The scenes showing the Tube staff turning away passengers after the last train had gone, were clips from The Tube TV documentary shown last year???
I don't know but they looked familiar. Then again there are sure to be similar scenes at every Tube station every night. Unless you've just landed on a plane from New York, the fact that the Underground doesn't run all night shouldn't be a surprise.
Quite right. Racism is a big problem but you don't help the anti-racist cause by jumping up and down crying "racist!" when there was none present or intended.
The point he said it twice and he knew that it would be an issue, and people on the bus were annoyed by it which is their right to be. No one was playing any kind of card, there was nothing to gain from the situation, they just didn't care for the description and said so.
The point he said it twice and he knew that it would be an issue, and people on the bus were annoyed by it which is their right to be. No one was playing any kind of card, there was nothing to gain from the situation, they just didn't care for the description and said so.
Why should he consider it an issue, he described the people causing the disturbance.
If I was robbed by a black mugger then I would say so to the police and not worry about being called racist.
Why should he consider it an issue, he described the people causing the disturbance.
If I was robbed by a black mugger then I would say so to the police and not worry about being called racist.
Because then it would be relevant information given that your mugger had presumably left the scene. Here the guys were up on the top deck of the bus, they didn't need to be found, their race shouldn't have been relevant.
I never new that calling a group of black guys a group of black guys was racist.
I just thought it interesting that he thought it was necessary. Surely the only time for that would have been if/when the police arrived and he had to point them out? Why did the control room need to know the colour of their skin? If it had been a mixed group, would he have said "there's a gang of black, white and asian guys causing trouble"? I doubt it.
I honestly don't see the issues with the description given, it was factual.
Yes, it was factual but only relevant as part of a wider description, e.g. teenagers, dreadlocks, 6ft tall, males, etc. Newspapers do not these days start reports "A black man...'' unless the report is about a racist attack etc. The mention of colour is only acceptable in the media as part of the description of a suspect.
I just thought it interesting that he thought it was necessary. Surely the only time for that would have been if/when the police arrived and he had to point them out? Why did the control room need to know the colour of their skin? If it had been a mixed group, would he have said "there's a gang of black, white and asian guys causing trouble"? I doubt it.
For me I am guessing that the control need to know something about who's causing the problem, as it's them who are contacting the police and would want to give them as much relevant information as possible.
Obviously we can only speculate about what he may/may not have said if it was a mixed group / women / white guys etc.
Of course few know what they use over the radio now except what is heard in police reality programmes.
It is just a presumption but the police are very PR minded and it did not sound good to hear the various non-PC terms being used to describe someone. Like any occupation, the police have their own jargon and the IC system has just become part of that just as they would often use the callsign of a town for the town itself.
Leaky presumption then, because not all forces use the IC system over the radio's.
Then again, you came up with some confusing PC/racism stuff about the Ghurka blokey last week.
The point he said it twice and he knew that it would be an issue, and people on the bus were annoyed by it which is their right to be. No one was playing any kind of card, there was nothing to gain from the situation, they just didn't care for the description and said so.
I'm confused about this race card.
I thought it was a card that black people got and playing it meant that they got everything they wanted, including the moon on a stick.
Well that's what I've learnt on DS about it.
A non white person simply mentioning race or questioning why someone else has mentioned race is now playing the race card.
Oh well, no comments worth making about he homeless people sleeping on the buses, some as young as 13 according to the Driver Donovan.
Jeff the homeless bloke taking a trip back and forth to Heathrow, snatching sleep in chunks.
of course colour is relevant to a description. If the gang had been all white he would have said "theres a gang of white youths on my bus causing trouble".Are we not allowed to say "gang of women" either, in case its sexist.
Its ridiculous.If the person had been racist he would have said "theres gang of Nig..ers" on my bus,which he didnt. When you ask someone for a description you shouldnt put your own words into their mouths...you have to accept the words of the person,whether you like it or not.
of course colour is relevant to a description. If the gang had been all white he would have said "theres a gang of white youths on my bus causing trouble".Are we not allowed to say "gang of women" either, in case its sexist.
No one has been able to explain why it's actually relevant though. Gang of women, gang of kids, gang of teenagers, gang of pensioners, all of them would be relevant because they affect the nature of the threat and the nature of the response required. To say them being black is relevant you have to view their race as an aggravating factor which makes them an extra threat and needs additional or swifter response.
No one has been able to explain why it's actually relevant though. Gang of women, gang of kids, gang of teenagers, gang of pensioners, all of them would be relevant because they affect the nature of the threat and the nature of the response required. To say them being black is relevant you have to view their race as an aggravating factor which makes them an extra threat and needs additional or swifter response.
I can't see how it was considered an 'aggravating factor', just a distinguishing feature to identify them.
I'm confused about this race card.
I thought it was a card that black people got and playing it meant that they got everything they wanted, including the moon on a stick.
Well that's what I've learnt on DS about it.
A non white person simply mentioning race or questioning why someone else has mentioned race is now playing the race card.
Oh well, no comments worth making about he homeless people sleeping on the buses, some as young as 13 according to the Driver Donovan.
Jeff the homeless bloke taking a trip back and forth to Heathrow, snatching sleep in chunks.
How to find Mecca via the local satellite dishes.
It seems that if one group of people refer to race they are playing the race card, or even have chips on their shoulder, but when another group mentions it, regardless of how rude they are being, it's just factual. :rolleyes:
I found the stories of the homeless spending their nights travelling through London interesting too. It was presented in such a matter-of-fact the way, they seemed almost like modern hobos. Shocking to think that children are also sleeping on night buses, and about the other things they may be falling victim to.
of course colour is relevant to a description. If the gang had been all white he would have said "theres a gang of white youths on my bus causing trouble".Are we not allowed to say "gang of women" either, in case its sexist.
Its ridiculous.If the person had been racist he would have said "theres gang of Nig..ers" on my bus,which he didnt. When you ask someone for a description you shouldnt put your own words into their mouths...you have to accept the words of the person,whether you like it or not.
Otherwise you are leading the witness!
As you don't know what he would have said if the gang had been white, you're having a good old reach with your 'leading the witness' bit.
Yup, as long as you don't use terms like ******, you can't be racist :rolleyes:
Using that logic you can't be sexist unless you use terms like bitches to describe women either.
I think you need to get out more or something...
It seems that if one group of people refer to race they are playing the race card, or even have chips on their shoulder, but when another group mentions it, regardless of how rude they are being, it's just factual. :rolleyes:
I found the stories of the homeless spending their nights travelling through London interesting too. It was presented in such a matter-of-fact the way, they seemed almost like modern hobos. Shocking to think that children are also sleeping on night buses, and about the other things they may be falling victim to.
Yes it does seem to be the 'race card' currently works according to some FM's on DS.
Reaching new levels of head shaking with the other post I've quoted.
Woudn't think of them like hobos myself, hobo's use transport to get somewhere primarily, using it as shelter is secondary.
As an aside, there's a King and Queen of the hobo's crowned annually in the states.
I suppose the buses are quite safe as a place to crash for an hour or so, they're on camera, the driver and usually at least a couple of passengers about, so they won't get a kicking or worse, out of sight in an alley somewhere.
Why isn't this episode available on the iPlayer? Is there anywhere I can watch it?
Oh dear, I downloaded it last night, about 23:00, seems to have disappeared off their server for some reason, my app (get_iplayer) can't find it now.
Email to the BBC, I guess, unless it says 'coming soon...' on the page.
I don't know why it's not on the iPlayer. Nobody has uploaded it to YouTube either. Very strange.
Or maybe not. Perhaps TfL wanted it pulled, because of the possible race relations issue as discussed on here.
The post sex scandal supine supersensitive BBC would probably agree to pull it on any issue at present, or maybe theres some clause in the production company's agreement with TfL? You would have thought though that TfL and their lawyers would have been through it with a fine toothcomb before airing.
Or maybe not. Perhaps TfL wanted it pulled, because of the possible race relations issue as discussed on here.
The post sex scandal supine supersensitive BBC would probably agree to pull it on any issue at present, or maybe theres some clause in the production company's agreement with TfL? You would have thought though that TfL and their lawyers would have been through it with a fine toothcomb before airing.
I didn't realise the episode was controversial in some way? Admittedly I haven't read the entire thread.
Comments
I don't know but they looked familiar. Then again there are sure to be similar scenes at every Tube station every night. Unless you've just landed on a plane from New York, the fact that the Underground doesn't run all night shouldn't be a surprise.
The point he said it twice and he knew that it would be an issue, and people on the bus were annoyed by it which is their right to be. No one was playing any kind of card, there was nothing to gain from the situation, they just didn't care for the description and said so.
Why should he consider it an issue, he described the people causing the disturbance.
If I was robbed by a black mugger then I would say so to the police and not worry about being called racist.
I said he knew it was. After he said it, he said something under his breath about saying "Black guys".
And as for your situation, that would be different.
Because then it would be relevant information given that your mugger had presumably left the scene. Here the guys were up on the top deck of the bus, they didn't need to be found, their race shouldn't have been relevant.
I just thought it interesting that he thought it was necessary. Surely the only time for that would have been if/when the police arrived and he had to point them out? Why did the control room need to know the colour of their skin? If it had been a mixed group, would he have said "there's a gang of black, white and asian guys causing trouble"? I doubt it.
Yes, it was factual but only relevant as part of a wider description, e.g. teenagers, dreadlocks, 6ft tall, males, etc. Newspapers do not these days start reports "A black man...'' unless the report is about a racist attack etc. The mention of colour is only acceptable in the media as part of the description of a suspect.
For me I am guessing that the control need to know something about who's causing the problem, as it's them who are contacting the police and would want to give them as much relevant information as possible.
Obviously we can only speculate about what he may/may not have said if it was a mixed group / women / white guys etc.
Leaky presumption then, because not all forces use the IC system over the radio's.
Then again, you came up with some confusing PC/racism stuff about the Ghurka blokey last week.
I'm confused about this race card.
I thought it was a card that black people got and playing it meant that they got everything they wanted, including the moon on a stick.
Well that's what I've learnt on DS about it.
A non white person simply mentioning race or questioning why someone else has mentioned race is now playing the race card.
Oh well, no comments worth making about he homeless people sleeping on the buses, some as young as 13 according to the Driver Donovan.
Jeff the homeless bloke taking a trip back and forth to Heathrow, snatching sleep in chunks.
How to find Mecca via the local satellite dishes.
("We're not going to Hell, we're going to Ilford"....classic quote).
Its ridiculous.If the person had been racist he would have said "theres gang of Nig..ers" on my bus,which he didnt. When you ask someone for a description you shouldnt put your own words into their mouths...you have to accept the words of the person,whether you like it or not.
Otherwise you are leading the witness!
No one has been able to explain why it's actually relevant though. Gang of women, gang of kids, gang of teenagers, gang of pensioners, all of them would be relevant because they affect the nature of the threat and the nature of the response required. To say them being black is relevant you have to view their race as an aggravating factor which makes them an extra threat and needs additional or swifter response.
I can't see how it was considered an 'aggravating factor', just a distinguishing feature to identify them.
It seems that if one group of people refer to race they are playing the race card, or even have chips on their shoulder, but when another group mentions it, regardless of how rude they are being, it's just factual. :rolleyes:
I found the stories of the homeless spending their nights travelling through London interesting too. It was presented in such a matter-of-fact the way, they seemed almost like modern hobos. Shocking to think that children are also sleeping on night buses, and about the other things they may be falling victim to.
As you don't know what he would have said if the gang had been white, you're having a good old reach with your 'leading the witness' bit.
Yup, as long as you don't use terms like ******, you can't be racist :rolleyes:
Using that logic you can't be sexist unless you use terms like bitches to describe women either.
I think you need to get out more or something...
Yes it does seem to be the 'race card' currently works according to some FM's on DS.
Reaching new levels of head shaking with the other post I've quoted.
Woudn't think of them like hobos myself, hobo's use transport to get somewhere primarily, using it as shelter is secondary.
As an aside, there's a King and Queen of the hobo's crowned annually in the states.
I suppose the buses are quite safe as a place to crash for an hour or so, they're on camera, the driver and usually at least a couple of passengers about, so they won't get a kicking or worse, out of sight in an alley somewhere.
Oh dear, I downloaded it last night, about 23:00, seems to have disappeared off their server for some reason, my app (get_iplayer) can't find it now.
Email to the BBC, I guess, unless it says 'coming soon...' on the page.
Or maybe not. Perhaps TfL wanted it pulled, because of the possible race relations issue as discussed on here.
The post sex scandal supine supersensitive BBC would probably agree to pull it on any issue at present, or maybe theres some clause in the production company's agreement with TfL? You would have thought though that TfL and their lawyers would have been through it with a fine toothcomb before airing.
I didn't realise the episode was controversial in some way? Admittedly I haven't read the entire thread.
What happened?
Or maybe the guy who was going to 'jump' has complained
Race thing was a non event, if they were that concerned it would never have gone out in the first place.