Shocking racist rant of girl clutching chips on Manchester bus caught on camera

"I'm sad to say that this kind of behaviour isn't really all that shocking any more.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Look at all those pussies just spectating. Shameful, spineless and not a shred of humanity.

darknessss wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Look at all those pussies just spectating. Shameful, spineless and not a shred of humanity.

maybe they just "dont care"

and if thats the case...i would suggest someone.....soon...had better find out why and LISTEN to why and act on it, instead of te usual rubbish that gets bandied about over such things....

risingsun wrote:Of course they care, they did what all British do faced with a situation like that, look down at the floor and pretend they haven't noticed.  They probably thought they'd be knifed if they did anything (which doesn't excuse them from not interfering).  

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

darknessss wrote:

maybe they just "dont care"

and if thats the case...i would suggest someone.....soon...had better find out why and LISTEN to why and act on it, instead of te usual rubbish that gets bandied about over such things....

No, they were all paralysed by fear. That's quite obvious.

Cass wrote:I think both are right to a degree.

it is a British trait although lots feel like that and justify it as not being their problem.

only if it affects them will people get involved and some still wont because you have no idea if the other person is crazy enough to hurt you or kill you instead of just talking crap.

that's sad but understandable. in this day and age

darknessss wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

No, they were all paralysed by fear. That's quite obvious.

https://youtu.be/eyjrUAimzZg

fuzzy.......

darknessss wrote:

risingsun wrote:Of course they care, they did what all British do faced with a situation like that, look down at the floor and pretend they haven't noticed.  They probably thought they'd be knifed if they did anything (which doesn't excuse them from not interfering).  

pffft sass.....thats rich comming from the left......

when it took a conservative govt to GIVE US BACK the RIGHT to use deadly force if needed to defend ourselves even in our own homes, and you expect folks to be willing to use force in a public place where the order of the day (from the courts ) is ALWAYS retreat unless cornered?

more over on my original point...why would they intervene...when they dont care....

you only put yourself in harms way over things that matter to you .....

risingsun wrote:

darknessss wrote:

pffft sass.....thats rich comming from the left......

when it took a conservative govt to GIVE US BACK the RIGHT to use deadly force if needed to defend ourselves even in our own homes, and you expect folks to be willing to use force in a public place where the order of the day (from the courts ) is ALWAYS retreat unless cornered?

more over on my original point...why would they intervene...when they dont care....

you only put yourself in harms way over things that matter to you .....

Love you Vic, but boy are you tunnel visioned.  People do care, and deadly force would be stupid in most instances and just get you killed.  

risingsun wrote:Rubbish, you have always been able to use reasonable force, you just don't shoot someone in the back when they have already left.

You believe they don't care, you have no proof of that.  In fact, when people are talking about others that they have actually seen face to face and are not just a concept, they care very much indeed.

Oh and BTW, the Cons didn't change the law to what you thought they did:

n the latest example of a classic legal controversy, landscape gardener Andrew Woodhouse was in late January cleared of GBH for beating a burglar until his legs and arm were broken.  While his defence said he acted in lawful self-defence – "one of the men was armed and went to attack him” – the prosecution said the attack was an “unreasonable and unlawful assault… Mr Woodhouse lost his temper and went over the top.”


serves him right for pissing about,,,one suitably placed mighty whack to the crown....job done.....one blow struck...NOT unreasonable force....Woodwards mistake was tto carry out a "sustained" attack.... NOT to mention of course that you say he was cleared......which rather weakens your case a bit....

Although laws announced by the Conservatives in 2012 to give greater legal protection to householders who react with force to intruders came into effect last year, it later emerged they were ‘riddled with loopholes’. A fight cannot take place outside (as did Mr Woodhouse’s), quite right...shouldnt have chased em for example, nor can it be to protect oneself or one’s family – only the home. you have ALWAYS had the right to deadly force in self defence....if you have nowhere to retreat to....and in your own home you do NOT have anywhere to retreat to....

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/02/04/extend-bash-burglar-law-say-public/

risingsun wrote:No they didn't, why do you think that?  They hardly changed it, that is just your perception, not what was actually done.

risingsun wrote:You never were.  The wording before said you could use proportionate force, now it allow the use of 'disproportionate force', however 'grossly disproportionate force' can still result in prosecution.   So you could judge something as 'disproportionate force' but the law could say it was 'grossly disproportionate'.

risingsun wrote:and "proportionate" force had the same difficulty....

Exactly, it's no different


before i could not UNLESS said miscreant visibly had a weapon of some sort AND proffered to use it

Nope, they just had to threaten you, or you felt you were in danger.

yer...but you had to PROVE that

See, hardly changed at all and NOT the great change you were implying.

Update: The Adelaide Advertiser has reported that a 19-year-old man was arrested a short distance away and charged with disorderly behaviour. He was granted bail and will appear in Adelaide Magistrates Court on March 26.