i-baster wrote:
How am I doing that pray tell?

I simply quoted your post (bolding a relevant sentence) then replied to it.

Well I would say that racists are racists and they can be of any race or creed. But where's the fun in that?

Surely it is better to walk right into this one and say black people can't be racist, only white people and then we can all sleep safely in our beds knowing that "lefty librulz" actually hate white people and we indeed can call black and asian people names.

Yey!

(only joking btw )

Ab Origine wrote: It's getting so that a man can't leave a loaded question lying around these parts without someone coming along and setting it off prematurely.
Bloody inconsiderate.

mikey mikey wrote:
Thankfully no-ones that dumb on this forum that you need to include that

Well it's unfortunate she feels that way...or maybe she doesn't really feel that way and she was just having a rant because she was pissed off...and pissed up
She shouldn't be arrested for saying it, nor should West have been arrested.
Is stupidity and ignorance a crime?

diamondgeezer wrote:
I was talking about your question that followed. I know you didn`t claim I said it. I was throwing that line out there not really saying you had said I said that. It was light hearted jousting.on my part. Probably should have worded my response better, sorry.

feather wrote:
Well by setting it off prematurely, I gave the (imo relevant) loaded question the credibility it deserves

irrepressible wrote: Obviously not or the House of Commons would look like this ALL the time because they'd all be banged up.

feather wrote:

Your missing the point im making. The point im making is about privacy. How much privacy do we have when someone can whip out a cam and record and post on you tube. Soon people are going to be scared about opening their mouths and not step out of line.

Surveilance society...unorthodoxy, etc.

I'd say she kind of surrendered her privacy rather willingly eh

nirvana wrote: Reality Tip:

There is no privacy when shouting at passengers on public transport. Never has been.
Cameras simply record your twattishness for posterity.

Technology is always a double-edged sword.
People are in jail now because of things they said, threatened or bragged about on facebook and twitter, yet both of these have increased awareness of people being persecuted across the globe and have provided platforms to mount pressure campaigns.
Some you win, some you lose.

irrepressible wrote: Us watching them watching us.

Poor woman must be under stress from sending most of her money to her people (as she calls them in the video) starving in parts of africa.

LOL just another person full of shit,there are many.

I agree the diamond in the crown was obviously stolen,like most wealth is.

She holds racist views obviously,no good for anybody that.

nirvana wrote:
Well really nothing much has changed. If you live in a small village and then one day get pissed and make a tit of yourself, you get a reputation for doing so.

My mum went to her home village today and while she was reminiscing with the butcher they mentioned Some lad with the word harvester as a middle name because 50 years ago he had crashed it in the high street.

Probably lived 5 decades with that appelation poor sod

But yeah, what happens in Vegas stays on Youtube

Since Trapwire films us 24/7 and sells it to the highets bidder, it is kind of a good thing that each civilian has the power too.

We saw the power of that outside the Ecuador Embassy last wek

nirvana wrote:
The opposite of which being getting told just when and where you can use your infernal gizmos?

nirvana wrote:
Ranting on public transport isn't the time or place to demand privacy.

Can I also add that phonecam footage may equally prove someone's innocence of an alleged crime.
You'd probably be chuffed under those circumstances I imagine.

Keep in mind our legal system would normally depend upon the recollections of witnesses to attempt to establish the scene in a situation such as this. That can be and often has been a much shakier quality of 'evidence' than a hand-held camphone in low light.
Generally speaking the camera is more reliable as it doesn't forget stuff because it was a bit pished up as well.

people have always had to watch what they say in public - examples include saying something considered treasonous or worshiping in a way that was deemed contrary to how you were supposed to. nothing has changed except the means by which someone is 'recorded' and their misbehaviour brought to public attention.

the idea that we ever had freedom of speech is a misnomer - people have never been free to publicly say what they like if those in power don't want em saying it. speech is only really protected if it is done so in private - which has come as quite the shock to users of the interwebs.

as for the woman in the video i agree with much already said - racists come from every race - her words were no worse or better then those of emma wests - imho neither should face imprisonment - perhaps they could be put on a bus together doomed to go round and round the m1 until it dawns on them how much they have in common despite the difference in skin colour.