how or why.

Sometimes they have asked and got an answer. Sometimes however the person asked themselves also does not even know. They just say they got a feeling or an impression - or it suddenly became somehow obvious to them like one of those pictures where the image was there all the time but you suddenly see it and then can not then un-see it or understand why you could not see it before.

So who knows. Perhaps they did not know but just assumed and just happened to be right and would have been acting the same way if the girls were in fact not gay or a couple. We may never know I suppose.

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

Comments