Annoni_mouse

Hence - And as far as I know beating up a person, even one who's views you disagree with, is also against the law. So what did you mean by your second point?

So only you know what the woman meant then? Know her personally do you? Or could it be that you are doing exactly what you accuse me of? Making an assumption to suit your argument?

Lady like or not, a woman has as much right to air her views as a man (obviously with the caveat that she would have to deal with the consequences of those views). Neither sex should have to be intimdated with threats of violence. As for your other point - well, I'm not sure what your point is actually. What does it tell you?

How should a woman act? All demure and keeping stum like? Only speak when she's spoken to, that kind of thing?

Where? All I've seen is some fanciful nonsense that what she actually meant was chav, racist, drunk etc.

Indeed and I think in a perverse way, it is actually a clip which shows how tolerant a society we are - that someone can sit there and espouse so much obscenity which others clearly find deeply offensive, yet the other passangers show commendable restraint.

Really? Where is this illustration that she wasnt referring to all white people? *Snigger* You're not wrong. And you can't see any irony in your closing statement?

Yeah, maybe she'd be seriously hurt infront of her kid and everything:thumbsup: That would make everything better.....

Curly black and kinky, mixed with yellow chinky?

Same. I was just about to say you're 13 years and a couple of quorn burgers too late for that..

I am, unfortunately.

And I agree. Which is why I said earlier that the reply was racist in content if not intent. However, were the roles reversed, i doubt anyone would be in such a hurry to defend a white woman expressing a similar opinion.

So a racist reply can be justified by provocation?

For the record, I never assumed that this clip was subject to media manipulation, what I said was that knowing what we do about media manipulation and editing etc., accepting anything at face value is naive. But I'm glad that one, tiny part of my post has given you so much entertainment I would also suggest that the assumption I jumped to was anything but huge - I believe anybody who is honest with themselves will take the same inference from the black womans reply that I have.

Only if you chose to believe that the woman was referring to the white mother individually. I find that hard to believe, and if you're honest BF, you will accept that too.

At least it keeps 'em off the street

Lol! You do make me giggle. I doubt anyone would take anything else away from the black womans reply other than by 'you/your people' she was referring to white, British people. Or are you suggesting she actually referring exclusively to crazy/drunk/high white mothers who wear leather jackets and spout racist diatribes on public transport? You really are straining there:hihi:

I'm getting dizzy, we are going around in circles. You cannot prove that there was no provocation prior to the start of the video. Therefore any insistance on your part that the outburst was unprovoked is pure bunkum A judge is carrying out a sentance based on defined laws of the land. In theory their own feeling shouldnt come into any sentancing, only what is proveable. You, however, consider yourself to be better than someone based on what they believe. It's still a prejudice. And it's still bigotry. Just because it's more socially acceptable, doesn't make it better in my opinion.

Yup, invited over in the 50's to take low paid, low aspiration jobs. However, the way she expressed it was racist. There is no excuse for racist outbursts, according to some. So the black woman is also, applying the criteria which has seen the (white) woman condemned, a racist.

Agree 100% Both women were in the wrong and that is what I've been driving at. However there are some that change the rules of what qualifies as a racist or a racist statement to suit there own agenda.

No. Public transport in Sheffield is not part of the public sector and is run on a commercial basis.

How so? Only if you believe that by 'You/Your People' she was referring to drunk/metally ill/stupid people as has been suggested. And as I've said before I find it highly unlikely that she was referring to anything other than white, indigineous British people in the context of the argument.

Are you so surprised? There have been posters on this very thread who have thought it better for her to 'cease to exist' (and therefore leave a child a motherless orphan) than hold and express racist views.

Have you heard his music? I'd kick him off me porch, never mind a flight:hihi:

And to be fair, the US being a more culturaly diverse nation than the UK, race may not have been an issue had the video been shot there. But it wasnt, it was shot in the UK where the implication is that a native born British person is, usually white. Quite. So in action, if not in intent, what she said was racist. Therefore those who say that no provocation is excuse for the (white) woman's tirade should also apply the same rules to the black woman, no?